Behe-McWhorter Back Online

_{William Dembski

August 31, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[Update 8.31.09: The McWhorter-Behe interview is back online at Bloggingheads; Robert Wright, who heads Bloggingheads, was incommunicado during the interview’s removal and on his return to wired reality decided to put the dialogue back up. For his explanation of what happened, go here: bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075]

[Update 8.28.09: Michael Behe has just posted his take on the bloggingheads matter — behe.uncommondescent.com]

Isn’t the Internet wonderful. Bloggingheads takes down the Behe-McWhorter discussion one day. A few hours later it’s back up:

View on ExposureRoom

Comments

YakkyD You need to read the material Sternberg has at the linked. Then, think very, very carefully about where institutional science, government, law enforcement and the civlisation are headed on this track. (Perhaps a glance at this book may help.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict 102: I joined the discussion late, but restoring the link was indeed the honourable thing to do, and good for Bloggingheads! A strict Bloggingheads policy of not removing vlogs is wise because it protects all parties. One party may be under pressure from various sources to demand the removal of the vlog - but that creates the impression that he believes he has lost a debate. How does that help him? Also, there is no clear way for his supporters to defend his position. Various parties may have archived the vlog, but discussion then becomes a huge mess, as there is no one single official Bloggingheads link that we reasonably believe no one has tampered with.O'Leary_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Heh, BHTV doesn't want to look biased/bad. Too late. But I'm still glad they re-posted it. It's really the honorable thing to do.IRQ Conflict_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Sorry Clive. Didn't see you post till after I made mine.IRQ Conflict_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

No more discussion about Muslims.Clive Hayden_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

IRQ, I have been to muslim countries. Muslims by far are very decent people. It is only the very few who do bad things. Why don't the moderates speak out? Two reasons that I can see: 1- They do not want to die 2- It is up to Allah to judge and punish. But anyway if there are 100 million muslims and 1% are "bad" people, that makes 1 million. 1 million is 1000 people in 1000 cities. Sure that seems like a lot but in context it isn't. Now look at Christians- they fight each other. And they form groups that don't like different skin colors. BTW Islam, Christianity and Judaism trace back to Abraham- IOW they all worship the same "God".Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict,
There are decent people that have been raised as Muslims yes. But by far they are the minority.
When you say decent Muslims are by far in the minority, about what percentage are you talking about? Give me a rough estimate. Also, to what extent are your views about Muslims determined through person-to-person interaction rather than reports from the media? Do you have many Muslim friends or coworkers?yakky d_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

yakky d, There are decent people that have been raised as Muslims yes. But by far they are the minority. Why do you think it is that the so-called 'moderate' Muslims rarely if ever cry out at the atrocities committed by adherents to Islam? It's not rocket science. There are things you need to know about true Islam. Here's but the latest sampling: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/killing_rifqa.html 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.IRQ Conflict_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict,
Quite like Muslims, “Taqqyia”, Darwinists are more than ready to lie and ~~behead~~ give the axe to those who insult Darwin. No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.
It's a bit less graphic, but still needs improvement IMHO :D On a more serious note, while I'm not a big fan of Islam, I do have a lot of respect for many of the Muslims I have gotten to know over the years. There's no need to make these insulting stereotypical statements to support the case for ID. lamarck,
Is there any way we can confirm that Yakky’s actually pro-ID? Yakky it was a brilliant scheme to pose as a darwinist with underhanded softball after softball, and striking out each time when you’re up to bat.
So I'm a double-secret-reverse deep cover sock? Interesting hypothesis! :Dyakky d_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Is there any way we can confirm that Yakky's actually pro-ID? Yakky it was a brilliant scheme to pose as a darwinist with underhanded softball after softball, and striking out each time when you're up to bat. But it's getting played out. Conspiracy after conspiracy is unearthed and confirmed, making your clever ruse too obvious. Come on back over to our side with your other username bro, well done.lamarck_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

yakky d Wrote: "Do you approve of accusing “Darwinists” of “proverbial” beheadings?" Would you have taken offense if I had said 'they gave him the axe'?IRQ Conflict_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Clarification to my post #92: I probably didn't choose the best portion of KF's post to quote; I'm addressing Behe's allegation of and KF's commentary on alleged "cyberbullies" at BloggingHeads.yakky d_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

KF,
Ouch! Shades of Sternberg! [Remember, Sternberg's thought crime was to have HOSTED a successfully peer reviewed pro ID article. So we see the uncivil spirit we are up against in full cry once again.]
Have you read the thread over at BloggingHeads? I would challenge you to do so and compare it to some of the comments in this very blog post. Do you approve of accusing "Darwinists" of "proverbial" beheadings? You've even referred NCSE and ACLU "shock/storm troopers" yourself in #56. And I'm not even sure what this means:
And that will not do, Mr McWhorter, tut tut: time for brass knuckles, spiked baseball bats -- so much more useful as a club than a cricket bat -- and spike nailed boots.
but it sounds as if you are accusing "Darwinists" of plotting physical violence. Not a very "civil spirit" I would say.yakky d_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

I don’t much care about Dr Sternberg being let go, but I’d love to see you give some evidence that the NCSE are fascists.
I'd recommend the website NCSE Exposed: No Victim-Blaming Allowed!ShawnBoy_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Speaking about Dawkins... it seems to be very easy to get on Dawkins's wrong side:
... Dawkins was typically scathing: “A clergyman in charge of education for the country’s leading scientific organisation — it’s a Monty Python sketch.”
He said this about Michael Reiss.
That Reiss possessed better pro-evolution credentials than most (a PhD in evolutionary biology from the University of Cambridge) counted for nothing...
Michael Reiss was dismissed as director of education at the Royal Society, due to the misrepresentations of Dawkins and others. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6425138.eceEndoplasmicMessenger_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Indeed, Here is Behe's context for the remarks cited above:
Because of the magic of the internet, it turns out that shortly after the show’s posting the comments section of the site was overrun by “bitterly virulent” (in the words of one principal in this saga) cyber bullies, some murmuring darkly about a grim future for Bloggingheads. After I found out the video was removed I emailed John McWhorter and the editor to ask for an explanation, and John emailed back that he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit. I find that quite implausible (other shows on the site feature discussions between people who agree on many things). Rather, I suspect the folks at the website weren’t expecting the vitriolic reaction, began to worry about their good names and future employment prospects, pictured themselves banished to a virtual leper colony, panicked, and folded.
Ouch! Shades of Sternberg! [Remember, Sternberg's thought crime was to have HOSTED a successfully peer reviewed pro ID article. So we see the uncivil spirit we are up against in full cry once again.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

PS: Went over to Behe's UD blog. turns out the Nelson-Numbers discussion was also on Blogginheads. And, it was a very civil and thoughtful discussion. H'm m m . . .kairosfocus_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Well, well:
he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit.
A civil-toned, respectful discussion on the merits that raise issues and challenges and heard out the answers was "going too easy"? Why wasn't there simply a follow up panel discussion which raised the issues and moderated the exchanges to be just as civil and serious, between say Behe and PZM, with McWhorter as moderator? (In short, the excuses sound lamer and lamer . . . at least, to anyone who has listened to the interview. I am pretty sure that if Behe did not have his ducks in a row, he would have had a rout not an interview! [that is,t eh objection from the thought police is that Behe -- given a level playing field -- came across very well. And that will not do, Mr McWhorter, tut tut: time for brass knuckles, spiked baseball bats -- so much more useful as a club than a cricket bat -- and spike nailed boots.]) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Could someone let me know if my links work OK or not? Thanks!IRQ Conflict_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

For some reason this response to DATCG didn't post after I submitted it, so I'll try again.
Please do tell Reg. What in that video looks silly? Care to expand on which questions or answers were silly?
I've seen the first few minutes of the video and Dr McWhorter comes across as a bit of an awestruck fan-boy lavishly praising Behe's book. And his mystification at how skunks could possibly have come to be without an Intelligence crafting their stink-squirters was funny.
What you think about the fascist NCSE shutting down Dr. Sternberg after he published an ID friendly paper?
I don't much care about Dr Sternberg being let go, but I'd love to see you give some evidence that the NCSE are fascists. I've not noticed them herding opponents into extermination camps, wanting to implement a policy of "racial hygiene" or trying to eradicate Jews.Reg_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Correction to #83, last sentence: Maybe he didn't realize what an uproar pulling the video would cause.yakky d_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

DATCG, I've been away today enjoying a nice late-summer day hike, so missed the new developments. First, thanks for explaining that some of your comments are in jest; I have to admit you do have a way with words. I don't want to get sidetracked into the Vermont issue or PZ's views on tenure. All I claimed was that I didn't think it was PZ's or Dawkins' style to request that a video such as McWhorter's be taken down after it had been posted. Now it appears McWhorter has explained the situation to Behe:
After I found out the video was removed I emailed John McWhorter and the editor to ask for an explanation, and John emailed back that he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit.
which is more or less what some bloggers had conjectured. Of course, this is the internet, so no one (not even Behe) is going to believe McWhorter's rather humdrum explanation. Not enough Darwinian shock troops or NCSE thought police, I guess. If McWhorter's explanation is true, I think he made a pretty big mistake. Maybe he didn't what an uproar pulling the video would cause.yakky d_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

The only ones looking silly today are the Darwinist and moonbats on that site that attacked him. Anyone notice that the Darwinist do not care about the censorhip by the other side at all? From Dawkins to PZ Meyers and the NCSE. But by golly, it "just appears" McWhorter got his religion back and according to Reg, "looked silly." Please do tell Reg. What in that video looks silly? Care to expand on which questions or answers were silly?DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Reg, Chuckles, you're a hoot. "Maybe ~~Dr McWhorter~~ Darwinist just felt he came out the whole thing looking monumentally silly and would prefer it hadn’t happened." Did you listen to the video at all? Did you hear or read what he said about Dr. Behe's book? He is most likely being "reprogrammed" by NCSE and other Darwinist right now. Hey Reg, What you think about the fascist NCSE shutting down Dr. Sternberg after he published an ID friendly paper?DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

To bad IDnet.com.au, I hope he eventually feels safe to speak.DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Emails sent to McWhorter via bloggingheads.tv and his fan site have not been responded to. He may be busy or he may have decided that keeping quiet will allow the whole incident to die.idnet.com.au_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

lol.... preview is not well "designed" by intelligent agents. Hmmmm... maybe it'll evolve by itself overtime.DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

well... guess not... must I use ~~"strike"~~ instead of s /sDATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Speculation that a Darwinist Mob leaned on Dr McWhorter seems unnecessary. Posts get deleted at UncommonDescent.com from time to time; presumably because the author decided that on balance they'd rather not have posted it, and not as a reaction to a cabal threatening their career. If even at UncommonDescent - which is surely a safe harbor from Darwinist intimidation - people sometimes remove their postings, then clearly Darwninist Men In Black are not required. Maybe Dr McWhorter just felt he came out the whole thing looking monumentally silly and would prefer it hadn't happened. I've got no evidence for that, but neither does Dr Dembski have any evidence of sinister influences leaning on him to pull the interview.Reg_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Hmmm, strikeout edit... "Fogel wrote that in a letter to Richard Dawkins (pictured above), the well-known evolutionary biologist Fascist Selfish Gene who was the most prominent of several scientists other fascist selfish genes protesting the choice of Stein, an outspoken advocate of “Intelligent Design,” scientific dissent.” There, thats better.DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply