Home » Intelligent Design » Here’s Shellska’s slide show

25 Responses to Here’s Shellska’s slide show

1. 1

   scordovaJuly 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm

   “Shellska’s slide show” is a real tongue twister. Anyway, the context of Shellska’s presentation I describe in this comment pertaining to T-shirtgate:

   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-428961

   T-shirtgate that happened during the same conference (TAM 2102) where Shellska and Eugenie Scott made presentations and is considerbaly more entertaining than the actual presentations themselves.
2. 2

   GregoryJuly 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm

   Worth noting: Slide 36 – Steve Fuller’s book “Dissent Over Descent” is featured alongside Behe, Dembski and Meyer.

   It may be a junk dissertation. But that recognition is still a stick in the eye to those who would reject Fuller’s ‘front-line contribution.’

   Slide 42 is a reference to Brian Alters’ proposal to SSHRC, which was rejected. Caused a big stink in “Humanist Perspectives.” I tried to reach him when I was in Montreal, without success. Evolutionism (to say nothing of Darwinism) runs rampant in some circles.

   Not a surprise to see her speak of the demarcation shift into Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Might make you people think you should seek allies in that field who can respond to her. But then again, oh, wait, that’s not what IDM-ID is *supposed to be* about! Better to ignore what isn’t understood?
3. 3

   scordovaJuly 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm

   It may be a junk dissertation.

   For the record, that is not my view. I think she’s mistaken on a few points, but the object of her study of the communication methods of the DI is a topic worthy of research in her discipline (communications).

   The DI has, afterall, been very successful at communications despite the incredibly tiny size of the actual ID work. They’ve been influential despite being a very small (relatively speaking) think tank.
4. 4

   NewsJuly 31, 2012 at 3:05 pm

   Sal, right on! DI has been astoundingly successful given the heft – including taxpayer heft – of the institutions arrayed against it.

   This woman does not sound like a person worthy of the topic – she lacks the intellectual curiosity. She is looking for villains, rather than trying to understand the causes of things.

   There are boatloads of these people in Canada, and we recently have had to start repealing the type of legislation that empowers them.

   She’ll get her PhD and then spout somewhere in a sociology course – the topic is still available for serious research, of course: How – specifically – the Internet changed everything.
5. 5

   scordovaJuly 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm

   Shellska might improve her thesis by comparing and contrasting the DI’s communication style with say Larry Moran.

   The DI’s David Klinghoffer gave Larry a lesson in persuasive communication:

   You Go Larry Moran

   Shellska might do well to describe how evolutionists have disrupted their own channels of communication. When I had IDEA clubs, I loved pointing the students to the websites of PZ Myers. I don’t think Myers appreciates how helpful he’s been to ID.
6. 6

   NewsJuly 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm

   Well, Sal, PZ doesn’t come cheap, but he is worth the investment. Larry Moran, … nah! But the Canadian government funds him, you see, so …
7. 7

   NewsJuly 31, 2012 at 4:48 pm

   Anyway, Shellska just needs to spout some politically correct bilge and it’ll all be okay with her supervisors.

   Come to think of it, Sal, she would most likely be in trouble if she did actually investigate the matter seriously.

   It’s not something her supervisors really want to know.

   For a genuinely curious person, of course, the subject would certainly repay study.

   How, for example, does Uncommon Descent manage to survive on almost nothing? Just five people fed up with Darwinism. No government nothing. No church nothing.

   And you should see the site stats. Clearly,we are not alone.
8. 8

   sergiomendesJuly 31, 2012 at 5:54 pm

   many names mentioned of which i am not knowledgeable of. are they intelligent design supporters? PZ, Larry Moran, David Klinghoffer, Eugenie Scott. DI = Discovery INstitute? this organization i am not knowledgeable of. where to find out? Thank you

   sergio
9. 9

   scordovaJuly 31, 2012 at 6:00 pm

   sergio,

   Glad to help, but first can you tell me how you found out about this website, UncommonDescent?

   Sal
10. 10

    bornagain77July 31, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Shellska is fighting a uphill battle if she wants to declare Intelligent Design is merely Creationism in a cheap tuxedo and is therefore unscientific because it is the scientific evidence itself from biology, coming out on a fairly quick regular basis, that keeps screaming Intelligently Designed! For instance this article that came out today stated that mathematicians found that microRNA performs many actions simultaneously in protein development, basically acting to get the job done (regulating the speed of protein production) in a stable and efficient way, given whatever conditions th
    e experiment is occurring in.

    Mathematicians find solution to biological building block puzzle – July 31, 2012
    Excerpt: For a long time molecular biologists thought that the major role of RNA in living cells was to serve as a copy of a gene and a template for producing proteins, major cell building blocks. This belief had been changed at the end of 90s when it was found that myriads of RNA molecules are involved in regulating speeds of practically all molecular mechanisms in a cell. These abundant molecules are essential in regulating the speed of protein production– a vital function in bodily processes, including development, differentiation and cancer. The problem to date has been that scientists have differed over interpretations of how the production of the major building blocks of a cell, proteins, is controlled by microRNAs. Basically, there were different and sometimes conflicting theories about ways in which microRNAs regulate protein production since the results varied depending on only slightly changed experimental conditions. ,,,
    “Quite dramatically, there has been a series of reports in top-ranked journals with contradictory results supporting one or another mechanism. Furthermore, researchers are puzzled by the fact that the same couple of protein and microRNA demonstrate different mechanisms of regulation in different biological labs or in slightly changed experimental conditions.”,,,
    Professor Gorban said: “We have shown that what appeared to be very different mechanisms are in fact manifestations of one relatively simple biochemical reaction, but taking place in various contexts. “Our model proposes that microRNA performs many actions simultaneously to the protein development, basically acting to get the job done (regulating the speed of protein production) in a stable and efficient way, given whatever conditions the experiment is occurring in.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-m.....uzzle.html

    Now finding that microRNAs are basically acting to get the job done (regulating the speed of protein production) in a stable and efficient way, given whatever conditions the experiment is occurring in, regardless of what Shellska may think a-priori about ID, is not something that was expected in her preferred reductive materialistic framework of the ‘bottom up’ modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism, yet such elegant regulation of protein production is something that would rightly be expected in a ‘top down’ Intelligent Design framework:

    footnotes on ‘efficiency’ of the cell:

    Optimal Design of Metabolism – Dr. Fazale Rana – July 2012
    Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways ) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition.
    http://www.reasons.org/article.....metabolism

    Life Leads the Way to Invention – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale.
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20100226a

    This stunning energy efficiency of a cell is found across all life domains, thus strongly suggesting that all life on earth was Intelligently Design for maximal efficiency instead of accidentally, and gradually, evolved:

    Mean mass-specific metabolic rates are strikingly similar across life’s major domains: Evidence for life’s metabolic optimum
    Excerpt: Here, using the largest database to date, for 3,006 species that includes most of the range of biological diversity on the planet—from bacteria to elephants, and algae to sapling trees—we show that metabolism displays a striking degree of homeostasis across all of life.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2572558/

    Also of interest is that the coding in the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seem to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle for ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy efficiency. The amazing efficiency possible with ‘reversible computation’ has been known about since Rolf Landauer, but as far as I know, due to the extreme level of complexity in achieving it for computer programs, has yet to be accomplish in any meaningful way for computers even to this day:

    Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon – Charles H. Bennett
    Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,,
    http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~.....501_03.pdf

    Further note on the unmatched complexity of the cell:

    How we could create life: The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell – Paul Davies – 2002
    Excerpt: Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level. – Paul Davies
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/educ.....ucation.uk

    It is this type of overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design that Shellska needs to worry about and not about any less than forthright motives that she may imagine the Intelligent Design movement having at large.

    As for my own personal view, I do hold that the overwhelming levels of integrated complexity we are dealing with to be evidence in favor of God as the Designer!
11. 11

    Neil RickertJuly 31, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    The key question is how she can get away with doing a PhD thesis based only on second hand information when first hand info is readily available.

    A Ph.D. thesis in which discipline?

    Whether this makes sense for a Ph.D. would surely depend on the discipline.
12. 12

    sergiomendesJuly 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    Sal,

    I find this website from elder of local LDS stake.

    sergio
13. 13

    scordovaJuly 31, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    sergio,

    PZ and Larry Moran and Eugenie Scott are against ID.

    The DI = Discovery Institute

    The article I linked to was Klinghoffer who is part of the DI.

    Did the Elder explain to you why you should visit UncommonDescent?

    Do you know how to use Google?
14. 14

    johnnybJuly 31, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    sergio -

    There is a whole cast of characters on both sides. Here’s a short bio on the people/groups you mention:

    DI – this is the Discovery Institute. They are a policy institute for a number of areas, but the Center for Science and Culture is the main organization which promotes the work of Intelligent Design (ID). The have a pretty small budget, but they are effective given their size.

    David Klinghoffer – a columnist who also writes for the Discovery Institute. A lot of his work is available on the Evolution News and Views site (often abbreviated ENV).

    PZ – This is PZ Myers. He is an atheist anti-ID scientists, professor, and blogger. His blog, Pharyngula, is one of the most influential science blogs on the internet. PZ is very nasty to people he doesn’t like. Don’t follow the link unless you are ready to read pretty vile stuff.

    Eugenie Scott – she is the head of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). However, in case you think from the name that the NCSE actually cares one whit about science education, they actually only have one purpose – promote Darwinian evolution. Actually, they branched out recently, and also promote global warming. But most of it is centered around promoting evolution and keeping any contenders from hearing the light of day. And they aren’t restricted to education, either. Eugenie Scott and the NCSE have led multiple witch hunts against ID’ers in the science academy.

    Larry Moran – I’m not very familiar with Larry Moran. I know he is an atheist, a (Darwinian?) evolutionist, and a scientist, is against Intelligent Design, and has a blog. Other than that, I haven’t followed much of what he’s done.

    Anyway, glad you joined us sergio! Let us know if you have more questions.
15. 15

    A GeneAugust 1, 2012 at 1:34 am

    The key question is how she can get away with doing a PhD thesis based only on second hand information when first hand info is readily available.

    Her slides include screenshots of an infamous internal Discovery Institute document, and the DI’s web page. How are these second hand?
16. 16

    kairosfocusAugust 1, 2012 at 1:54 am

    F/N: I have looked at some of S’s pivotal slides here on. She will have a lot of homework to do, and will need a drastic refocussing to make her dissertation into something that is well-grounded. A pity, because the actual story of how a tiny, underfunded, poorly staffed centre became so pivotal is one well worth investigating, and will indeed tell us something about the power of the Internet. Mind you, I have been told that Wilberforce had something like five steady supporters in his decades long quest, and was of course 200 or so years before the Internet, so the issue is also about the impact of determined circles who will do their homework and will stand up to the power centres of the day. Notice, dissenter churches were a major force multiplier, and this was deeply resented, especially through the wave of petitions that kept coming to Parliament. KF
17. 17

    kairosfocusAugust 1, 2012 at 1:58 am

    AG: Her slides are addressed in my already linked. And the internal memo has been severely strawmannised in the way it has been handled by conspiracy theorist objectors to ID (cf point by point here); Wiki is of course a notorious case in point. In context, her handling of the DI web site is also irresponsible. KF
18. 18

    GregoryAugust 1, 2012 at 4:12 am

    “despite the incredibly tiny size of the actual ID work.” – Sal

    Could you please expand on this? Are you saying ID work is minimal, i.e. there’s not much of it? Or that it is focussed on a few narrow fields, e.g. origins of life and origins of biological information, etc.? Or that there are not so many full time workers employed by DI? Or…?

    I’ve visited DI a few times and it has a nice office in central Seattle. It is certainly not a ‘small’ organisation given its wealthy contributors and politically connected Board of Directors.

    Indeed, I agree that “study of the communication methods of the DI is a topic worthy of research.” As usual, the more interdisciplinary it is in understanding the broader context the better. Likewise, the clearer it is about showing its ideological bias up-front (e.g. presented at atheist and/or skeptic conferences), the better it will be for readers to interpret its value.
19. 19

    scordovaAugust 1, 2012 at 7:10 am

    Could you please expand on this? Are you saying ID work is minimal, i.e. there’s not much of it?

    DI CSC budget around 1 million dollars. Other ID work is around the same order of magnitude combined.

    Other think tanks and research institutions like NIH, SRI International, MITRE, IDA, Applied Physics Labs, or any major univeristy research centers has combined budgets in the billions. Even the relatively smaller Center for Evolution (government funded) has 45 times the budget of the DI.

    ID work is minimal relative to what we would like to actually do if we had access to those funds.

    But to be fair, the quality of ID work rests on better empirical facts (like Mystery of Life’s Origin and Evolution and Theory in Crisis), whereas the bulk of evolutionary theory is ciruclarly reasoned speculation that flies in the face of facts and logical theory.

    ID wins in the court of public opinion because it accords with the facts and common sense observation. One paragraph by Jonathan Wells is worth tons of evolutionary literature:

    Take a sterile medium and in this medium insert a single-celled animal. Then simply rupture the outer membrane of the animal (or cell) and let all the contents of the animal freely float in the solution. Now, in this environment you have all the available components (according to reductionists) necessary for life. In fact, you have many times more available organic compounds than have been ever produced in any experiment that attempts to simulate the early formation of life as did the Miller-Urey experiment. All the components for life are right there waiting for you. What sane biologist in Ann Arbor or anywhere would say that you can create life from this “primordial soup?” The old nursery rhyme is true: you can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.

    Stating that simple truth didn’t take a lot of work, but it takes a lot of work (like evolutionary theories) to supress that simple truth. Hence, an ounce of work, and a ounce of truth is weightier than the tons of falsehoods in evolution.

    Think then the effect of tons of truth. We don’t have as much work done as we’d like. It would be nice if there were 1500 Richard Sternbergs to help with ID.

    To that end, if you’d like to donate to the discovery institute to help with their research, the URL is:
    http://www.discovery.org/membershipReg/
20. 20

    sergiomendesAugust 1, 2012 at 9:40 am

    sal, johnnyb,

    thank you for explanation of persons.

    sal,

    elder suggest visit from hearing of my interest in finding Christain faith and science working together. he is to discuss with me what i find after visiting here.

    sergio
21. 21

    johnnybAugust 1, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Sergio -

    For other science and faith stuff, you might enjoy some of my articles at the classical conversations website here. The ones toward the bottom are most relevant.

    Sal -

    Where is that Jonathan Wells comment from? I’ve had tried to express the same thought but it would be nice to have a specific source on it.

    Gregory -

    To Sal’s point, most of us doing ID work are on no budget whatsoever – it’s actually negative. I usually work on my ID projects from 10PM to 2AM. Hopefully some day soon that will change, but this is where most ID researchers are. I lost quite a bit of money personally putting on the Engineering and Metaphysics conference, but it was worth it. It would be nice to have decent backers, but right now we are backed solely by the evidence and reason.
22. 22

    EugenAugust 1, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    After checking the slide show I think more suitable name for Christine would be Atheistine!
23. 23

    kairosfocusAugust 2, 2012 at 1:16 am

    Sergio: You may also find here on in context useful, and the other units will be worth a look. KF
24. 24

    sergiomendesAugust 2, 2012 at 5:32 am

    kairosfocus,

    thank you for reference. are you much trained in theology?

    sergio
25. 25

    kairosfocusAugust 2, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Sergio: sufficiently so on an informal basis to pass and figure out what I need to, same for phil topics. KF