RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,11:43   

Uncommon Pissant is so ridiculous and moronic that conversations about it break out on Panda's Thumb all the time. The PTers aren't providing a dedicated thread to discuss the Everlasting Trainwreck which is that blog, so this thread's for that. I initiate the thread with a DaveScot link:

Quote


January 16, 2006
ID on 2006 Utah Legislative Agenda

What’s up with the Utah legislature considering whether to teach intelligent design in schools? Haven’t they heard about Dover? :-)
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Laws — DaveScot @ 9:48 am

apparently he isn't familiar with 'Divine Design' Buttars, or he wouldn't be so jolly.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,11:50   

Jocularity!

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,11:53   

What I don't understand is the continuing concern with that place. So OK, they delete anything that doesn't support their position, they ban anyone who posts that stuff, and they gaze into their navel. They are the poster child for how they would teach the controversy, illustrate critical thinking, and exercise critical analysis of varying viewpoints, if they were in charge.

But in any of these respects, how are they different from any other creationist site? We surely all understand that the mentality they practice on that blog is a transparent window into how they defend creationism in their own minds. We get it. Now what?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,12:17   

It's not about getting anything. It's just fun to make fun of them.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,12:21   

Like for instance, DaveScot's been banning people who mention christianity and god too much, because he's trying to maintain the fiction that ID is separate from religion, but then he's such a dumbass he mentions Chris "Divine Design" Butters approvingly.

That's funny.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,13:01   

I love that site.  And Dembscott is a loon to be sure.  It's so funny to see how their ideas natually attract all these open creationist who are scolded for admitting the intelligent designer is God.  

It has been said before but when it comes to denying the Lord, uncommon dissent (and the Disco) makes Peter look like a light weight.

And if you inquire if the intelligent designer is god, you get warned.  If you suggest it is a space man you get warned/banned.  if you suggest it is a time traveler you get warned/banned.  Yet Dembski, Behe and the rest of the lunatic fringe anti-science creationist cultists have all said that the intelligent designer may be a space alien/man.  Ask them to discuss that proposition and you get banned.

Clearly Dembscott, UD, and the Disco have shown that trying to be "clever as serpents" has its drawbacks.  I love watching them get cornered by their own theories.  The response is always the same, ridicule the one who asks questions or simply ban them.

Too funny.  They divide intelligent design creationists into two camps, those that think and those that preach.  The thinkers get banned or ridiculed, the preachers tell the thinkers what to think and what not to think.  They let them know right up front what questions they should not ask and what topics they should not discuss.  

They are promoting the existance of an intelligent designer and insisting their theory of an intelligent designer is scientific.  BUT...if you make the mistake of actually contemplating or even discussing what constitutes the/a intelligent designer you'll get banned in a heart beat.  Brilliant!

And although Dembski has earned a pocket full of PhDs (which proves he can pass exams and write papers), personally he strikes me as just another fundamentalist  simpleton armed with a fancy vocabulary.  And academic version of Pat Robertson. Yawn.  I cannot wait to go hear him when he comes to Fort Worth later this year.  Actually I can't wait to raise my hand and ask him questions in front of an audience.

I love that site.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,15:19   

Now that the execrable DaveScot is banning people left and right from UncalmIndecent, I take it he's left off whining (and misrepresenting) about his own banishment from PT. Yes?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,00:44   

Can you provide a linky to the Uncommon descent blog.
I'm fascinated.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,01:11   

The Panda-monium game is good though and quite humourus.

There is a link on PT main page. Under psuedo science. You might have to press for "extra links" though.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,01:50   

DaveScot explains some of his moderation behavior:

Quote


Why do you delete my comments, DaveScot?

They aren’t being deleted, Blipey. They’re being disapproved in the moderation queue. You are the only one aside from moderators who has seen the last 20 or so. The way WordPress works is it lets only the author of a moderated comment see it until it is either approved or disapproved. If it’s disapproved the author stops seeing it too. When and if you decide to stop trolling for negative attention and become a constructive contributor I’ll start approving them.

Comment by blipey — January 17, 2006 @ 1:52 am

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,18:13   

It gets even better... DaveScot just "accidentally" deleted all of my comments (I was posting as 'woctor').  Notice that he turns comments off so nobody can complain about the censorship:

Quote
January 17, 2006
(Off Topic) Server Glitch
Our server seems to have hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments. The management apologizes for this unfortunate event.  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:46 pm
Comments Off

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,18:45   

He's even invited John Davison back on the blog.  See this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/667#comments

Check out John's first post:
Quote
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

I'm with Mr. Christopher -- that site is the best!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,03:27   

Quote
our server hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments.


LOL You're not fooling anyone.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:19   

Those poor, poor souls. In the "Rationalizing Adultery" thread, Karen is lost. Seeing how evolution apparently rationalizes (read "justifies", not "explains") adultery, and since ID is not religious and doesn’t even address ethics or morals, then where do IDists turn for their moral code?

Commenters on that site are stuck on a sinking ship. There is no ID theory to discuss in detail because the emperor's naughty bits might be revealed, and discussing religion is right out. The only thing left is to bash Darwin.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:32   

Nope, it's pretty easy to see that DaveScot took woctor out to the courtyard for the firing squad.

One comforting thing is remembering how the real papa Stalin met his end. Even after he was found dying from a stroke, no one called for medical attention until over a day later. That's friendship for ya.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:12   

Dembscott just gave John Davison his own thread

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis - John A. Davison via uncommon dissent

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:28   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 18 2006,00:45)
Quote
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Did he ever get Richard Dawkins and Dembski to post on his blog?  :D

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:42   

Nope, go to his blog and read about it.  Basically he invited quite a few people to write an 500 word essay and they all either turned him down (lack of time was the common excuse) or just ignored him.  

He saw this as evidence they have nothing scientific to bring to the table in the first place, otherwise they would have accepted his offer.

I went to his web site at whatever school in VT he teaches.  The man is a loon but I bet he would probably be fun to smoke a fattie with at 3 in the morning and have a bull session.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,12:02   

JAD hasn't taught since the late 80's.

he has emeritus status with the university of vermont.

i wrote the university and asked whether they endorsed his views, since he is using university resources to post them.

they essentially replied:

"John who?"

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,17:17   

uh oh, i feel kinda sorry for UD -

As noted earlier, they opened the flood gates for JAD and let him post his entire PEH for comment.

you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.

I figure that unless they ban him outright in the next week or so, his unending inanity will drive out the remaining few posters on UD.

perhaps a deliberate tactic on the part of WD40 and DaveSnot?

It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,20:59   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

  
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,21:48   

I have to admit, I haven't read much of Davidson's stuff before.  

It seems bizarre to see his stuff on UD, because a lot of it contradicts the ID position, as well at itself.  Just a quick example:

JAD: "I also have never questioned Intelligent Design. Quite the contrary, I always regarded it as self-evident and a mandatory starting point from which to examine the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny which are simply two aspects of the same reproductive continuum."

OK, so 'self-evidently' something is involved in doing design.  

JAD: "Darwinism is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and every attempt to simulate it has failed."

This is just bizarre.  JAD is stating that there is an external identifiable cause behind evolution (and thus 'Darwinism' ) , which is the exact opposite of what evolution states.

If he replaced the word Darwinism with ID I might understand and agree with his argument!  My version:  

ID is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and as far as I know there have been no attempts to simulate it.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,02:18   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 19 2006,02:59)
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

intelligent design is a craetion theory in crisis.  It has been booted out of two school districts and newpapers all over the worl are carrying stories indicating intelligent design is about super naturalism and higher powers.  

What we may be seeing is an IDC melt down.  The desperate news releases from the Disco indicte this as well.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,05:16   

Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,05:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2006,11:16)
Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684

That's funny.  In a discussion with an IDer a couple days ago, the IDer went as far as saying that if we had ID around 30 years ago, we would now know what all the "junk DNA" is used for.  I had a hearty laugh at that one.  Turns out this person had been booted from UD even though he wholly supports ID and kisses Dembski's backside nightly.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,05:30   

Quote
Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

Especially as people have known about functional non protein coding RNAs for about twenty years as far as I'm aware. Im not sure how this has anything to with ID.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,08:26   

LOL:

Quote
No one has ever said this blog is open to all critics. Wherever did you get that idea? Dembski said at the beginning it was moderated and he’d allow thoughtful criticism that he hadn’t heard before. He said if he found you boring you’d get the axe and he was making up the rules as he went along. I believe I’m carrying on in the same moderation style as best I can but devoting more time to it than he had available. So instead of swinging the axe ruthlessly in order to save time and maintain order I’m doing more micromanagement in an effort to not cull those who might turn out to be constructive contributors if given more chance and direction. This is resulting in some taking advantage of it - several commenters have been invited to leave only to return using a different name knowing they’ll get another chance that way. It also results in a higher profile for the moderation. In the past you didn’t see how many times Dembski swung the axe because many never got their first comment past him. I tend to let the first comment from a new user pass through unless it’s a gratuitous flame and then if they continue to comment with a chip on their shoulder do something about it then.

The bottom line is this is a moderated blog. If you can’t deal with that, don’t let the door hit you on the tail on your way out.

Comment by DaveScot — January 19, 2006 @ 8:26 am


As hyperactively as you thought Dembski and DaveScot were at banning criticism, they're apparently worse.

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,08:53   

Actually, DaveScot is right about one thing.  Dembski did axe some commentors before their first comment.  It happened to me.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,09:02   

This is, once again, how they "teach the controversy" and "critically evaluate both sides" when they control the forum. It also describes perfectly how they maintain their faith in the face of evidence. Does anyone have any doubts how evolution would be presented in science classes if the creationists could dictate the curriculum? Would we see any controversy at all?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,11:18   

Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,11:19   

Keep in mind those guys do not play by the same set of rules that science plays by.  If you read the sunday school course materials Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you'll note things like not letting logic get in the way of Christian truths and other nonsense.

And not long ago when it appeared Dembski and Ken Miller might debate, Dembski said something to the effect of he did not have to stoop to Ken Miller's "pathetic" level of detail regarding his ID theories.  He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

Logic and reason are the IDists biggest enemies so their assault on those who use logic and reason as a means of understanding and sorting fact from fiction is predictable.  

It is still astonishing to observe though.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,16:06   

Quote

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.


This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,16:54   

Quote
Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."


right. remember what i said about deliberate silliness?

I'm sure WD40 thinks that spiralling his blog into the garbage can this way is just too funny.

that way he can claim anything said on UD was more meant as, dare I even say it: Street Theatre.

pretty obvious ploy if you ask me.

WD40 has said some pretty disturbing things that even the DI would want covered up on that site.

this seems a deliberate strategy intended to "trvialize" his own blog.

I'd bet money on it.

WD40's "Street Theatre" always reminds me of the Jon Lovitz skit on Saturday Night Live where he played "Master Thespian".

The parallels work on so many levels.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,07:57   

check it out
Quote
#

blah blah blah

Jack - since I’m banned on Panda’s Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda’s Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds

Comment by Jack Krebs — January 20, 2006 @ 7:06 am


Okay, so now it's not even what you say on other discussion boards, it's the fact that you even post on them, which gets you censored.

I've still got last week of January in the Dead Pool of DaveScot's tenure.

btw, I wonder what motivated Jack to jump into that pig pen.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,08:36   

Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,08:42   

Last week, any evidence of online ID crimespeak, regardless of where you might commit it,  would get you banned from Demsbki's smile-a-while-a-creationist blog.

And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?

Good lord man this is so_freaking_funny.   Dembski is the cult leader of a bunch of mindless automatons.  How cool is that?  

Side note, should the Disco go ahead and commit themselves to the specified religion they are in fact promoting and simply call it Christian Scientology?

After all, they are blending Christianity with Science Fiction.  Does this not make them Christian Scientologists?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,08:43   

Quote
Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.


indeed;

i keep going back to the time that Pat Robertson ran for President...

and got way too many votes for comfort.

I've seen too much for my comfort zone over the last 20 years, that's for sure.

  
Savagemutt



Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:14   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.


Just for accuracy's sake, "Crankiest" is just a category on Crank.net. It means JADs site is among the crankiest of antievolution sites.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:25   

:06-->
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2006,22:06)
Quote

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.


This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:34   

Quote

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?


Sorry to be unclear, but yes, you've got it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:45   

Thanks Wesley.  That is nuttier than all get out.  

Pure Dembski for ya.  What a "scientist" he is.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,11:51   

Quote
And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?
I think it's only those who are official contributors.

I say Dembski leaves DaveScot in charge until he says something terribly offensive to some group of people. I'd take a wild guess and say that Dembski just doens't care what DaveScot or anyone else says on his blog anymore.

Has anyone seen what John Davison was posting? Oh my GAWD it is amusing. I know he's old and losing his mind, but he is just off the wall batty.
Quote
Karl Popper just confused things with all this falsifiable nonsense. Hypotheses are either verifiable or not. I regard Intelligent Design as verified simply because there is no other coneiveable alternative. The elimination of alternatives is a perfectly sound means of scientific inquiry. It has been employed in every aspect of scientific discovery and led to the downfall of the Ether, the Phlogiston and very soon Chance, the cornerstone and the Achilles heel of Darwinian mysticism.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689#comment-21155

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,12:49   

DaveScots Reign of IDiocy may come to a hidden end. Or Dembski might demand he censor in a quieter way. Right now it's looking like the primary purpose of the blog is to publicly ban people from posting there.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,13:12   

Quote
#

Sorry Steve.

If I can’t comment on Panda’s Thumb you can’t comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds

Comment by Steve Reuland — January 20, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
From the relentless trainwreck known as Uncommon Pissant.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,13:19   

The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb, he banned, in principle, more people in one day than the Panda's Thumb crew has banned in 2 years.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,13:48   

Quote
The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb

Nope. That would be a *principle*, and we know he doesn't have much concept of those things. I'm quite sure he'll ban people based on arbitrary, unpredictable case-by-case preference. Kind of like interpreting scripture: If it ain't capricious, it's meaningless.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,14:06   

I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,14:33   

stevestory:

Quote
I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.

Where? I haven't seen this announcement. I think you are making this up.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,15:00   

Are you kidding me?

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,15:59   

stevestory:

No, why would I kid you?

What DaveScot SAID was "You (fill in the blank. Jack Krebs?) have posted on PT, PT banned me, therefore you can't post here."

But this is a rationalization for banning JACK KREBS. Nothing more, nothing less. This most emphatically does NOT apply to anyone who has ever posted on PT, it applies to Jack Krebs, because DaveScot doesn't wish to deal with Jack. Do you seriously think that DaveScot would ban GhostOfPaley, or Larry Farfaroutman, or David Heddle, or ANY of the periodic creationists, just because they post to Panda's Thumb?

You have to realize that DaveScot *ignores* anything that smacks of integrity. His "reasons" for doing ANYTHING are because he bleeping well feels like it at the time, and nothing else. He is ruled by emotion and mood. Tomorrow Jack Krebs may try again, and DaveScot may very well permit this.

And when he's not in the mood, his excuses are completely ad hoc. Every day is a new day to a goose. These people are NOT RATIONAL.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,20:47   

Oh... Flint: No, you've got it wrong.

He banned Steve Reuland with the same reason, word-for-word. He's removed the posts, but it was something like "As I am not allowed to post at Pandas Thumb, Pandas Thumb contributors are not allowed to post here." With that definition, he's only referring to contributors with administrative powers on the site. Jack Krebs and Steve Reuland, but also Wesley Elsberry, PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Pim Van Meurs, and everyone else for sure. Not automatically people who comment on the site. Basically, his reasoning of "I'm banned at PT, so you're banned here" only applies to those people. He'll come up with different reasons to ban Pandas Thumb commenters.

In the end, you're technically right. If he likes what a PT contributor is posting, he'll let it stay. He's practicing some sort of swiss cheese fascism. Heck, the guy banned Josh Bozeman. Josh isn't nearly as aggressive as DaveScot, but he's just as dishonest/misled.

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,02:46   

Anyway, back to reality. DaveScot just put a big pile of JAD garbage on UncommonPissant

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/692#more-692

Insane Money Quote:
Quote
So it would seem that we still do not have a working theory of evolution.


Love it.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,03:23   

JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,04:00   

You're wasting your breath if you comment over there. They ban more people before breakfast, than most sites do all year.

But if you must, DaveScot's been aggressively maintaining that ID and religion are totally separate, so you might ask something like, "What did Philip Johnson mean when he said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."?

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,04:13   

man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog

Quote
Intelligent Design advocates would do well to separate themselves more completely from religious fundamentalism. I have managed and others can too.

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
Albert Einstein

Comment by John Davison — January 21, 2006 @ 6:49 am

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,09:01   

Quote
JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.


hmm, I seem to recall having REALLY pissed him off one day in attempting to pursue what happened to him in the 80's that changed his publications from scientific to crank crap.  If you look at his CV, there is a clear schism that happened in 1984 (IIRC), and shortly thereafter he was banned from teaching at UV, and started attempting to publish his crankier stuff.  

Something definetly happened to him then; mild schizophrenia maybe?

in any case, he really freaks when you start asking him about it.  I mean REALLY.

it was in the thread PT created specifically for him, but that was a long time ago.  

If anybody can remember the month, it is likely in the archives somewhere.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,09:10   

Quote
man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog


lol.

ask yourself:

why did WD40 let the axeman (DS) run free on his blog to begin with?

c'mon!

do you REALLY think 'ol WD40 has just lost his mind?

hardly.

he's just having some fun spinning his blog into the trash can, while trivializing it at the same time.

if you make a joke out of months and months of posts that contradict the party line, you have a nice bolt hole to escape some rather sticky questions.

many times, PT commenters and even contributors have refered to UD in order to show how dishonest WD40 is, how many times he has directly contradicted the DI party line, as well as the random drivel he has posted there over the years.

Dembski shut down his blog.... then lo and behold, all of a sudden he comes back and lets the lunatics run it.

It shouldn't take much thought to figure out he wants to spin his entire blog as just so much "Street Theatre".

Every time somebody here on PT points out the ridiculousness of DS or JAD or Slaveador over on UD, WD40 knows he is accomplishing his goal, and is laughing all the way.

Debmski can't be happy with JAD???

exactly the opposite.

prove me wrong.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,09:43   

I was thinking of making some kind of pithy comment about uncommon dissent, but somehow couldnt work up the emotion.  

I like the way Dave Scot is turning into an expert on ID; I think it would be interesting if he could participate in the next court case related to ID, whenever that will be.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,10:37   

Quote
it would be interesting if [DaveScot] could participate in the next court case related to ID,
As long as we're scripting our best-case-scenario fantasy, let's cast Casey Luskin as lawyer for ID.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,13:17   

I actually had a short correspondence with Casey Luskin. I wanted some quotes from him on ID for an assignment. He seems to be a genuinely nice guy who just happens to be caught up in ID. I wish him well... as opposed to DaveScot, who is the only person I have ever corresponded with (on the internet and in real life) whom I would not feel sorry for if he were to happen into a great personal tragedy.

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,17:10   

Yeah, I get the same sense. While DaveScot seems malevolent, and Dembski a wolf fleecing the sheep, Casey just seems like a poor dumb guy who doesn't know any better. When I first started mocking him, he emailed me asking why in the world I thought his Intelligent Design club was religious in nature. Despite the fact that he was a minister, despite the fact you had to be a christian to be an officer in his club, despite every ID advocate being on record at some point saying a variant of "Of course ID is really just christianity in disguise", Casey really didn't seem to understand that it wasn't science. He seemed to really think he was doing science. After all, it sure sounded like science.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,17:46   

I've noticed a real desire on the part of reasonable people for science to find God (their version). After all, people know that science does really neat stuff and learns a lot, investigates nearly everything, produces useful technology, etc. And they know that God (their version) is perfectly real, clear and present. So WHY can't science find Him?

This makes for an audience very willing and eager to believe a claim that science HAS found God (their version). Combine this with the fact that for the most part, this audience has little clue what science is or how it works. There's a lot of force available in telling people what they dearly wish to hear, who aren't equipped to evaluate these claims.

I suspect Casey feels as most such Believers do, that if ordinary atheistic science can do such wonderful stuff, imagine what full-buckwheat Christian science can do! After all, Christian scientists have TheBigGuy in their hearts, leading them in the right direction and telling them the answers.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,05:07   

LOL now they're getting mad that people are using the phrase "Unintelligent Design" to refer to things in biology.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/693#comments

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,05:42   

Dave Scot booted me fro UD yesterday. On the same thread that Steve Reuland got kicked out.

I had the temerity to point out that his opening article actually asked  Steve R. questions. Therefore it was very ungentlemanly not allowing him to answer.

 :(

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,08:31   

Hey, Stephen Elliott, turn that :( into a  :) ! Anyone not banned by DaveScot has to be either an @$$#0!e, a moron, or has failed to be noticed.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,10:04   

Here's the top of Uncommon Pissant at the moment:

Quote
January 22, 2006

On a Level Playing Field - We Win

It has come to my attention that some of our best informed ID supporters don’t believe politics are important to winning and that science education is the key. Now I dearly love science but without politics providing us a level playing field our arguments from math and science are doomed to being censored.
(more…)
Filed under: Education, Legal, Courts, Laws, Constitution — DaveScot @ 1:04 pm
Comments (0)


Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,12:25   

Quote
The anti-theist is free to exercise his faith, but the theist is not free to express her intelligent observation.

It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.

But now the courts allow only the anti-theistic view; the theistic view is absolutely prohibited by the power and force of the Federal Government….in absolute convolution  of the First Amendment.

Comment by Red Reader — January 22, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

{I added the boldfacing -Steve}
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:16   

Quote
It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.
Indeed, I would go further: I see no reason why all views are not equally religious and scientific. It's a corollary of the deep philosophical observation that everything is everything.

But seriously... do these people really think that science and higher education are dominated - nay, tyrannized - by unusually unfair minded people?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:21   

Quote
stevestory wrote:
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.

Red Reader regularly makes a fool of himself on UD.  My favorite example is his response to John Davison's "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis".  Apparently the word "Evolutionary" set Red off like Pavlov's bell:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:
Just a desperate “big idea” for funding and publicity which necessarily includes enough bogus obfuscation to brand those who oppose or even question it as “unscientific”.

After a few other comments were posted, Red realized he was on the "wrong" side of the issue.  He sheepishly retracted his criticism:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:If I may, I would like to apologize to Dr. Davison for my ill considered and intemperate remark. It is obvious that Prof. Davison has put a lot of thought into his hypothesis. I hate to say it but it’s true: I engaged my opinion before I put my brain in gear.

I love it when ID supporters have to be told what the "correct" position is.  Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2006,16:04)
...
Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.

LOL.
Now, that is funny!

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:41   

Another good Red Reader story.  He criticized me once for not agreeing often enough with ID supporters:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:
I see Dave, Josh, Pav (in the this post) continously making good points–logical, fair, reasoned.
But the contrarian never acceeds a single point.
Why is this? The law of averages suggests that between them–Dave, Josh & Pav (not to mention numerous others in different threads)–they would by complete accident make at least one statement in three (more or less) that the contrarian could agree with.

Apart from the bizarre probabilistic reasoning and the oxymoronic idea of Josh Bozeman making a "logical, fair, reasoned" point, the fact was that I did agree with ID supporters (including DaveScot -- forgive me) when they said something sensible.  I even defended Bill Dembski on a couple of occasions when he was unfairly attacked.
Quote
I wrote to Red:
Perhaps you can show me the many comments in which you agree with Darwinians, so I’ll have an example to follow.

Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:51   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 22 2006,19:21)
Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.

Josh does get confused easily.

How long did this go on for before you were banned?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,16:14   

Quote
Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.


I thought just today they were pointing out how they have all now decided that common descent works with ID?

I remember WD40 putting forth this unusual (at the time) statment during his first "debate" with Ruse.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,20:16   

In the strangest journalism I have ever seen....DaveScot is now linking to the forum that is discussing the site that DaveScot is linking to the forum from?!?!?

I love DaveScot.  Honestly.

Sorry if some of you dont know me....I havent really posted frequently.  

William Dembski originally banned me....and told everyone on the blog that he had done so.  I almost felt honored.  Then DaveScot decided to try to insult me after I was banned?  That was honestly the lowest I have ever seen anyone sink.  Insulting someone without actually allowing them to reply.

Apparently at some point I was allowed to reregister my screen-name...so I did.  I was then banned for answering...with completely correct information...a question that DaveScot had asked.  I was promptly banned again.

Dave....no one cares that you ban people.  No one cares that you decide to moderate.  People are upset with you, and Bill because you guys seem to do it with only a vague set of guidelines....how boring is it when everyone in your little world agrees with you?

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,23:26   

DaveScot is hilarious, especially when he tries to be scary. He hunts around the internet trying to find dirt on people, with nothing else to do, and then bans them. Mr. Christopher and I both got banned for the same reason. (Mine still logs in, but I tried saying a couple things and they were deleted) Mine was this essay:
Proves my point
After trackbacks lead him to my post, he then proves my point by un-linking the trackbacks on UD to my blog. His reason given was so that I couldn't plug my blog on - read: HIS - , like I would want the 20 people in the world that DaveScot and Bill Dembski haven't banned from their blog commenting on mine anyway!

I think the point made earlier about Dembski wanting to make his whole blog a joke to cover up his mis-statements and "street theater" may fit the bill. No pun intended.

What I think is interesting is the TIME that DaveScot takes to go online with his modem and download these pages bit by bit to see what people are saying about him. And B.Dembski calls evolution proponents obsessive.

Hello Dave, glad to see you are spending so much time on everyone here. Won't you provide another link directing people to places that don't ban people for making truthful statements about you? The fact is, people on "YOUR" own blog notice how you are the embodiment of a flaming troll, and you can't hide it.

While I was still on the blog, I was trying to understand what some of their positions were on apes->humans. Although DaveScot emailed me to warn me that he could *smell* that I was a troll, the only reason why I wanted to try posting on the blog was to get answers to the question above. They kept repeating that ID was compatible with common descent with apes as well as uncommon descent, that was not what I was asking.

One person did attempt to answer me, he said that he believed that humans and apes did not descend from a common ancestor, I asked him what evidence, since ID is compatible with both scenarios, lead him to that conclusion. No biochemical evidence, just a hand wave at the complexities of humans. I made sure to be polite, and thanked him for responding. So the one response I got was an empty box with no evidence.

Which is precisely what I expected.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,02:25   

Some IDer, who himself keeps getting deleted at Uncommon Pissant, is begging DaveScot to stop being such a censor:

Quote
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.


I love it.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,02:48   

Isn't it a bit odd that UD has banners that link to This Page.

Quote
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault

No comment, although I'm interested to see if the next edition of Pandas replaces intelligent design with 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.

Quote
Someone needs to slap these clergy upside the head and tell them they don’t have to compromise their faith in God to accommodate some godless story of evolution foisted upon us by the likes of Richard Dawkins or the National Academy of Atheist Sciences.

I thought he was banning people for talking about religion?

  
Lord Monar



Posts: 2
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,02:54   

DaveScot is now complaining about being blocked on this site.

Quote
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it. They make my moderation policy look like a paragon of tolerance in comparison.


Now...for a guy who is supposed to be a blog moderator (if that is what you call that particular site)...he should know that when you block an IP address, it prevents any connection between the server and the blocked IP.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,03:27   

He can say whatever he wants, the fact remains: he has censored more people this week, than Panda's Thumb has in almost 2 years.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,03:41   

Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion. As long as you aren't a raging jerk for months on end (which DaveScot was) you won't be warned or banned. Very few people have been banned here--fewer than DaveScot censored last week. I understand it's so bad over there that he's even banning ID supporters who don't agree exactly with him, like Josh Bozeman. We can all agree that since he's been moderating, DaveScot has made the blog about himself and how rigorous he is at purging the site of any alternative ideas. This trainwreck isn't going to last forever, and until it changes, you can discuss things here, just keep it civil.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,04:14   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,08:48)
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault

"Guided non-Darwinian evolution"?? That is priceless.

So these guys have been forced by evidence to accept evolution, but they'll be damned if they'll concede an inch to that DARWIN bastard!

Maybe 'macro-evolution' is Darwinian, but 'micro-evolution' = 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,04:21   

Boy, JAD's really got some reading comprehension problems, in evidence over at UncommonPissant:
Quote
#

stevestory is now welcoming all the ID people back to PT ….he says. I want a personal guaranteed invitation steve baby, complete with an apology for the hideous way you hypocrites have treated an Emeritus Professor of Biology and his sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. Put your money where your mouth is. Fat chance.

War, God help me, I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 23, 2006 @ 9:07 am
What a loon. The informed observer will note that civil ID supporters, like Salvador Cordova and Carol Clouser, have been posting at Panda's Thumb and After the Bar Closes for almost 2 years now, almost without incident. I didn't welcome back those ID supporters, because they never left. A tiny handful of hysterical and rude ID supporters were banned, but only after months of warnings.

Enjoy the reign of DaveScot, JAD, because it's not long for this earth.

Quote
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

-JAD

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,04:29   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,10:21)
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

I have to admit, as distateful as Davison is, that was sort of a poignant statement, not least because he shows absolutlely no comprehension whatsoever of why he engenders this reaction everywhere he goes.

Let this be a cautionary lesson: don't let yourself spend your retirement years like this, an angry charmless crank posting to blogs and alienating everyone.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:17   

AHAHAHAHA somebody on UncommonPissant, referring to us:

Quote
#

They’d all do well to follow Flew and finally follow the evidence whereever it leads.

Comment by Ben Z — January 23, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,13:17)
Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.

Do we have any volunteers?  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,09:41)
Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here.

But will Davescot then ban them from posting at UD?  :D

Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:58   

several IDers have been banned over there. He was banning anyone who called ID religious at one point, which means repeating William Dembski's statement that
Quote
Intelligent Design is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Would have gotten someone banned from Dembski's blog.

I don't think DaveScot will be in charge for long.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:35   

We should make it perfectly clear -

Anyone from Dembski's uncommodescent creationist blog should note that Dave Scott will ban you from there if you post anything here or on PT that he doesn't like.

And whatever you do stay away from calling Dembski a theologian or pointing out there is no science whatsoever being taught or researched at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Don't discuss the idiotic religious propaganda Dembski teacher there.

And I suggest you avoid mentioning Behe hasn't come up with any new ideas in over 10 years.  Nor has he provided any new evidence for "his" irreducible complexity notion.  And I wouldn't say a word about the fact that Behe published his book on irreducible complexity back in 1996 but there is still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that supports it.   Yep, 10 years laters and it still lacks any scientific meat.

And I'd avoid talking about Dembski's lack of published peer reviewed scientific articles.  Dave won't like that.  Your best bet it to avoid any suggestion that Behe is a quack and Dembksi is a garden variety Christian Opportunist.  Mr Scott fancies Dembski as a legitimate "theorist/scientist" so let's not shatter his fantasy.

ps.  Dave Scott seems to be whining about his inability to read posts here.  If Mr Scott is jonesing that bad for a ATBC shot in the arm, will someone tell the technically challenged Mr Scott to Google "anonymous proxy"?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:39   

DaveScot must lead a paranoid life.  Why does he care if people at another forum are making fun of him?  I certainly don't care what he thinks of this forum.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:54   

Here's my new theory...

They are trying to be like those exclusive night clubs that keep everyone outside with a velvet rope.  That way, everyone wants to get in because if you do manage to get in and appease the "bouncer" (DS in this case) then you get to say that you are part of the select few.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:20   

Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:

Quote
#

Red

I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. However, descent with modification over billions of years from a common ancestor doesn’t speak to whether the process was guided or unguided, planned or unplanned. Here there is compelling evidence, focused upon most famously and contemporaneously by Dembski and Behe, that there almost certainly must be planning and guidance required to produce some of the complex patterns we find in the machinery of life. The source of the planning and guidance may well be outside the scope of science and there’s no scientific evidence to lead us in any particular direction. But detecting a design and identifying the source of design are two different things and the former is in no way dependent on the latter.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm


Most ID Creationists have thrown in on their micro/macro distinction, and so this is going to be yet another source of conflict on Uncommon Pissant.

This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:39   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,15:20)
Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:

Well, keep in mind that some ID people have accepted common descent, and some ID people have accepted some form of evolution -- but not all of them have gotten the memo. For every one such person who has, there are ten who still say that evolution is ridiculous, common descent is impossible, there's no evidence for transitional fossils, and that speciation has never been observed. As people have pointed out at PT, no IDC idea EVER gets thrown out completely -- once any IDC talking point is launched, it essentially lingers forever in 'folk intelligent design' circles. Whether it's been soundly refuted or even if the DI tells people not to use it anymore, it doesn't matter.

This is one of the most funny things about Intelligent Design -- its complete lack of consensus or standardization of any kind.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:57   

Quote
This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.


well, that was the plan, as i keep saying.

However, at least latin soap operas have some sweet looking women in them.

WD40's "inner circle" is really just one big circle jerk.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,10:18   

Woo, DaveScot has pissed some people off with his possible acceptance of "macroevolution" and common descent.

Quote
#

Red

I don’t like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesn’t get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists aren’t entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. That’s purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism. Maybe such mechanism will be discovered in the future but for the nonce the benefit of doubt must go to design in any rational, objective analysis.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
#
Quote

Bling

Natural selection isn’t even operative in small isolated populations. It’s overwhelmed by genetic drift. To say that speciation is the result of natural selection exhibits shallow knowledge depth in the modern synthesis. Genetic drift is quite capable of speciation. The question is whether there’s any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. It looks to me like most speciation is a mere rearrangement of the deck chairs - a different expression of information that was already there in the genome in question.

In any case, the bottom line remains that no one has observed RM+NS creating any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. It’s an huge extrapolation to assign RM+NS massive creative power never once observed in over a century of trying to observe it in nature or reproduce it in a laboratory.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
#
Quote

DaveScot said: >.[sic]

I do not agree at all with that. Where is all that evidence? To believe in common ancestry is to believe in macroevolution. Both are false and without any proof. That’s a strange error ID supporters should not do.

Comment by niwrad — January 23, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,10:50   

DaveScot has heaped scorn on many (if not most) ID supporters in the past week.  No wonder they're rebelling against him.
Quote
From a letter to the Kansas Board of Education from Elie Wiesel and 37 other Nobel laureates:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Quote
DaveScot wrote regarding the above definition:
As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process. (From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689 )

Quote
DaveScot again, scolding Red Reader:
I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself.  
(From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/697 )

True to form, Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable, disparaging them for trying to "cling to a strawman version of ID."  Whether he realizes it or not, he also slams ID leaders who reject common descent, including Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson and Stephen Meyer.

Best of all, he manages to contradict himself.  Here is Dave responding to a comment of mine on December 24, 2005:
Quote
DaveScot wrote:
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?
(From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606 )

Quote
Wonderpants asks:
Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?

I'm expecting him to stage a late night coup and ban the other moderators (including Dembski).  Let's hope the server is under Dembski's physical control so he can hit the reset button.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to think sir_toejam is right that Dembski wants DaveScot to run the blog into the ground so that he can dismiss it as a few months of "street theater."

Keep going, Dave.  You're doing great!

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:02   

Quote
Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable

Not to mention J.A.D.'s recent common descent contribution...

And yet the name of the freakin' blog is UNcommon Descent. Is Dr. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" Dembski paying attention to what's going on over there? Oh wait, he's back to posting half the articles.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:18   

Dave Scott schooling creationists (and crackpots) on evolution.  Too funny.

Dave claims to be an agnostic but he insists a designers' signature is everywhere.  Hmmm..Since he rejects the God concept he must be from the ID Klingon Camp that proposes a time traveler or space alien done it.  He has yet to clarify whether he leans towards a time traveler or a space alien.

Oh, and uncommon dissent is still hostile to Christian ideas:

Quote
...I deleted two comments that appeared to be headed towards a dispute about the historical accuracy of the bible...
Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:18 pm


--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:53   

Earlier, stevestory quoted a commenter on UD who suggested that DaveScot give up his role as moderator:
Quote
 
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.

The commenter's name was 'Shane', and he complained that his post had been deleted the first time around.

Guess what? It's been deleted for a second time.

Complain about DaveScot, no matter how honestly or constructively, and you're out of there.

Like I said, Dave, you're doing great!  Keep at it!

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,12:01   

he also just deleted a post by Bling.

LOL. pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,12:05   

I think Dave is actually working as an intern at Dembski's creationism blog.  If all goes well he will soon he will be a full time editor at Minitrue (aka The Discovery Institute).

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,12:09   

The number of views is higher than normal and I'm sure some IDers from Uncommon Pissant are coming over here. So here's an additional message to you guys:

While Dembski banned criticism like crazy, DaveScot has gone nuts, even banning criticism from you christian supporters of ID. I've seen three today. If you like this situation, fine. But if you don't, complain to the guy who owns the blog.

In fact, you might want to navigate one level up and start up a thread on After the Bar Closes to discuss ID. There you can post freely any criticism which comes to mind, as long as you're not persistently rude. You won't have to worry about being frivolously banned.

Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,12:34   

I think DS might have actually banned more Steves in the last month than PT has banned commenters in a year.

A sort of parody of the Steve list.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:00   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,18:01)
pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.

He probably passed that landmark his first day.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:06   

DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:18   

:06-->
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,19:06)
DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

This is DaveScot's current whinging:

Quote
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.


Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:23   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 23 2006,19:18)
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

This is DaveScot's current whinging:

Quote
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.


Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?

This beggars belief!

DS complaining about censorship. ROFL.
How many people has DS banned/Edited/deleted recently?

How often does that happen here?

Surely this is a joke, or a weird strategy to ridicule his own site.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:36   

This may be nothing new to you veteran PTers, but I'm seeing John Davison in action for the first time and I'm finding it quite amusing.  After a detailed description of how to induce "semi-meiotic" reproduction, John declares:
Quote
Now pay attention FUNDAMENTALISTS EVERYWHERE WHEREVER YOU MAY BE to what I am about to say.
This expermental procedure could offer a rational, scientifically based explanation for both the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well as a potential demonstration of the Virgin Birth of Christ. It has already been done with frogs. Don’t forget who told you so. That does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to either dogma although I may have a death bed conversion. I haven’t decided yet. Now lets get cracking with some real experiments and stop all this empty rhetoric.

I'll bet the Christians on UD are loving that.  Who invited him back?  Oh, yeah... it was DaveScot.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:46   

Quote
#

Dave,

I appreciate your conviction and I understand how important it is to you.
But I’m with Dr. Dembski on this.

I’ve read Denton and Behe and they are convincing.

In my opinion, the concept of “irreducible complexity” simply nukes in toto the concept of macro-evolution.

For analogy, the design of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” and its production are complete in one life time. All of Da Vinci’s paintings bear a striking resemblance, but the one painting on the wall of the dining hall of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan was drawn from raw materials right then and there: he didn’t assemble parts of paintings he had gathered from elsewhere.

Micro-evolution, I agree all day long. It’s a fact, no question.
We see it in action on every cattle ranch in Texas. (I’m from Texas.)

Comment by Red Reader — January 23, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
#
Quote

Dave

What evidence do you use to prove that macroevolution is “settled science”? Can you give me some resources (web sites, papers, books, etc.) which site evidence used in your proofs? In other words, please direct me to resources that would debunk the theory that the human body, for example, wasn’t designed in a day instead of billions of years.

Respectfully,
Saxe

Comment by saxe17 — January 23, 2006 @ 6:24 pm


LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.

   
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,13:54   

Quote
Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.
How to tell: If the number of comments displayed at the top of the comments section (i.e. "23 comments") is different than the number of comments you can see, then you've been sent to coventry, the land of "Only you can see your posts."

Arden Chatfield: He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style :D.

    
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,14:03   

stevestory wrote:
Quote
LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.

I offered Dave some assistance, but my comment was deleted:
Quote
Hey Dave,

You want some help convincing Red Reader and Saxe of the truth of common descent?

You seem a bit beleaguered lately.

Regards,
Keith S.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,14:06   

I just use the regular Ikonboard facility for an "IP ban". While the implementation could have been coded to simply restrict posting, maybe Springer's report of no access at all to the bulletin board here is correct. In any case, the correct people to talk to about the behavior of the software when a banned IP connects are the Ikonboard programmers at Jarvis Entertainment Group. Of course, ownership transfers have since taken place, and I'm not sure that there is a good suggestion service for the iB software now.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,14:06   

Quote (FishyFred @ Jan. 23 2006,19:54)
He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style :D.

Well, he's not all that entertaining...

A pity, I don't relish having him posting here, but it would be nice if he could at least see us all laughing at him.

But hey -- it just occurs to me -- if he posted here, wouldn't he then have to ban himself ? ? ?

The performance art that is UD would then be perfected!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,14:56   

There is quite a lot of dissent amongst ID supporters over at Uncommon Dissent, surprisingly. I think despite all the banning and deleting, with B.Dembski no longer doing the editing, I think it has allowed the contrary opinions amongst ID supporters to come out for all of us to see.

Given DaveScot's waffling on various issues, such as common descent and macroevolution, I would like to offer up that DaveScot really has no position on these things, except that everyone else is somehow wrong. I wouldn't be surprised that after the midnight coop DaveScot starts banning B.Dembski as well. I think DaveScot is starved for attention, obsessive, and does this stuff for emotional reasons, purely. I think he's gone over to the UD blog to try to gain acceptance with someone. Who wants to wager that he has no friends that he's actually met? But now when in control, he's just resumed the vitriol again.

I am very glad that DaveScot has given his position on common descent and macroevolution, it will be nice to see the UD folks grill him. Because then he's going to grill them back, and they will have nothing to stand on themselves. I was trying to figure out their positions, and now that I won't be able to, DaveScot will do it for me!

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,15:10   

Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity.  What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament?  And, in fact, despite Genesis being the first book of the Pentateuch, it seems that very, very few Jews are either YECs or IDists.

Very strange.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,15:12   

If DaveScot is going to try to convince IDers that "macro" evolution and common descent are legitimate, I pity the poor bastard.

After a few days he'll get so frustrated he'll ban everyone.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,16:21   

Quote
I would like to offer up that DaveScot really has no position on these things, except that everyone else is somehow wrong.
Now that it's become the DaveScot-Davison-Dembski three ring circus, I suggest there are two things they all have in common: the everyone else is wrong mindset, and right-wing politics.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,16:47   

Why do I get the impression that the UD site is not intelligently designed?

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,17:08   

Julie, by the way, that is the cutest icon.

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,17:31   

Julie Stahlhut wrote:
Quote
Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity.  What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament?

I'm fascinated by the question, especially since I was raised as a literalist Christian and then had to reason my way out of it in adolescence.  Ocellated (a Christian who accepts evolution) has a post on this topic on his blog.  I added my two cents' worth in a comment.
http://www.ocellated.com/2006....olution

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,17:51   

Pro-ID Shane, who suggested that Dave step aside as moderator, tried posting his comment for a third time after seeing it deleted twice.  This time Dave left it standing but disemvoweled it.

Shane's plea:
Quote
nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,00:05   

I stopped posting at UC when Dave was put in charge and I won't post there again until he is removed as the big cheese. I support ID but putting Dave Scot in charge of UC was not a very good move. I understand the reason for Dembski doing it. He would like to have a non religious person be a spokesman for ID to counter criticism that ID is religiously based.

But in choosing a person like Dave Scot (who is childish, crude, quick to anger, egotistic, arrogant and confused) Dembski has made a mistake.

For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?

I feel it is extremely foolish to try and present ID divorced from reference to a God figure as part of the paradigm. The people who do that look like they are trying to con people. There is no need to try and pretend that ID isn't about God. No one believes it anyways, unless you are a confused person like Dave Scot.

Almost all proponents of ID believe that a God built all life. An extremely tiny minority believe in guided evolution. Dave Scot is part of the extremely tiny minority even though he claims to be an agnostic. Confused our poor Dave Scot is. If you believe evolution is guided by an intelligence then how can you possible be an agnostic? What is that intelligence if not a God? And Dembski put that guy in charge of his blog? I know Dembski doesn't believe in what Dave Scot believes in, but if he thinks that by putting out front a non religious face to represent ID will aid in the appreciation of ID, he is sadly mistaken.

People like Dave Scot who claim to believe in guided evolution have to answer a big question. If God or the intelligent whatever could guide evolution to get the desired life forms, then why couldn't God have skipped the billions of years of evolution and just created the life forms without evolution?

Anyways, ID proponents should quit being such pussies when it comes to being upfront with what they believe. ID is about a God paradigm. It's not about anything else.

I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

I belong to the second group. I wish the people in the first group would grow up and quit trying to please everybody all of the time. Stand up and be proud, don't hide behind rhetorical mind games and mental cases like Dave Scot. Your every move is transparent. Be loud and proud, if your agenda was purely scientific then you wouldn't think you have to con people. I am 100% against the agenda of those controlled and paid by the Christian reactionary elements in society.

As long as ID is represented in the public mind with Chrisitan reactionary elements it will be mindlessly fought against on political grounds i.e the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Putting up angry confused confrontational arrogant rude  Dave Scot types as your representative is not going to help.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,00:32   

LOL this one is funny.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/700#more-700

Dave Scot is giving a free lesson for Wesley in how to do science.

Bang goes another irony meter.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,00:46   

Zardoz,
ID has been very, very good to W. Dembski.

My opinion about the ID movement is low. The reason they do not want to mention religion is that they want ID taught in a science class.

In the meantime, a few of them are making pretty good cash from books and appearances. So much so that I can only assume they are too busy to actually be doing any scientific experiments.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,01:32   

Well, "DaveScot" does come close to an insight in his rant. I really could not care less about whether someone who has proved themselves worthy of an IP ban has read access to the site. And so while I could, if i had anything besides velleity for this project, have a look at the source and figure out what it is doing, but it simply isn't worth my time. My only concern would be whether the IP ban code is effective. That experiment has been run, and "DaveScot" has confirmed that the result is positive.

I'm puzzled, though, at why I would care what Dell does in their hiring. Last I heard, they didn't have dolphins or whales available for research. Those who are interested can have a look at The Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 3829-3841 (2001), for a report of a project that I contributed computer hardware and software support to.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2006,07:38

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,01:39   

Hang on if Dave Scot is banned here to the extent that the can't read this forum - how was he able to paste Wesley's explanation into his UP thread?

I love his Tagline - "Fair Warning - comments may be moderated" - I imagine him saying it in a 'Dalek' voice.

A fairer warning would be to list the topics and opinions that will get you 'moderated' - over and above the good manners etc rules that most boards have.

I suppose the list would be too long, and hard for DaveScot to maintain since it seems to be constantly growing.?

Is there a name for this particular pathology?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,02:16   

Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:35   

Quote
I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

Sounds very simple, but by observation it doesn't work that way. ALL anti-evolution people, as far as I can tell, find the fact of evolution (as opposed to the proposed mechanisms by which it works) an intolerable affront to their pride. Kind of like overweight people rejecting gravity as a scientific fraud because the alternative is to admit what they really don't want to.

Among the fact-rejecting crowd, the associated motivations seem fairly spread around, not binomial as Zardoz argues. Some are trying to trick a pro-reality system into teaching superstition in science class because they Believe, and want everyone else to. Others consider this dishonest, and instead want to preach against reality on straight religious grounds. Some wish to attain political power sufficient to use civil authority to *coerce* behavior according to their faith. Others are convinced that simply abandoning rationality will be sufficient to guide behavior. Some seek to discover their god hiding somewhere in reality by searching for places where He screwed up and failed to cover His tracks. Others reject this in favor of seeing the Hand Of God guiding every...well, they all have different levels of granularity on this. A few even seem to believe that predictable, natural processes are themselves guided, while others recognize that if this is true, layering on some Guider is superfluous and clumsy.

Essentially, what Zardoz is preaching here is PURE blindness, and he's offended that people like DaveScot give the impression of peeking every now and then. Peeking is a giveaway of confusion. REAL Believers don't do it.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:46   

Zardoz said:
Quote
For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?
But Zardoz, doesn't Dembski hisself say it's not necessarily god?:

Quote
Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.

For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn’t mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:53   

A ...nice...analogy from DaveScot:

Quote
#

Saxe

I read the Worldmag article you linked. It was kind of tedious and off topic until the end. Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining. That caught me off guard too. Dembski has a PhD in the philosophy of science, interestingly enough. So WTF are scientists doing telling him what is and isn’t science? That’s like foxes telling farmers how to build chicken coops, isn’t it?

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Comment by DaveScot — January 24, 2006 @ 1:57 am
Lol.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:56   

btw, i just went to Uncommon Pissant, and the top 5 posts have 0 comments each. I'm sure it's just because they're new, but for a second I thought, "Has he done it? Has he finally banned everyone?"

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,04:01   

Why is DaveScot linking to this editorial from the Daily Herald? It's not helping his case.

Quote
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
In our view: Confusing religion with science

To listen to some senators in the Utah Legislature, schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in a strange religion. It is called science, and some senators believe they have the antidote.

Senate Bill 96, sponsored by Sen. D. Chris Buttars, passed on Monday and now moves to the House, where it is being sponsored by Rep. Jim Ferrin of Orem. The bill would require science teachers to tell students that there are several theories on the origin of life.

While the bill does not mention "intelligent design," "divine design" or any other euphemism for creationism by name, the implications are clear: A number of legislators want to push religion into the public schools by force of law. Among those voting for the bill were Parley Hellewell, Curtis Bramble, Mark Madsen and John Valentine.

The fig leaf that provides cover for a legislative enactment of religion in Utah is the notion that teachers impose speculative secular views on students and need to be ordered how by the legislature how to teach. Bramble even goes so far as to suggest that the body of scientific ideas concerning the origin of life and the nature of humanity represents a religion of its own, unsupported by fact, and so it's fair to enact law that forces faith-based views into the classroom. In weighing unprovable concepts, why should our children be fed only secular views that are no more valid than faith?

"Sen. Buttars's bill is only asking that teachers not impose their religious beliefs in this theory on him or upon others, especially upon those who rely on these same teachers to tell them the absolute truth," Sen. Allen M. Christensen, R-North Ogden, said during debate. He also dropped this revealing phrase: "It falls to us as legislators to ensure the truth is taught."

While we understand the lure of symbolic legislation in a state largely populated by religious conservatives, we had hoped our senators might have been a little more circumspect. S.B. 96 (see accompanying text), wants to control instruction concerning "origins of life." Oddly, it is laced with the word "theory." Some form of the "theory" appears in virtually every governing sentence of the bill, sometimes more than once.

The trouble is that there is no scientific theory on the origin of life. There is only speculation, which is something else altogether. A theory arises from a set of observable facts that support one another and suggest a possible cause. Speculation, on the other hand, is based on nothing. It is pure conjecture.

We could end the discussion right here and say that S.B. 96 may be nothing but unenforceable nonsense, since the public schools couldn't discuss an actual theory of the origins of life if they wanted to. None seem to exist. The chemical composition of living things is well established, but what makes them come to life remains a mystery.

And yet in S.B. 96 the Senate suggests that there are current scientific theories (note the plural noun) that deserve a full and fair vetting in the course of a science class. Bombarded by multiple theories about the origins of life, children might become confused about "absolute truth," to use Christensen's phrase. So S.B. 96 orders the public schools to "stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life ... is correct."

Only Utah's Legislature could come up with such an Aristotelian conundrum. We therefore invite our senators to elaborate on any of the genuine "theories" to which this bill refers. The Herald will provide space on this page for the effort. Please list in detail the scientific observations and measurements that support any, or all, of the theories to which your bill makes reference. We're ready to be enlightened.

Without such guidance, we will continue to be disappointed that our senators passed a bill forcing teachers to combine faith and genuine scientific theory in the public school curriculum.

The dictionary reports that the word "religion" is associated with "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." We think the government would be wise to stay out of this. Unfortunately, S.B. 96 nudges God into science class, using code words like "theory," as though one's belief in God were as externally valid as any scientific pursuit. But the proposition that God exists, that he created the universe and gave life to man is not a theory -- it is faith. It may be true, but it is not science. Misapplying scientific words to what amounts to a faith-based argument is ultimately not constructive. It is dishonest.

While many people believe they have empirical evidence for their faith, the standard of measurement is purely personal, not scientific. That is why there is so much disagreement in the world over religion. That is why James Madison argued so eloquently to keep religious doctrines out of secular laws. And that is why a new government in Iraq that is based on religion is likely to fail.

Other language in S.B. 96 is perhaps more troubling than the overt reference to theories about the origins of life. The bill ambiguously directs schools to present alternatives to what it calls "the origins or present state of the human race." Any attempt to find a concrete meaning in this semantic mush is difficult, but we can clearly see the intent -- and the danger. Buttars and his Senate colleagues want to push creationism into the public school curriculum. In truth, this is an attempt to insert a state-endorsed brand of religion into secular life.

Masquerading as a way to balance the curriculum (as though this were really needed in Utah), S.B. 96 enshrines psuedo-science in law. This is wrong. Decisions on curriculum should be left in the hands of professionals charged with oversight of the schools, not seized by a group of part-time politicians who attempt to think deep thoughts once a year.

Mostly, however, we believe all this is a colossal waste of time. Our legislators should spend their limited days on Capitol Hill doing something that will make a real difference to Utah.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:01   

Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:18   

Looks like those who do not wish to join the ID cult of conformity are now posting in coded language to air their concerns.

I wish you could download a decoder ring.  Doing the old fashioned way is time consuming....

I wonder if some of them will ban together and start meeting in secret?


Quote
Shane Was all..
Hy Dv, hvn’t sn wht thy’r syng nd dn’t ntnd t, bt s smn wh’s prtty pr D, wld pprct rthnk f yr mdrtn hr. Prhps jst lvng t ll t smn ls wld b bst. Th sgnl t ns rt hr hs chngd snc y’v bn mdrtng, nd ’m srt trng hrng bt y ll th tm nd sng thrs cmpln bt yr mdrtn, r y tllng s thy r. ’v bn n yr shs bfr, s knw wht’s t lk, trst m. thnk t’s bst y stp rght bck r stp t fr whl nd lt thngs cl dwn.

nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.

Comment by Shane — January 23, 2006 @ 5:24 pm


--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Charliecrs



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:41   

Keiths -  wanted to ask ya question b4 you were booted from "UC" what is the main reason (if not more) [evidence / fact / logic ] , that has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is a fact ?. Perhaps is the reason pending ?.

Given [fine print] : Evolutions is a well documented and established fact.
The majority of scientist world wide accept evolution as is, unquestioned solid as rock fact.
Real scientists do not question Darwin.


Is it because you belive or accept / know the following ?


- the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
 overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?

- came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible      believers thought it was ?

- because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ?
therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?

-  because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ?
and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?

- was visited by the ghost of Caption Piccard and Eugenie scott, instead of the traditional ghost of Christmas past ?.

Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.
----------------------
"You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion"

Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot. Funny am i missing the irony ?.

Charlie

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:43   

I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer. I don't think the argument holds up very well under scrutiny, but it's not completely untenable on its face, and a lot of folks who favor the argument are not motivated to scrutinize it very deeply.

It's important to a lot of Believers that science at least not rule out their concept of God, if not necessarily prove it. And let's face it: the generally scientifically accepted version of evolution does, in fact, rule out certain concepts of God. A subpopulation of ID advocates would be happy enough with a version of science that requires some conscious intelligence without specifying it.

Based on my experience at the local level, most "ID" advocates are really old-fashioned creationists who occupy a spectrum ranging from those who actually want the biblical scenario in the curriculum to those who merely want it not ruled out.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:53   

Charlie, I've seen a lot of creationists with bad grammar and punctuation and spelling, but I've never seen anyone who put periods after question marks. What's up with that?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2006,09:53)
Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining.

It doesn't get better than that line.

Maybe someone should go onto UD and ask how these 'philosophers'' decisions would be enforced? Jail time for scientists who persisted in practicing science without a license?

Amusing how it now seems to be a fad for the Fundies to rebrand themselves as 'philosphers'. Everyone likes philosophers, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:57   

Quote (Renier @ Jan. 24 2006,08:16)
Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.

Am I wrong or does a totally anonymous proxy enable someone to bypass an ip ban?

As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD. In fact he likes to compare his views with those of Michael Behe who has also said something or another in favor of common descent.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:04   

"Fair Warning: Comments Commenters may be moderated obliterated."

:p

By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:07   

Quote (Ved @ Jan. 24 2006,12:04)
By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!

I think the appropriate term is 'refugee'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Charliecrs



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:10   

Lol Steve - but im not a creationist so what more can i say there. I do however like ID- so i thought i could have some fun here. Now please do start giving me the 411 about what i belive in, what color my hair is or what i eat 4 breakfast.

Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:11   

Quote (Flint @ Jan. 24 2006,09:35)
Quote
I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

Sounds very simple, but by observation it doesn't work that way. ALL anti-evolution people, as far as I can tell, find the fact of evolution (as opposed to the proposed mechanisms by which it works) an intolerable affront to their pride. Kind of like overweight people rejecting gravity as a scientific fraud because the alternative is to admit what they really don't want to.


I don't know what you mean by "affront to pride". For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.

Quote
Among the fact-rejecting crowd, the associated motivations seem fairly spread around, not binomial as Zardoz argues. Some are trying to trick a pro-reality system into teaching superstition in science class because they Believe, and want everyone else to. Others consider this dishonest, and instead want to preach against reality on straight religious grounds. Some wish to attain political power sufficient to use civil authority to *coerce* behavior according to their faith. Others are convinced that simply abandoning rationality will be sufficient to guide behavior. Some seek to discover their god hiding somewhere in reality by searching for places where He screwed up and failed to cover His tracks. Others reject this in favor of seeing the Hand Of God guiding every...well, they all have different levels of granularity on this. A few even seem to believe that predictable, natural processes are themselves guided, while others recognize that if this is true, layering on some Guider is superfluous and clumsy.


All of those reasons fall under what I wrote i.e political/personal, it was meant to include any type of religious or social or political motivation.

Quote
Essentially, what Zardoz is preaching here is PURE blindness, and he's offended that people like DaveScot give the impression of peeking every now and then. Peeking is a giveaway of confusion. REAL Believers don't do it.


What do you mean?

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:25   

RE: "open discussion"
Quote
Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot.

Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p


Arden: 'refugee', check!

  
Charliecrs



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:30   

Just joined to ask Kethis a question that i didnt get to ask b4 he got axed. So will the *real* Kethis please stand up ?

"Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p"

- wonder how long thats going to last though, cux i do have the habbit of mouthing while trying to do it politely lol :) :) :)

Charlie.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:33   

One of the latest posts: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/701

This must be a joke. IIRC, Jack asked Dembski if he wanted to allow another viewpoint to be presented. Dembski said no thanks. Now DaveScot has the gall to pull this out.

    
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:38   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.

This will be an answer to you and stevestory. It's not that they believe that romulans or klingons are responsible, what they are trying to do is alter evolutionists perception of themselves as basing their theories on religious beliefs. In effect what they are trying to do is say " It doesn't matter what the designer is we have proof that there must be some type of designer". I think that is a purely tactical rhetorical method used when evolutionists or fence straddlers ask them to describe the designer. Plus they don't really know much or really anything about the designer in the sense of knowing what or how the universe is controlled by the designer.

In my view "god" is a type of alien. Here is my view of the designer which I have learned from my study of vedanta, physics, and personal experience.

A common belief among physcists is a thing called the Higgs Field. Whether it exists or not no one knows, but it is a popular theory. The Higgs field is supposed to pervade the entire universe. It is supposed to be the cause of giving mass to matter along with the hypothesized Higgs Boson particle. Then there is the Quantum Potential and Bells' Theorem. These three theories are postulating an interconnectedness, a unified reality in our universe.

From my way of looking at things I see the "Designer" as being something similar to Bohm's implicate order. The universe (infinite universe:see plasma cosmology, eric lerner et al) which we can perceive is only showing us what is visible to our eyes and to our technological instruments. But there is more then meets the eye and our instruments. It wasn't long ago that the quantum world was unknown to us as well as other things revealed by modern technology, like cosmic microwaves, space plasma, infrared light etc. As our technology has advanced more things pop into our field of view. They were always there but we didn't know it.

To me the designer is something we exist as a part of. 3 dimensional matter/energy and our consciousness/mind are parts of the explicate order, the designer is the implicate order. The world of matter is the quantum expression from a sub quantum substratum of the material universe. The complete holisitic universe is a unified field of an unknown energy comprising many dimensions of which we are usually (most people) only able to perceive the 3 dimensions of matter, plus mind and consciousness.

That unified field is the designer. Mind and consciousness are part of the unified field. Our mind and consciousness exist as parts of the unified field, the unified field as a whole is a single mind and consciousness. A single universal entity. Essentially, reality as we know it, is a living being. We and everything else in our space time exists within and as a part of a conscious intelligent entity, that entity exists in many more dimensions then the ones we can perceive.

As to where it came from? It is part of the natural development of the infinite space time continuum. At some point in time long long ago the original substance of the space time continuum somehow changed from an inert state into an active state. Consciousness and mind was one of the results of that change. We cannot really understand fully what happened because there are many dimensions at play in what happened (is happening) and we can only relate to a few of them. But to give an idea of what happened try to imagine an infinite ocean of ice. In all directions there was ice on into infinity. Then for some unknown reason there was a chemical reaction which created heat in the ice, the ice started to melt and eventually started to boil and kept on boiling from now until forever.

In a similar way the original state of the infinite space time continuum was an inert potential of some type. Some kind of massive change occured to that inert potential and it morphed into a different state. It developed consciousness/mind and gradually developed it's mind and intellect. After a long time it developed it's intellect to the point of being able to build the 3 dimensional world we see around us. It didn't build it like we build something. We build things that are different from ourselves. It builds things out of itself. Matter and the laws of nature exist because they are part of a conscious intelligent being.

Imagine how a virtual reality works. The programmer and computer build a digital world. Everything in the virtual world can seem like it is real, the chair can seem like a chair, the apple can seem like an apple, but in fact all that we experience in a virtual reality is a combination of pixels designed to look like those things. The virtual apple is really a part of the computer which has been designed to appear like an apple.

Quantum particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, atoms, these are like computer pixels to the designer, the designer is like a programmer and a computer in one. We live in a cosmic living computer. Everything exists as part of a cosmic virtual reality.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:41   

Quoting Russell..

Quote
I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer.


My point is/was that they are fooling no one with their "it could be space aliens or time travelers" theory.  They keep trying to fool the public so that they can teach their nutty notions in public science class, but no one is buying their Klingons might have dunnit nonsense.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:42   

Zardoz wrote:
Quote
As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD.

A month ago DaveScot was still claiming to be agnostic on the issue:
Quote
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606

Of course, you can distinguish the two (unless the Designer is perverse and "plants" the evidence to make common descent appear to be true).

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:43   

Interesting. Although the DI gets all indignant when you say they promote the inclusion of ID in school curricula...

Quote
When asked about how biology teachers should teach intelligent design theory, Dembski said teachers should “go as far as you can.”
(from FishyFred's link)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:54   

Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:16   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,12:54)
Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.

What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:37   

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,13:16)
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?

So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

One another note, you might want to check out the movie "I (heart) Huckabees".

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:39   

Zardoz, I am not saying what you believe is wrong, I am simply saying it is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science class.

And you and I can agree that much of nature is awe inspiring in its beauty.  There is also a lot of horrifying things in nature as well.  Neither the beauty nor the horror is scientific evidence of a designer.

And evolution does not answer every question.  You are free to offer a more scientific and better explaination than evolution has provided.  But note so far no one in the ID camp has been able to do so.

And I cannot help the fact that so many people reject testable, verifiable evidence when it comes to biology and evolution.  Have you read Behe's testimony?  He is the poster boy for rejecting overwhelming biological evidence.  He is not alone in his pursuit to believe what he wants in spite of the obvious contradictory scientific evidence which suggests he is mistaken.

People have the right to live in a make believe world but teaching make believe in science class is not cool.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:42   

Quote
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?


You might find Judge Jones's opinion enlightening about why this is a terrible argument.

Quote
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This
argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed
“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to
support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy
of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support
of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in
support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify
creation science two decades ago.
ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments
against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly
complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 71 of 139

72
mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73
(Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)).
As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian
provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations
exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have
been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller
stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not
undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully
understood. (3:102 (Miller)).


or you might find this refutation from TalkOrigins more persuasive:
Quote
Claim CA510:
Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 3, 8-10.
Response:

  1. There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.

  2. Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others,
         * orthogenesis
         * neo-Lamarckianism
         * process structuralism
         * saltationism
     (See Wilkins 1998 below for elaboration.)

  3. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.

Links:
Isaak, Mark. 2000. What is creationism? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Wilkins, John. 1998. So you want to be an anti-Darwinian: Varieties of opposition to Darwinism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html
Further Reading:
Kossy, Donna. 2001. Strange Creations: Aberrant Ideas of Human Origins from Ancient Astronauts to Aquatic Apes. Los Angeles: Feral House.


by the way, I doubt you have an argument against evolution which is not dealt with at the TalkOrigins list of creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:46   

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2006,13:37)
So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:47   

Charliecrs wrote:
Quote
the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?

No, Charlie.  Many questions asked and successfully answered.  And the evidence comes not only from the fossil record, but also from molecular biology, the geographic distribution of species and fossils, vestigial structures, embryology, and more.
Quote
came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible believers thought it was ?

I don't have the contempt for "bible believers" that you are apparently expecting.  I was raised as a biblical literalist and so I can empathize with those who still accept the Bible as God's word, although I no longer do so.
Quote
because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ? therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?

Yes, the Earth is very old.  This by itself is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution to have occurred.
Quote
because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ? and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?

Yes, but not just the fossil evidence.  Also genetic similarities, morphological and molecular homologies, and the chromosomal fusion data that has recently come to light.
Quote
Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.

It's not Darwin I accept, but evolution.  As for understanding it, you might find it beneficial to learn more about evolution so that you'll know why its proponents find it to be such a compelling explanation for life's diversity.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:58   

Quote
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

This "magical" event is not a part of Evolutionary Theory proper. This beginning of life is Abiogenesis, and is separate from all evolution that happened after that event. And it could have been God or aliens or a natural expression of the universe that done it. I actually think you and I would agree that it was a natural expression of the universe, except that I'm not convinced at all of any conscousness having to do with it.

Oh, and thinking of a modern "cell" as the first spontaneous natural replicator is way, way too big and complex.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:07   

Quote (Charliecrs @ Jan. 24 2006,12:10)
Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie

I know I may be troll baiting here, but I'd like to see you "easily" argue your case here, including the bit about separation of church and state.  If you decide to take this on, good luck, you'll need it.

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:19   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,13:46)
[quote=GCT,Jan. 24 2006,13:37]So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.
Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".

I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor. And i don't care if it's taught in public schools or not. It's not like many kids are interested anyways. If any kid was really interested in evolution or ID then they would do their own research. From my experience of public school everything we went through was like a Readers Digest version of education i.e superficial, full of mistakes, and outdated.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:27   

RE: "plausibility"

As others have pointed out, "plausibility" doesn't count for much in science. It ranks somewhere between "intuition" and "hunch".

But I'd like to point out a few plausibility related items:

(1) Very few people involved in the actual study of biology or allied fields share this sense of implausibility about evolution.

(2) Lots of people find lots of physics "implausible" (relativistic time dilation; light being both particle and wave, etc.) So far, no one has tried to elevate that sense of "implausibility" to the status of "alternative theory".

(3) I find ID implausible: mainly the notion of nonphysical supernatural things affecting physical natural things, and the "infinite regress" problem: who designed the designer?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:34   

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,14:19)
I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.

Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.

You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.

Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:53   

Over at Uncommon Pissant this guy ftrp11 is making comments which contradict the official line, and he's been doing so for more than 24 hours. Wonder how long until he's bounced.

   
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:01   

CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  Then you can ask your questions about evolution that are worth replying to.

-Dan

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:21   

Quote
CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  


Then when you find an antievolution argument you believe is correct, go here and find out why it isn't.

   
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:42   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 24 2006,14:27)
RE: "plausibility"

As others have pointed out, "plausibility" doesn't count for much in science. It ranks somewhere between "intuition" and "hunch".

But I'd like to point out a few plausibility related items:

(1) Very few people involved in the actual study of biology or allied fields share this sense of implausibility about evolution.

(2) Lots of people find lots of physics "implausible" (relativistic time dilation; light being both particle and wave, etc.) So far, no one has tried to elevate that sense of "implausibility" to the status of "alternative theory".

(3) I find ID implausible: mainly the notion of nonphysical supernatural things affecting physical natural things, and the "infinite regress" problem: who designed the designer?


(! ) argumentum ad populum

(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution :D

(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things

The problem of infinite regression is easily solved when we notice that whether you posit a God or no-God we come to the same situation vis-a-vis what existed when. If we posit no-God we still have the question of where the universe came from. Whether we examine the big bang theory or the universe with no beginning theories we still have to confront the question of what caused the universe or the stuff in the universe to come into existence.

The big bang theory or the universe with no beginning theories don't try to explain where the substance of the big bang or the universe came from. That hasn't stopped some scientists theorizing about where that stuff came from. Whatever theory they may come up with ultimately they will have to face one of 2 possibilities. A) There is no origin i.e the stuff has always existed in some form or dimension. B) The stuff or some form of it popped into existence at some point.

Choice B must be resisted because it violates logic. If nothing existed then something could never pop into existence because there is nothing which can give something the causal impetus to exist. Nothing cannot produce something. If there is something in existence then there has always been something in existence.

That leaves us us with choice A: There is no origin.

Whether you argue for a God or against a God in both cases logic demands that something has always existed. If you argue against a God you have to concede that all of the stuff we can perceive in the universe has always existed in some form or dimension. The big bang theory states that all of the matter and energy in the universe today existed before the big bang in the condensed whatever (different theories have been promoted as to what that was) which expanded when the big bang occured. The "universe with no beginning" theorists may have put forth some theories as to the cause of matter/energy in the universe but I have never read one.

If you argue for a God then you have to argue that God is either the original susbtance of the universe or a product or transformation of the original substance. A logical argument for the God side for the source of the universe would be that 3 dimensional matter/energy which follows the laws of physics in the universe, began when God built matter/energy using the original substance of the universe in whatever form or dimension was available. By universe I mean the stuff in the universe. Space time is where stuff exists. Since there could never have been a time when something didn't exist in the universe, therefore space time has always existed as well in order to accomodate that stuff.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:55   

Quote
argumentum ad populum
In the abstract world of Platonic Ideals, this is an error, sure. And it doesn't prove, in a philisophically perfect sense, evolution. But it lends a huge amount of weight in the real world. In the real world, there isn't time for each person to debate and analyse every last thing. It is reasonable to use authority in making decisions.

Anyway, you said evolution was implausible to you. That's not a logically sound argument to begin with. So when someone responds that the experts don't feel that way, and you say they're making a logically unsound argument, you hold them to a standard you didn't meet.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:06   

Evolution explains species as originating from a common ancestor or only a few common ancestors. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:37   

Quote
(! ) argumentum ad populum
Quite the contrary! First, it's not an argument at all, it's an observation. If you think your own personal "feeling" of implausibility counts for something, I'm inviting you to wonder why people who have devoted a heck of a lot of time, study and research into it don't share that feeling. If, on the other hand, you contend that your own personal feeling of implausibility counts for something because a largish fraction of the (nonspecialist) population shares that feeling, I would call that an argumentum ad populum.

Quote
(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution
What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)

Quote
(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things
"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.

I note, though, we are experiencing "thread drift" here. Possibly, if this discussion is worth pursuing at all, it might be best to start a fresh topic.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:40   

the thread is drifting, and I don't enjoy creationist participation particularly, but I am enjoying this thread being more tolerant of ID advocates that Uncommon Pissant is being at the moment. That's just delicious.

Have you noticed that today's Uncommon Pissant threads are not getting much comment action? Banning so many people is having an effect, methinks.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:54   

Zardoz:

I guess what I wrote passed by you. Communication isn't always easy about this stuff.

Quote
For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.

Well, I always consider this sort of reply to be hilariously dishonest, though probably more with yourself than with anyone else. Any explanation of any body of evidence doesn't sound implausible in a vacuum, it always sounds implausible compared to something that sounds MORE plausible. That's the only way it can possibly work. For example, you may find the notion of someone flying by flapping his arms implausible, but only by comparison to known information on this subject.

So I guess we need to dig into WHY you find it implausible. Plausibility is a comparative term, and the "compared to what" must be specified. Otherwise, we are reduced to guessing that you find it implausible in comparison to magic, but you're pretending otherwise.

Quote
What do you mean? (about DaveScot peeking)

I mean, he is actually looking (sometimes, not too hard, but still looking) at actual evidence. And evolutionary theory in the context of evidence is not only plausible, it's stone cold obvious. Shame on DaveScot for letting the nose of evidence into the Big Tent.

Quote
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Why do you say this? The origin of life from nonliving organic molecules is higly active, lots of experiments are being done, a great deal is being learned. And while there are highly competitive schools of thought, none of them would dream of suggesting that a living cell happened all at once. We're looking at tens to hundreds of millions of years, with thousands of steps along the way to what we might generously call a protocell today.

Your statement seems to ignore both the processes involved, and the time available. Kind of looking at a modern fighter jet and assuming that it has no aircraft history.

Quote
Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal

Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?

Quote
Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab?

Other self-appointed art critics see exactly that. How mundane the world is, they say. How boring and uninteresting and dull. I suppose you'll claim that those who see the world the way you do are commenting on the world, those who see it differently are only commenting on themselves. Convenient, I guess.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,11:07   

Quote
Flint was all like,

"Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?"


Flint, dude you are my hero and pass me that bong, will you?  If you're ever in Texas and want to sit around and contemplate the human hand, give me a ring.  That was too funny

Your whole post was good but that piece was especially fun.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:31   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,14:34)
[quote=Zardoz,Jan. 24 2006,14:19]I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.


Ditto. :D

Quote
 You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.


I 've been reading that site for a long time and I disagree with many of the conclusions.

Quote
Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.


In my opinion there is an explanation which better suits what we know are the limits of chance to produce a Mango tree from random mutations starting from within a single cell. In my opinion random mutation is evolutions fatal flaw.

Evolution tells us that random mistakes in a genome not only creates incredibly complex synchronized information processing and storing systems, but also the information they utilize, the nanotechnology which can make use of the information, and the end result of a color coordinated artistically brilliant highly complex living entity, like a tiger, or an orchid, or a butterfly, or a sequoia tree, or a Mango, or pretty much everything.

Evolution tells us that all life (except the first) came to exist through random mutations gradually building every part of every species. Every form of life has a blueprint stored within the lifeform which tells the nanotechnology within the cells and organs how to construct the particular body plan. There are numerous types of very complex coded information systems within every living entity along with extremely tiny molecular nanotechnology which reads the code, understands the code, and then constructs extremely complex biological machines.

Can random mutations build these microscopic nanotechnologies, coding systems (coding, reading, understanding the code) and the blueprints which they come with?

I cannot accept that chaotic disorganized mutations can produce the vast diversity and stunning technological complexity of life as we know it. You may argue that random mutation plus natural selection somehow rises above chaos, but I don't buy it. The numerical probability is beyond astronomical that a series of random mutations can design a Lion or a rose bush. Nope, sorry. For me Occam's Razor rules out evolution because life as we know it would require millions of miracles happening on a scale beyond imagining, whereas a designer would only require one miracle.

To say that "creationism" is not an explanation is not true. Creationism or Intelligent Design makes an explanation, you may not think it to be sufficient, but it nevertheless does make a explanation i.e an intelligent entity built all life forms from a plan. That's an explanation. You don't have to accept it, but it is in fact an explanation. Just like if you asked me how did Trump Towers come into existence and I answered "Donald Trump had his people build it". It may not be a detailed explanation, but it is nevertheless an explanation and a true one at that.

It's all about mathematical probabilities. By the process of elimination we arrive at the mathematical probability of an intelligent agent. Random mutations are random, and it is that randomness which is evolution's fatal flaw. Random events may occasionally produce some type of simple non chaotic outcome, but as more random events occur that non chaotic event will turn back into chaos. The more complex something is the less chance it came about by random forces.

A good example is the snowflake. They are produced by a fairly complex process and they are fairly complex designs. But as random natural events act on the snowflake the design doesn't increase in complexity, it breaks down completely e.g the flake melts or compacts.

I know evolutionists like to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it is simply not plausible that chaos can consistently produce increasing complexity over a long period of time over and over multiplied millions of times. The numbers don't add up. So Occam's Razor points us to the explanation which requires the least amount of inconsistency with known laws of nature and mathematical probabilities. Evolution cannot be the answer. And in the end there is only one other explanation which isn't bogged down by fatal flaws.

We shouldn't be attached to the truth or falsity of any given theory. If something we think is true turns out to have been a mistake, and conversely if what we thought was a mistake then turns out to be true, we should be glad our understanding has been elevated. This isn't a contest. People who feel they have something to gain or lose in the debate need to check their agendas and egos at the door. There is much much more to the world then meets the eye.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:46   

Someone: "So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.  Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination"."

Zardoz: I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor.

djmullen: Occam's razor says to choose the simpler of two explanations that cover the observations equally well.  The problem here is that ANY Intelligent Designer, even a lowly human designer, must have a mind and even a lowly human mind is incredibly complex and requires trillions of bits of information to function.

For instance, an Intelligent Designer would have to understand how even something as simple as a one celled organism works before he could design or build one and that would require millions of bits of information or more.  (For instance, it would require approximately as much information as is found in the organisms genome.)

Evolution, on the other hand, is dumb as dirt: get a population of genetically self-reproducing critters.  Mistakes  will inevitably be made copying the genome, which means that some of the offspring will not be exactly like their parent(s).  If one of those offspring is better at making a living than their parent(s), they will tend to increase in numbers at the expense of their parent(s).

Total information required for evolution - a few bits at a time, which are generated through errors in copying the genome.

Total information required for any kind of remotely Intelligent Designer: Trillions.

Which method passes the Occam's razor test?  Evolution!   And the final score is billions to a few against Intelligent Design.

P.S. If anybody doubts that a God or Intelligent Designer's mind requires huge amounts of information to exist and function, ask yourself these questions:

1) Does God know your phone number?  If He does, then his mind contains at least enough information to incode your phone number, area code and country code.  That's about 13 decimal digits or roughly 40+ bits of information, so God (or any Intelligent Designer) has to have at least 40 bits of information in His mind to know your phone number.

2) Does God know EVERYBODY'S cell phone number?  (Never mind all phone numbers.)  About 650 million cell phones were sold last year.  At 40 bits per phone number, that means that God (or the Intelligent Designer) must have at least 40*650 million or 26 GIGABITS of information in His mind just to know the numbers of the new cell phones that were sold last year.  The figures will be much worse for ALL phone numbers, land line and cell.

3) What is Dembski's Upper Probability Bound?  That is how much information can something contain before it's effectively impossible to achieve without a process like evolution?  About 150 bits!

Therefore, by Dembski's own criteria, Gods and Intelligent Designers of any stripe are impossible unless they somehow evolved.  And if you're not a Mormon, you don't believe that Gods or Inteligent Designers evolve.  QED

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:52   

Zardoz:

You come so close, yet you keep bouncing off.

Quote
I cannot accept that chaotic disorganized mutations can produce the vast diversity and stunning technological complexity of life as we know it.

But of course, what we see wasn't *produced* by "disorganized mutations", any more than it was produced by the atoms and elements of which they're composed. What produces things is a *feedback PROCESS*. The mutations are only part of the raw materials that the process uses.

Quote
You may argue that random mutation plus natural selection somehow rises above chaos, but I don't buy it.

Selection is a process. Here's an offhand analogy: Imagine that you need to know how to pronounce a word. You consult a dictionary, and in a minute or two find the word and learn the pronunciation. Now I come along and say "Wait a minute. There are 500,000 words in that dictionary. NO WAY you could have found just the one you were looking for in only a minute or two."

You might respond: Aha, I had a process. As it happens, the words are in a special order, and I happen to know that order. And because this process reduces the scope of the task by several orders of magnitude, it was entirely manageable.

To which I respond: You might make the fatuous CLAIM that your method somehow rises above just guessing and faking that you found the word that fast, but I'm not buying it.

And what can you say? Are you going to concede that my ignorance is more plausible than your knowledge, and admit you were faking? If I repeat "Nope, I just don't buy it" enough times, are you going to start doubting how dictionaries work?

Quote
The numerical probability is beyond astronomical that a series of random mutations can design a Lion or a rose bush

Because, again, the mutations don't design anything. The process of SELECTION designs things. You ALMOST noticed selection, but just couldn't quite clear that hurdle. The idea of the words in the dictionary being in some knowable order just isn't plausible to you.

Quote
Nope, sorry. For me Occam's Razor rules out evolution because life as we know it would require millions of miracles happening on a scale beyond imagining, whereas a designer would only require one miracle.


Nope, sorry, For me, the idea that you could find one word out of 500,000 in a minute requires a miracle on a scale beyond imagining. You must have been lying. This whole idea of method and process is something I simply can't accept. MAGIC, now, that's simple. And what makes it simple is that there's no method or process at all. You just SAY it's true and POOF it's true. Things are so much easier when you just get to make them up.

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:54   

Zardoz: "... if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate."

djmullen: One of the sure signs of a creationist is their insistence that the first living thing was a cell.  Usually they hold up a modern cell, which is the product of about four billion years of evolution, and say something like, "What are the odds of something this complex happening by chance?"

The problem is that nobody but creationists believe that the first living thing was a modern cell.  Most theories today involve either a simple polymer (such as RNA, proteins or something similar) that manages to reproduce itself or a very tiny "cell" containing several chemicals that catalyze each other and thus reproduce.  

Once you have a population of genetic self reproducers, evolution begins automatically when the first copying error is made and it's Katie bar the door as far as complexity and diversity is concerned from then on.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,14:00   

djmullen:

I already provided a link to an *entire book* about abiogenesis. I like to do that because it helps separate out the flavor of creationist we're talking about. If Zardoz continues to ignore the link, we'll have a certain species identified: those who defend incorrect claims simply by remaining ignorant of the refutations.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,14:52   

Quote
Just like if you asked me how did Trump Towers come into existence and I answered "Donald Trump had his people build it". It may not be a detailed explanation, but it is nevertheless an explanation and a true one at that.
It's only an explanation insofar as we already know the mechanisms by which "Donald Trump's people" build things. If I ask you how the rings of Saturn came into existence, and you tell me "Donald Trump had his people make them", you'll pardon my skepticism if I want to know a little bit about the how and when.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,17:36   

Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,19:42   

I've got an interesting curiosity question for the ID folks who have bravely come over here to engage in discussion free of DaveScot's ego:

One of the "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems claimed by Behe to be un-evolvable is the immune system. However, many diseases such as HIV and Malaria, etc etc, very cleverly undermine the supposedly-designed immune system, and fit Behe's definition of irreducible complexity as well. My question is, given that these structures that give rise to disease meet the IC criteria as defined by Behe, what cause would you have to reject the conclusion that they were also designed, like the flagellum?
Then again, you may not reject the conclusion that they were designed, so then my question to you would be, how do you then avoid the inescapable conclusion, therefore, that this designer created these diseases and that it is a wicked entity?

It might help to consider what you would think if you had learned that a foreign dictator had created a biowarfare disease (based upon knowledge of the immune system) that subdued our immune systems and "accidentally" released it into the world. ???

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,02:25   

I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man™, into an active engineer of evil machines.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,02:42   

I wondered, recently, exactly how intolerant of criticism they've become over at Bill Dembski's weblog. We've all seen the deletion of comments, the banning of people who step out of line over there. We've seen them ban ID supporters who didn't hew to the party line. Two dozen contributors from Panda's Thumb are banned on Dembski's site, despite the fact that Dembski is not banned from Panda's Thumb. We've been witness to dozens and dozens of bannings merely in the few weeks since DaveScot's been in charge. So I decided to investigate.

I emailed Wesley Elsberry, and asked him how many people were banned. He wrote me back a thorough email about how many were banned from PT and AtBC. Depending on how you count, it's more or less 11. I went to Uncommon Descent, and asked DaveScot, "How many people have you banned/moderated?" As you can imagine, my question was deleted. However, he sent me an email, and that's where we begin:

(btw, the entire series is reproduced in full, with no editing)

Quote
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Hi Steve,

I don't keep count.   Was I supposed to?

If I did, do I count people like Alan Fox and KeithS once each or do I count
each time they've snuck back with a fake registration which would make it
about 6 times between them instead of 2?

My marching orders, actually a suggestion as I was given free reign to do
what I think best, was to purge the place of trolls.  I'm purging.  Glad
they're all running to you.  I can't think of a better place for them.  In
fact I encourage all trolls to take up residence at Panda's Thumb.  I thank
you for putting out the welcome mat for them.

Cheers,
DaveScot
Quote
>From: steve story <stevestory@gmail.com>
>To: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com>

Go ahead and purge anyone you disagree with. ID will never be a scientific movement, but inner strife will take out the PR wing too. Purge away. In fact, you need to more rigid. Maybe demand everyone click thru a loyalty oath. Casey Luskin's ID club requires supporters to be christian. Do something like that.

Steve
Quote
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Luskin's ID club required (past tense) officers to be Christians.  That
restriction has been removed.

Good reply, dummy.  It's everything I expected from you.
Quote
>From: steve story <stevestory@gmail.com>
>To: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com>

They changed the requirement? But won't they be deficient?

If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

--William Dembski
Quote
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Did I say your dumb ass could clutter up my inbox again?  No, I don't think
I did.

<plonk>

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,03:03   

I love this particular example of a homonym:

Quote
I was given free reign

The *usual* form is "free rein", meaning the horse isn't being reined in, and is allowed to run free (without reins). DaveScot's use implies that he is absolute soverign (reigning), without any restriction - most especially including the restrictions good judgment would impose.

Do you suppose he used this homonym deliberately?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,03:34   

Briefly recapping, Zardoz wrote:
Quote
Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution

to which I responded:
Quote
What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)
to which... I'm still waiting.

So that's it? "A lot of my friends and I find evolution "implausible", therefore an intelligence had to be involved"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,03:40   

"marching orders", "free reign", "purges", "fearless leader"...

anyone detect a pattern here?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,05:22   

While idly perusing UD, I came across some surprisingly sensible comments by DaveScot on the subject of altruism and revenge, in the context of evolution. But what I couldn't help chuckling over was this comment by ds:
Quote
An argument might be made that revenge is most highly developed in humans but it’s not anything to brag about.... But I’d reiterate that revenge is no virtue and while it might separate humans from other animals it doesn’t morally elevate us above them. Quite the contrary in fact.
in light of this:
Quote
blah blah blah
Jack - since I’m banned on Panda’s Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda’s Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds
and this:
Quote
Sorry Steve.
If I can’t comment on Panda’s Thumb you can’t comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,05:48   

He can be occasionally rational, but he has a rage problem. See the emailed insults above. You can almost sense him thinking "Oh you evolutionists, you make me So Mad!"

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,05:56   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:42)
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Did I say your dumb ass could clutter up my inbox again?  No, I don't think
I did.

So is DaveScot's real name David Springer?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,06:04   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 25 2006,11:56)

So is DaveScot's real name David Springer?

Yeah. Apparently he used to work for Dell and thinks that is a big deal.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,06:21   

stevestory wrote:
Quote
He [DaveScot] can be occasionally rational, but he has a rage problem.

Imagine what it must have been like to work with Dave.  He also mentioned once on UD that he has children (poor souls).

Russell wrote:
Quote
"marching orders", "free reign", "purges", "fearless leader"...anyone detect a pattern here?

Dave confirms the pattern in this quote from UD:
Quote
I believe in a chain of command and unquestioning loyalty to it. One follows the orders of those higher in the chain and gives orders to those lower in it. Mission objectives are given, rules of engagement are defined, then mission leaders take the initiative to get the job done. Bill offered me the job of blog czar and I accepted. I then received my marching orders and got on with it. Czar is hardly suggestive of democracy or gentle persuasion. If he wanted a czar that’s what he got. If not then I’m the wrong person for this position.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,07:34   

I wandered in there, and found that Dave scot had put up an article from new scientist, presumably with the purpose of showing that you dont have to be a professional scientist with a degree to do good science.  Unfortunately, it kind of shows that you have to be working in the same universe as "real" scientists to actually do anything useful.  Heres the New scientist wbsite url:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925351.600

The first amateur scientist, Forrest Mims, got papers into peer review and says:
"Sometimes there is resistance to publishing my papers, but most of them have been
published. Now I peer-review papers for scientific journals and I’ve peer-reviewed
two-dozen books for scientific publishers. On a number of occasions professional
scientists have taken me aside and asked me how to get published in Nature. Only once or
twice in my career has somebody been rude or resentful that I didn’t go through the
process they did."

Or in other words, certain people to my mind have  a persecution complex.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,07:40   

.. so he broke the New Scientist's copyright by publishing that article in full I see...

hmmmm.....

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,07:46   

.. actually it was the 'Dembski' himself that breached the New Scientist's copyright. Naughty boy!

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,08:18   

LOL at the comments on UD about that article.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/709#comments

They seem to think that the guys lack of formal training is good advert and example for ID.

Completely ignoring the guy actually did research and that was what got him published in peer-reviewed journals.

Sheesh! Talk about jumping to the wrong conclusion.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,08:38   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 25 2006,14:18)
They seem to think that the guys lack of formal training is good advert and example for ID.

here's the money quote from the ever-reliable redreader:

Quote
Mims proves that credentials and tenure are not the MOST important qualities for a scientist.

The most important qualities are love of the truth, tenacity and faith in one’s own understanding.


Almost heart-rending in its pitiful wishful thinking... Especially how much importance he gives to 'faith in one’s own understanding' -- that's right, the best way to be a scientist is to be absolutely convinced that you're already right.

Note that he doesn't mention the importance of actual, like, uh, knowledge anywhere.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,09:25   

In all your born days, have you ever seen anything more ironic than davescot saying
Quote
Turn the sensitivity to criticism control down a notch, Bombadill.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/715#comments

And get a load of Bombadil's respose!

Quote
#

Oh dear, the pot has just called the kettle black.

Let the good times roll.

Comment by Bombadill — January 25, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,09:59   

That thread is hilarious.  It looks like ID's "Big Tent" may be too cozy for Bombadill and DaveScot.

For the record, I agree with DaveScot that many people (especially fundamentalist Christians) don't like to hear about the complexity of animals' social interactions, since acknowledging them makes humans seem less special -- less "created in God's image."

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
SomeGuy



Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,10:11   

It might interest the good people of this forum to know that if you go over to Google, click on the "groups" link, and type in the following:

"David Springer" Dell

You will be rewarded with hours of fascinating reading. Just FYI.

Ciao

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,10:24   

I hate it when Dave Springer, er, Scot says something sensible:

Quote
“I’d be skeptical that they would comfort others that are grieving.”


to which Dave replied:

Quote
Of course you would. That’s a given since it doesn’t fit with your theological view that humans are a unique creation. Correct me if I’m wrong of course.

On scientific grounds what reason do you have to doubt Dr. Sheldrick’s assertion that they do indeed comfort others in distress? She’s been observing elephants for 30 years. You’ve been observing them how long? Heck, I’ve had cats and dogs that can sense the emotions of others and offer comfort. Based on that I have no reason at all to suspect elephants aren’t commensurately more capable of it but I’d give Dr. Sheldrick the benefit of the doubt even absent anecdotal experience of my own.


Don't worry, I'm sure he'll quickly scuttle back to his comfort zone being a tyrannical loon.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,10:33   

Wow, thanks SomeGuy. I found a bunch of funny bits, like
Quote
It's common knowledge that homosexuality was reclassified by political
pressure, not because of any breakthroughs in knowledge about its
cause(s).

Why are homophobes so stupid ?  It's genetic, we were born that way.
;-)

Dave "I can't help being a homophobe" Springer


You'll also find comments of his in groups like alt.impeach.clinton and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,10:36   

Hey SomeGuy,
Great tip. I ended up here.

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?....&tab=wg

Bloody ####! The man is deranged. :0

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,11:04   

The guy is just *&$ing nuts. In one of his latest comments, he suggests that engineering is so much less ad hoc than science, because engineers like himself stifle their egos when necessary. I'll add quite a few posts above his so you have the necessary context, but read through to get to DaveScot's last comment. Just mind blowing:
Quote
#

Or it may be the cosmological constant is some infinitesimal bit larger than zero which I’m sure has Einstein rolling over in his grave as he thought it was the biggest mistake of his life to stick it into GR only to have it zeroed out by observation. Shrugging this off to a non-zero CC smacks of pencil whipping to me. Oh gee, the equation didn’t work out quite right but if we just pull a constant out of our arse and adjust the value to fit the observations we can keep the theory.

Uh, no. The jury is still out on this one.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
#
Quote

Davescot

in a sense, adding a cosmological constant to einstein’s equations is the most conservative modification one can make. it *is* a modification to GR. Whether MJ can reference a better explanation i am not so sure.

yes, the jury is still out on much of this—i’ll definitely agree on that. physics is hard and we don’;t know all the answers! if we did there wouldn’t be much more physics to do

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
#
Quote

PaV
My point is that systems with random change can and often do generate patterned behavior. Patterned behavior is in not at all an indication of external design other then to say that a designer may have created certain rules for a system where random change can create patterned and ordered behavior. In short no external input is necessary for a chaotic system to create order and great complexity (CSI).

Comment by ftrp11 — January 25, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
#
Quote

i would say there are not really yet any firm theories of (this kind of) multiverse. i’m not sure to which theories you refer?

susskind’s intuition i think is that one will find universes bubbling off from our own, but there’s a lot more work to do yet i think.

there’s not much more i can say—the theories youre talking about need much more work to be well-defined. saying at this stage that these ideas will *never* be testable is premature. we don’t understand them well enough, yet.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
#
Quote

sorry that last comment to david heddle

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
#
Quote

PaV, i’d be interested in your response to #4—I think you’re being quite hasty in dismissing dark matter.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
#
Quote

Dave Scott,

Regardless of what he meant regarding the galaxy, there is no ToR breakdown. That is simply wrong.

A non-zero CC does not violate GR, it’s a term that, after realizing the universe was expanding, Einstein decided he didn’t need, since he wanted to use it to explain a steady state universe. My guess is, since it now seems to be needed, he’d be delighted at its rehabilitation.

Also, you imply that the CC was pulled out of the air to explain accelerated expansion. In fact, it has been recognized for sometime, prior to the recent observations, that a vacuum energy density looks like a cosmological constant—it was already making a comeback.

Furthermore, the CC contributes to the understanding of not just the accelerated expansion, but also the other big cosmological news: the flatness of the universe. (And also the “age” problem)

Yes the jury is still out. It often stays out for a long time in science.

Comment by David Heddle — January 25, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
#
Quote

physicist

re CC += GR (how’s that for cryptic?) :-)

The only problem with calling that the most conservative thing to do is that the amount of CC you’re adding is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than most QFT’s predict. And therein lies Heddle’s point about support for cosmological ID. The infinitesimally small value is like the mother of all fine tunings.

In engineering when things don’t work out quite like we predict and we do something like this to fix our model it’s called a kludge and it isn’t a complimentary term. Do you use that term in physics? If not you should.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
#
Quote

Davescot

At the level of classical GR there is no preference for a particular value of Lambda

one can only go so far with QFT on curved backgrounds—I agree the naive value of Lambda predicted is incorrect, but there is a lot more to the story of quantum effects and gravity. including quantum effects in gravity is a general a very hard and unsolved issue.

so i wouldn’t say the QFT indication of a large Lambda is a firm `prediction’. it has always been recognised that combining QFT and GR in this way is an ambiguous procedure. so i think kludge is misapplied.

if you want to look for fine tunings, there are lots of other constants in nature which are finely tuned–for example the precise mass ratios of fundamental particles. if you want to explain these numbers by design, you can—but part of the study of physics is seeking to find deeper and simpler underlying reasons for these apparently finely tuned numbers.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
#
Quote

so i would just re-emphasise that at the classical level, if you want to explain cosmological observations of type Ia supernovae, making lambda non-zero is indeed the simplest modification to GR you can make—and fits the observations well.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
#
Quote

David H

I didn’t know science had become the art of salvaging theories with failed predictions by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses like smidgins of constants to equations that hadn’t needed them for the past 75 years.

Excuse me. GR is in fine shape. It just needed a little work is all. The jury I guess has come in. I’m curious, is there anyone on the jury in addition to David Heddle?

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
#
Quote

This mindset of salvaging pet theories with ad hoc kludges to explain failed predictions is what propped Darwin up for so long. I see it’s not just biology that is plagued by this. Us engineers are a different breed I guess. Lives can be lost when we’re wrong so we can’t afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 1:12 pm

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,11:35   

Quote
Lives can be lost when we’re wrong so we can’t afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.


LOL. The irony is breathtaking.

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,11:37   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 24 2006,16:37)
Quote
(! ) argumentum ad populum
Quite the contrary! First, it's not an argument at all, it's an observation


A common debating technique is the appeal to popularity. It goes like this:

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Therefore statement p is true.

Part of a debate or an "argument" is making "observations" which are meant to convince your opponent or your audience that your argument is superior.



Quote
If you think your own personal "feeling" of implausibility counts for something, I'm inviting you to wonder why people who have devoted a heck of a lot of time, study and research into it don't share that feeling. If, on the other hand, you contend that your own personal feeling of implausibility counts for something because a largish fraction of the (nonspecialist) population shares that feeling, I would call that an argumentum ad populum.


I didn't make an appeal to popularity, the other person did.

Quote
(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)


That theory is that a known entity ( I know it), did a known thing (build all life), at an unknown time (a long time ago). You may not like that as a theory, but it is a theory. I don't mind if you call it something else.

Quote
(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.


I disagree. What part of the brain contains thought? Is thought part of a cell? If so which part? Which part is consciousness?

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,11:46   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,23:36)
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!

Thanks, I'm not emotionally attached to proving my point, I enjoy debate. I know where you guys are coming from, I was born and raised an atheist and an evolutionist. Most ID or creationist people will think that you guys are blind fanatics, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that everyone's thought process has to do with how our memory works. See my article at  http://tinyurl.com/7922f

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,11:47   

Quote
A common debating technique is the appeal to popularity. It goes like this:

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Therefore tatement p is true.



You're of course talking about the Discovery Institute.

Many scientists are now saying they doubt "Darwinism"...

Quote

Part of a debate or an "argument" is making "observations" which are meant to convince your opponent or your audience that your argument is superior.


Kind of like the Discovery Institute again and all their "observations" of "patterns" in nature, which of course suggests a pattern maker, or an intelligent designer

Zardoz, you're down with it.  The Disovery Institute won't be fooling you anytime soon.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,11:57   

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 25 2006,17:46)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,23:36)
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!

Thanks, I'm not emotionally attached to proving my point, I enjoy debate. I know where you guys are coming from, I was born and raised an atheist and an evolutionist. Most ID or creationist people will think that you guys are blind fanatics, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that everyone's thought process has to do with how our memory works. See my article at  http://tinyurl.com/7922f

Not getting emotionally involved in proving your point - you are a wise soul.  I also avoid getting emotionally involved with my own ideas.  This allows me to easily change or modify them in view of new evidence or understanding.  

And you and I must be historical opposites, I was raised a believer and later drop kicked that belief around the age of 30 or so.  No big deal.

I just now read your article.  We should drink beer and chat some time.

Cheers!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,12:48   

A common debating technique these days goes like this:

"I construe the point you just made as Fallacy XYZ, and therefore I'm going to just ignore it".

I see an important difference between:

"a lot of people believe p, therefore p must be true", and

"most people who have spent a lot of time studying this field have have come to the opposite conclusion".

But, as I said, it's not an argument, it was just part of pointing out that a "feeling" of "implausibility" does not count for science. Do you disagree with that?
It doesn't give you pause that, the more people study biology, the less they agree with you? Do you chalk that up to "brainwashing"?

Quote
I didn't make an appeal to popularity, the other person did.
No, your only appeal was to your own personal "feeling of implausibility". I assumed that might have been a reference, often asserted by DI types, that in effect "poll after poll shows the man on the street finds evolution implausible".  But if it's just your personal feeling, contradicted by the people that actually study the field, it's even weaker than an argumentum ad populum, isn't it?

Quote
That theory is that a known entity ( I know it), did a known thing (build all life), at an unknown time (a long time ago). You may not like that as a theory, but it is a theory. I don't mind if you call it something else.
Good; then you won't mind if I call that "Religion". I guess I don't mind if you call a dog a cat, as long as you don't run around making a nuisance of yourself insisting that everyone else, or at least the public schools, recognize that dogs are just as much cats as cats are.

Quote
"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.
Quote
I disagree. What part of the brain contains thought? Is thought part of a cell? If so which part? Which part is consciousness?
What part of a car contains motion? What evidence leads you to the notion that thought and consciousness exist anywhere without a brain?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,13:06   

Quote
#

Dr. Davison

I was suggesting you may find people more receptive to your ideas if you did not wreath them in pejorative rhetoric. Also an attack on hypothesis X is not a proof for hypothesis Y.

You wrote:

I mean no one has a working hypothesis for the origin of biological diversity that he is willing to present. No one that is except myself.

What about the theory of Intelligent Design as proposed By Behe and Dembski?

Comment by Xavier — January 25, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
#

ID is design detection as of now. It doesn’t say or predict exactly how a designer would choose to do the designing.

Comment by Patrick — January 25, 2006 @ 6:00 pm


Is Patrick confirming there is no theory of Intelligent Design?

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,14:47   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:25)
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man&#8482;, into an active engineer of evil machines.

That only applies if you subscribe to a biblically based religious philosophy, which I don't. Amongst religious philosophers that problem is sometimes called "the problem of evil". It or a variation of it is a common philosophical argument people make against the existence of a God. Variations of it include: If there is a God why isn't everyone good? Why is there apparent mistakes in biological systems? Why do bad things happen to good people? etc.

Some of these questions are based on the idea that a God entity by definition is perfect in every way and can never make any kind of non perfect outcome to any action it may take. The answer to that mistaken philosophy is that a God entity is not going to necessarily be perfect anymore then anyone else will necessarily be perfect. If you were able to create life in a lab and build a suitable environment for it to live, that act doesn't change you into a perfect being in every respect. Just because you have some talent in the scientific field doesn't change you into a being incapable of being non perfect in every way.

Biblical based philosophers cannot deal with the "problem of evil" very well because they do not accept reincarnation. If you ask them to explain why people suffer they are really at a loss to come up with a philosophically sound argument. If you ask them why are some people born into misery and others born into happiness, why are some people born into wealth, beauty, and privilege and others born into unhealthiness, non-beauty, and poverty, they cannot respond satisfactorily. I asked a knowledgable christian (non-catholic) about this question once and he told me it was because of "the sin's of the fathers". I asked what he meant and he told me that people suffer because of the actions of their ancestors. I told him that that seemed to posit a God without much fairness or compassion. Most biblical believers believe that ultimately human suffering is due to the "original sin" of Adam. Depending on who you ask you will get a different take (either a literal or esoteric explanation) of what that means. Although however it is explained it still has the problem of God being either uninvolved and therefore a non-caring, uncompassionate entity, or involved but not fair and equitable in dealing with people.

Catholic theologian Hans Kung has written a book where he makes a comparison between hindu and biblical philosophies on the problem of evil,  and his conclusion was that the hindu philosophy was more philosophically fulfilling.

In hinduism it is taught that people are born into this world (or many other similar earth type worlds) for the purpose of developing a perfected state of consciousness. People are taken on a journey throughout their existence in the world of samsara (birth, death, rebirth) until they reach a stage of enlightenment and perfection. Along the way they will face many challenges which will call for them to make decisions on how to treat others. As they choose they accrue karma, good or bad. It takes many lifetimes to come to the perfectional stage whereupon the person leaves the world of birth, death, and rebirth, and then attains to a life in the perfected world. What that perfected world is like is understood differently by different hindu religions.

"Evil" in this world is taught as being the reaction which people have to previous actions they took in their previous life. The idea taught is that the consciousness of the individual is a very complex thing. There are deep rooted pathologies which can develop and take lifetimes to overcome. The "bad karma" one experiences is meant to create a perfected sense of empathy within the individual. If someone is born into misery, or is suffering due to the actions of others, it is taught that God has arranged for that suffering based solely on the bad karma that person has developed. If I was cruel to someone in my previous life then my next life will be arranged so that I will experience cruelty of the same magnitude in order to develop empathy. So in hinduism it is taught that God arranges what type of birth you have and what you will experience in life based upon what God thinks you need to experience in order to advance on the path towards perfection.

Someone may object and say that the philosophy of karma leads people to think that people deserve whatever bad happens to them, so why should they help or care if God sanctions the suffering of people? If someone is suffering or being abused by another person doesn't karma teach that the person being abused deserves it?

The answer is that there is more to the teaching on karma then that. You will gain bad karma if you allow the suffering of others to go on if you can help to stop it. So it's taught that Dharma, or righteous action, goes hand in hand with Karma, or action/reaction. Yes people are suffering because they caused suffering previously, but if you can stop their suffering when you can, then you have the duty to do that. Otherwise you accrue bad karma.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,15:19   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 25 2006,18:48)

It doesn't give you pause that, the more people study biology, the less they agree with you? Do you chalk that up to "brainwashing"?


There are hundreds of scientists, many who are biologists in fields of work related to evolution who reject evolution. So your argument would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Quote
I didn't make an appeal to popularity, the other person did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your only appeal was to your own personal "feeling of implausibility". I assumed that might have been a reference, often asserted by DI types, that in effect "poll after poll shows the man on the street finds evolution implausible".  But if it's just your personal feeling, contradicted by the people that actually study the field, it's even weaker than an argumentum ad populum, isn't it?


No, I intended no reference. There are many scientists in many fields associated with evolution who reject evolution. Therefore your argument is another hasty generalization and an appeal to popularity.

Quote
That theory is that a known entity ( I know it), did a known thing (build all life), at an unknown time (a long time ago). You may not like that as a theory, but it is a theory. I don't mind if you call it something else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good; then you won't mind if I call that "Religion". I guess I don't mind if you call a dog a cat, as long as you don't run around making a nuisance of yourself insisting that everyone else, or at least the public schools, recognize that dogs are just as much cats as cats are.


I don't care if it's taught in schools or not. You can call it a theory with religious implications. The word religion isn't cognate with ID because a religious belief is not necessarily going to have a doctrine or dogma which posits a God or a God who builds life and the cosmos. Good examples are persons like a Ken Miller or a George Coyne. George Coyne has a religious belief but he rejects the belief that his "God" is involved with the direction of what he calls  universal "increasing complexity". He believes that some kind of ineffable God thingee who is all about "love" somehow created the laws of nature and then set off the big bang and then went back to stewing in his own juices, leaving the universe to do whatever would happen without interference from then on.

Quote
What evidence leads you to the notion that thought and consciousness exist anywhere without a brain?


There is no direct empirical evidence as of yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not true. For instance a few posts ago I gave a link to an article I wrote on memory. From my analysis on memory I can postulate a non physical source of our memory system. The only other evidence I have is direct personal experience.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,15:43   

Zardoz:

Quote
There are hundreds of scientists, many who are biologists in fields of work related to evolution who reject evolution. So your argument would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I'd be really curious about the basis for this statement. After all, the DI can only find 400 total people willing to sign their statement, very very few of whom are biologists. And the statement they signed, far from rejecting evolution, actually says they are skeptical that natural selection explains all there is about evolution. But minus the (pretty obvious) political intent, nearly ANY biologist would sign such a statement. After all, it's commonly recognized that natural selection is NOT the only mechanism of evolution.

Note please that the statement *admits* evolution; it only expresses skepticism that one single mechanism is the sole mechanism.

Now, here you have "hundreds of scientists, MANY of them biologists" who REJECT evolution. Where'd you get them? The DI would very much love to hear from you!

And if you can NOT produce them, if you are just making this claim out of whole cloth, your argument has no merit.

Quote
You can call it a theory with religious implications.

Only in the vernacular use of "theory" to mean "wild guess, baseless hunch, or mindless preference." It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense of being based on a solid body of evidence, making falsifiable predictions which have been well-tested (and honed as those falsifiable predictions have failed to pan out). In the scientific sense, ID has no theoretical basis whatsoever; it says nothing except "I refuse to accept that a feedback process operating over 4 billion years can produce what we see. I refuse! I refuse! So there!"

Quote
There is no direct empirical evidence as of yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not true.

You may not wish to lean too heavily on this argument - the Flying Spaghetti Monster may take offense!

It's generally considered rational to presume the absence of anything for which no evidence exists, and that those making positive claims (that something exist) use actual evidence in support, rather than simply saying "you can't prove me wrong."

I eagerly await your source of hundreds of biologists who reject evolution. PLEASE let us know, OK?

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,15:46   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 25 2006,17:57)
Not getting emotionally involved in proving your point - you are a wise soul.  I also avoid getting emotionally involved with my own ideas.  This allows me to easily change or modify them in view of new evidence or understanding.  

And you and I must be historical opposites, I was raised a believer and later drop kicked that belief around the age of 30 or so.  No big deal.

I just now read your article.  We should drink beer and chat some time.

Cheers!

I was raised without any religion nor any kind of religious exposure. Then when I was 20 I started to practice yoga and also ate some peyote one starry moonlit night on San Diego's mission bay. The yoga philosophy was new and interesting but the peyote opened up my mind to another dimension, whereupon I "met" "God". Peyote has been used for thousands of years by many native american tribes as a religious sacrament. They believe that by eating peyote you can communicate with your "spirit guide". So essentially that was what happened to me, except my "spirit guide" showed me what he/she truly is e.g one with all of nature. I was inspired to dive into the study of yoga philosophy which would enable me years later to once again communicate with "God", although without needing peyote to see the true nature of the hidden reality all around and within us.

Beer sounds good to me :D

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,15:49   

Flint,
You are cheating. No evidence should be necesary to prove ID. All ID needs is to find 1 hole in evolution. Then evolution is automatically wrong (completely and utterly) and ID totally proved.

Surely you knew that, you scamp. :D

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,15:51   

Stephen Elliott:

I'd go one step further. All ID needs for absolute proof of God is to ALLEGE one hole in evolution, *provided* enough people can be persuaded to believe it.