Comments on: Derbyshire reviews (and seems to have read) Berlinski http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:17:53 +0000 hourly 1 By: ungtss http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-2/#comment-268047 ungtss Thu, 01 May 2008 16:59:39 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-268047 <i>Alternative explanation to #1: Berlinski is using hyperbole in the first piece. In #1 above, he’s making a tongue-in-cheek technical argument to ridicule Derbyshire’s hysterical objections.</i> Maybe -- but if so, the ridicule is too tongue in cheek to be picked up on by us ordinary folks. Instead, it comes off like quibbling. Alternative explanation to #1:

Berlinski is using hyperbole in the first piece. In #1 above, he’s making a tongue-in-cheek technical argument to ridicule Derbyshire’s hysterical objections.

Maybe — but if so, the ridicule is too tongue in cheek to be picked up on by us ordinary folks. Instead, it comes off like quibbling.

]]> By: ungtss http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-2/#comment-268034 ungtss Thu, 01 May 2008 16:55:22 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-268034 thogan @ 28: I love that battleplan. That's the real dela. I would also love to take a look at your epistemology materials for purposes of critique anytime you're interested in passing it my way. thogan @ 28:

I love that battleplan. That’s the real dela. I would also love to take a look at your epistemology materials for purposes of critique anytime you’re interested in passing it my way.

]]> By: gpuccio http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-2/#comment-268021 gpuccio Thu, 01 May 2008 16:48:48 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-268021 But, paraphrasing the same Berlinski: "A a tongue-in-cheek technical argument is not required to make Derbyshire look foolish." But, paraphrasing the same Berlinski:

“A a tongue-in-cheek technical argument is not required to make Derbyshire look foolish.”

]]> By: gpuccio http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-268010 gpuccio Thu, 01 May 2008 16:46:14 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-268010 russ: "Alternative explanation to #1:" I would agree with you. I admire Berlinski immensely, but probably his only "flaw" is that sometimes he is too smart for "normal people" like us... russ:

“Alternative explanation to #1:”

I would agree with you. I admire Berlinski immensely, but probably his only “flaw” is that sometimes he is too smart for “normal people” like us…

]]> By: russ http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-267840 russ Thu, 01 May 2008 15:59:10 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-267840 Alternative explanation to #1: Berlinski is using hyperbole in the first piece. In #1 above, he's making a tongue-in-cheek technical argument to ridicule Derbyshire's hysterical objections. Alternative explanation to #1:

Berlinski is using hyperbole in the first piece. In #1 above, he’s making a tongue-in-cheek technical argument to ridicule Derbyshire’s hysterical objections.

]]> By: thogan http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-266207 thogan Thu, 01 May 2008 02:27:04 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-266207 ungtss @ 19 1. The churches need to quit being cowardly about the origins issue and confront it. We need a major world-wide conference about it like the other church councils. 2. Churches need to encourage young people to enter science. 3. Scientists/professors need a legal organization like the Home School Legal Defense Organization to support them. 4. Churches need to abandon intellectual laziness and cowardice and educate people in proper epistemology and philosophy of science. This means that pastors need to know something about these things which means that seminaries/colleges will need to teach them. Basically, the anti-evolution community needs to make this an issue in the churches and provide support for seminaries and pastors. I have been working on a sound epistemology and philosophy of science for some time now in order to help accomplish this. I need people to critique it, but so far I haven't gotten much feedback on UD when I have presented it. I have blogged about it elsewhere and have gotten feedback there. I don't think that it has any obvious holes, but it needs more testing. Currently, it's two pairs of two serialized papers and is a bare skeleton of what it could be. I believe I have an answer to the demarcation question. ungtss @ 19

1. The churches need to quit being cowardly about the origins issue and confront it. We need a major world-wide conference about it like the other church councils.

2. Churches need to encourage young people to enter science.

3. Scientists/professors need a legal organization like the Home School Legal Defense Organization to support them.

4. Churches need to abandon intellectual laziness and cowardice and educate people in proper epistemology and philosophy of science. This means that pastors need to know something about these things which means that seminaries/colleges will need to teach them.

Basically, the anti-evolution community needs to make this an issue in the churches and provide support for seminaries and pastors.

I have been working on a sound epistemology and philosophy of science for some time now in order to help accomplish this. I need people to critique it, but so far I haven’t gotten much feedback on UD when I have presented it. I have blogged about it elsewhere and have gotten feedback there. I don’t think that it has any obvious holes, but it needs more testing. Currently, it’s two pairs of two serialized papers and is a bare skeleton of what it could be. I believe I have an answer to the demarcation question.

]]> By: interested http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-265858 interested Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:46:14 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-265858 i think my fantasy debate would be between Richard Dawkins and David Berlinski.....but i feel confident that Dawkins is far too much of a coward to attend that debate. i bet Hitchens would take him up on it.....he is too arrogant to know he would get schooled. for all of Dawkin's arrogance, he is still smart enough to know he is not as smart as Berlinski.... at least that's my take..... i think my fantasy debate would be between Richard Dawkins and David Berlinski…..but i feel confident that Dawkins is far too much of a coward to attend that debate. i bet Hitchens would take him up on it…..he is too arrogant to know he would get schooled. for all of Dawkin’s arrogance, he is still smart enough to know he is not as smart as Berlinski….

at least that’s my take…..

]]> By: scordova http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-265844 scordova Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:38:22 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-265844 Derbyshire is from the John Kwok/PT-mafia school of review writing. Derbyshire is from the John Kwok/PT-mafia school of review writing.

]]> By: Rude http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-265103 Rude Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:04:24 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-265103 Yes, intelligence is <em>necessary</em> for the origin of design (of species and of life and of technology) and <em>unexplained</em> by mere mechanism (chance and necessity) at any level, i.e., it's a "sky hook" and not a "crane" (a la Daniel Dennett) as Angus Menuge shows. Yes, intelligence is necessary for the origin of design (of species and of life and of technology) and unexplained by mere mechanism (chance and necessity) at any level, i.e., it’s a “sky hook” and not a “crane” (a la Daniel Dennett) as Angus Menuge shows.

]]> By: bFast http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/comment-page-1/#comment-265009 bFast Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:26:40 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/derbyshire-reviews-and-seems-to-have-read-berlinski/#comment-265009 Praxiteles:<blockquote>Design isn’t the issue; evolutionists agree that there is design. What is at issue is the mechanism for the design. </blockquote> Praxiteles, you are correct. I rememember a long while back that we had a debate on here as to whether the term "intelligent" was required. But it is. If non-intelligence (lacking foresight), a simple filter, can account for the design that exists in nature, then there is no need for an intelligent (foresighted) agent. Praxiteles:
Design isn’t the issue; evolutionists agree that there is design.

What is at issue is the mechanism for the design.

Praxiteles, you are correct. I rememember a long while back that we had a debate on here as to whether the term “intelligent” was required. But it is. If non-intelligence (lacking foresight), a simple filter, can account for the design that exists in nature, then there is no need for an intelligent (foresighted) agent.

]]>