If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?
| August 8, 2009 | Posted by Clive Hayden under Culture, Intelligent Design, Off Topic |
Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;
Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.
Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now. Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.
298 Responses to If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
lamarck, #294
Referring to the glossary here on UD:
Since ID is “the science that studies signs of intelligence,” wouldn’t design itself be a sign that something planned to act in a certain way?
Onlookers:
“Interesting” isn’t it when the objectors to ID “suddenly” take an interest in substantial points from the Weak Argument Correctives and Glossary? For instance, just above, CIT wants to parse the definition of Intelligence, and one of those for Design Theory. (Pardon my suspicions for a moment, let’s pause and speak to the point just above.)
CIT evidently wants to understand what ID is as the study of SIGNS of intelligence. Well . . .
But, such technical matters are in reality a distraction from something far more serious that has emerged in this pivotal thread, and has formed its main focus. [SG, kindly observe from the original post, the link to the HuffPo hit piece, the prominence given therein to a false accusation of "lying" as the context for his VHS video reference -- cf 104 - 5 for a detailed expose -- and then let us return to the main focus for the thread.]
For, this thread has revealed:
a –> The real context for the last sentence of the Touchstone 1999 article [cf esp 104 - 5 above] that Mr Brown at HuffPo et al [and behind him, Ms Forrest etc.] have latched onto. (That is, as WAC 7 highlights, having outlined ID theory and techniques c. 1999, WmAD was making some explicitly philosophical and theological remarks as he projected onward and outward from the technical scientific matters. Far from “lying” or concealing a hidden tyrannical theocratic agenda [cf. WAC's 7 - 8], he was providing a corrective to the smuggling in of a priori, Lewontinian materialism into science, education and other key institutions of our civilisation.)
b –> The slander-based, demonising incivility embedded in the false accusation of lying and hidden tyrannical theocratic agendas, once it begins to snowball, is destructive to the culture of mutual respect that is foundational to our liberties. And, when I pointed this out, I found myself promptly threatened with and/or actually reported to the US Homeland Security Dept, to put me on a terror-threat watch list. In short, the thread contains a live example of slander and destructive tyrannical incivility — from the evolutionary materialist side. [I have taken initial steps to lodge an official complaint.]
c –> HuffPo reveals that the common taunt that UD is censoring and suppressive of dissent — for all the problems we have had here — is too often hypocritical, sometimes even evidently cynically so. Here, Mr Brown made much of how his comments were moderated and held up for a few hours, but in fact at his own thread, dissenting comments by other participants in this thread were not only sharply constricted as to length, but were held up for a day or in many cases simply never appeared, no explanation. So, if one is serious about having a civil discussion on the merits, UD is the place to do it.
d –> moreover, the thread also shows that he WAC’s [and glossary] do in fact form a key point of departure for addressing serious questions on design theory, by cutting away a lot of thorny, noxious brushwood based on misunderstandings — often based on naively thinking that the critics of ID have given a true and fair view of what they are attacking [a problem that holds all the way up to Judge Jones' Dover decision . . . ] — so that a more serious discussion can ensue. (And SG, that is a vital and even positive contribution.)
GEM of TKI
PS: SG — It is clear that UD serves as a forum of record for the ID movement [now being associated with BOTH Dr Dembski and Dr Behe, as well as Dr Hunter, Dr Sewell etc]; so much so that it is now being targetted by the ideologues at HuffPo etc. [They would never give UD exposure if they did not think the impact of this blog was insignificant.] And, in fact, UD leadership report as at some months back, 6 – 9,000 unique visitors per day; which is not insignificant for a relatively technical blog.