Comments on: Allen Orr in the New Yorker — A Response http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mark My Words http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-678 Mark My Words Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:14:21 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-678 <strong>Intelligent Design - New Yorker editorial - part 2</strong> As I mentioned in part 1, Dembski has also responded to Orr. A couple of excerpts but do take the time to check out his entire response and also his links to previous replies to critiques of Intelligent Design (ID). Intelligent Design – New Yorker editorial – part 2

As I mentioned in part 1, Dembski has also responded to Orr. A couple of excerpts but do take the time to check out his entire response and also his links to previous replies to critiques of Intelligent Design (ID).

]]> By: Telic Thoughts » Orr Misrepresents Science http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-521 Telic Thoughts » Orr Misrepresents Science Mon, 30 May 2005 08:16:12 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-521 [...] the flagellum is descended from the TTSS? PS. William Dembski at Uncommon Descent has a longer reply, though more overbearing of Orr’s misrepresentation. References Macn [...] [...] the flagellum is descended from the TTSS? PS. William Dembski at Uncommon Descent has a longer reply, though more overbearing of Orr’s misrepresentation. References Macn [...]

]]> By: neurode http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-517 neurode Sun, 29 May 2005 20:32:19 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-517 Good rebuttal. However, do you really mean to bend over backward to accommodate your critics? You do so here: "While it is true that there is no strict logical contradiction between the nonteleological view of evolution that Orr holds and theism..." In fact, it is very possible that there are all kinds of strict logical contradictions implied by these two views. Accordingly, the most that can be said is that these implications either haven't been clearly enough spelled out in places accessible to Orr and company, or that Orr has failed to understand them despite a fair chance to do so. (Of course, for some people, perhaps including Orr, it would make very little difference how well they were spelled out; they would still go unacknowledged.) Good rebuttal. However, do you really mean to bend over backward to accommodate your critics? You do so here: “While it is true that there is no strict logical contradiction between the nonteleological view of evolution that Orr holds and theism…” In fact, it is very possible that there are all kinds of strict logical contradictions implied by these two views. Accordingly, the most that can be said is that these implications either haven’t been clearly enough spelled out in places accessible to Orr and company, or that Orr has failed to understand them despite a fair chance to do so. (Of course, for some people, perhaps including Orr, it would make very little difference how well they were spelled out; they would still go unacknowledged.)

]]> By: Alan Fox http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-512 Alan Fox Sun, 29 May 2005 07:36:14 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-512 I see Panda's Thumb are claiming that this site deletes unfavourable comments. See http://www.pandasthumb.org/ [Not unfavorable comments as such, but insipid and asinine comments. --WmAD] I see Panda’s Thumb are claiming that this site deletes unfavourable comments. See http://www.pandasthumb.org/

[Not unfavorable comments as such, but insipid and asinine comments. --WmAD]

]]> By: Benjii http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-504 Benjii Sat, 28 May 2005 20:54:55 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-504 Orr is just dead wrong! Orr is just dead wrong!

]]> By: DaveScot http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-502 DaveScot Sat, 28 May 2005 14:40:04 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-502 "Another is that my mathematics is giving theoretical support to intuitions that most people have for a long time harbored." Bingo! I sure don't envy you the task of trying to quantify intuition. But on the other hand, it's gotta be easier than quantifying a random evolutionary path from stinger to flagellum. :-) “Another is that my mathematics is giving theoretical support to intuitions that most people have for a long time harbored.”

Bingo!

I sure don’t envy you the task of trying to quantify intuition. But on the other hand, it’s gotta be easier than quantifying a random evolutionary path from stinger to flagellum. :-)

]]> By: O'Leary http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/allen-orr-in-the-new-yorker-a-brief-response/comment-page-1/#comment-501 O'Leary Sat, 28 May 2005 10:41:57 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comment-501 “What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective.” - H.Allen Orr No. No no no! The subjective part is not the accumulation of the narrative but the EDITING. Accumulating a narrative is an objective process. You study, photograph, tape, videotape, make notes, collect objects, accumulate paper, run tests, stand around in the rain waiting for an opportunity to trap something or someone ... . Once you actually HAVE a narrative, you must edit it because no one can address millions of pages of unedited facts. And editing is a subjective process because we are subjects, not objects. Does Orr actually have millions of pages of facts that he needs to edit, to come up with an answer to Behe's challenge? But he can't, because he is uncertain how to make the subjective decisions? Is that truly the problem? No. Orr's problem has nothing to do with subjectivity; the problem is gaps in the fact base. I do not know whether Orr misunderstands his problem or misrepresents it, but either way, he needs to look at it again. Denyse O'Leary Toronto author of By Design or by Chance? (www.designorchance.com) “What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective.” – H.Allen Orr

No. No no no!

The subjective part is not the accumulation of the narrative but the EDITING.

Accumulating a narrative is an objective process. You study, photograph, tape, videotape, make notes, collect objects, accumulate paper, run tests, stand around in the rain waiting for an opportunity to trap something or someone … .

Once you actually HAVE a narrative, you must edit it because no one can address millions of pages of unedited facts. And editing is a subjective process because we are subjects, not objects.

Does Orr actually have millions of pages of facts that he needs to edit, to come up with an answer to Behe’s challenge? But he can’t, because he is uncertain how to make the subjective decisions? Is that truly the problem?

No. Orr’s problem has nothing to do with subjectivity; the problem is gaps in the fact base.

I do not know whether Orr misunderstands his problem or misrepresents it, but either way, he needs to look at it again.

Denyse O’Leary
Toronto
author of By Design or by Chance? (www.designorchance.com)

]]>