Home » Culture, Global Warming, Intelligent Design » Put Up, or Shut Up!

Put Up, or Shut Up!

There’s breaking news today about the Hadley CRU in England which had its emails and data banks hacked into. CRU is the acronym for ‘Climate Research Unit’. Seems that some of the emails show some possible collusion when it came to producing and supporting data that didn’t fit into GW science. Some interesting quotes. How about this one:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

Isn’t this ineteresting: the way to marginalize the critics is to keep them away from the journals and claim that none of the critic’s views have been “peer-reviewed”. Doesn’t this sound familiar?

Speaking of sounding familiar, how abou this . . .

Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists’ predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public.

That’s right: Put up, or shut up. That is, unless someone can come up with a “theory” which can replace Darwinism, their criticism will never be taken seriously.

Looking at these quotes, is it any wonder, then, that we here at UD have steadily pointed to what is going on in climate science as a proxy for what is happening in the evolutionary debates? Maybe it’s time to “take over a journal”!

But, of course, then they’ll just simply collude in saying that the journal has lost all its value—it’s lost its credibility. Humpf!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

39 Responses to Put Up, or Shut Up!

  1. Maybe it’s time to “take over a journal”!
    Or start your own. Once a journal has been established the quality of published work will speak for itself.

  2. waterbear:

    I think you might be right. Starting up a new journal may be the solution. And who would the authors be? Scientists who publish their laboratory work anonymously so as not to have their careers destroyed.

    Somehow the fact that supreme bias is at work amongst certain scientists in a way that is coordinated, and which is then directed towards the views of scientists with whom this group disagrees, seems to meet with your approval. Why’s that?

  3. Somehow the fact that supreme bias is at work amongst certain scientists in a way that is coordinated, and which is then directed towards the views of scientists with whom this group disagrees, seems to meet with your approval. Why’s that?

    I don’t understand why you think such a thing meets with my approval. Trying to force doctrine or ideology to triumph over patient observation and logical deduction is deplorable, but I don’t see that the published extracts of the hacked e-mails in fact show that such a thing has happened at the CRU.

    And who would the authors be? Scientists who publish their laboratory work anonymously so as not to have their careers destroyed.

    Laboratory work – anonymous or otherwise – would certainly take ID a long way forward. I’m glad such work is available though saddened that the authors feel the need to hide their identities. Where has this been published? Also many scientists such as Dr Dembski, Meyer, Berlinski, Behe, Gonzalez, Sternberg, and the many signatories of the Dissent From Darwinism statement are quite comfortable to counter the current paradigm under their own names. So there should be some people willing to publish.

  4. This dredged up a thought from the dusty recesses of my mind. I seem to recall that there was a journal published by ARN at one time. For the life of me, I can’t remember the name. Does anyone remember and know if it is still active?

  5. One thing that is interesting is to see how science is done, socially. I post the following from Ruse’s Evolution Wars not as a criticism of the processes that took place, but as evidence that any good scientific movement also requires sociological components – it is not enough to have the best idea, you must also have political clout, and this is how the synthetic theorists achieved it in the first half of this century (p. 130ff):

    Founding a scientific discipline is a bit like Pascal’s Wager. if you go through the motions, then you and others will start behaving in it. And to this end, you need good university jobs, you need students, you need journals (preferably with lots of esoteric language), you need associations (that you and your pals are in and others are not), you need grants and other monies, you need supporters, and you need to shove it to your enemies and detractors….For a start, they moved into plum university posts and once there
    brought their friends in too…A journal, Evolution, was started, with Mayr as the first editor. Firm guidelines were put in place. The obvious esoteric language was mathematics, and even though Dolnhansky and Mayr would not have known a symbol if their sisters had married one, care was taken to see that their students were properly trained, and associates with mathematical skills were dragooned into coauthoring papers. Dohzhanslty wrote a whole series of Drosophila articles with Sewall Wright: articles-which he understood the first lines and the last lines and absolutely nothing in between…

    There was not one of them who had not turned to evolution in the first place to find the meaning of life, hoping especially to discover the implications of an evolutionary approach for our own species…But the synthetic theorists knew that, if they were to upgrade their science, they had to keep their evolution-as-profesional-science separate from their evolution-as-secular-religion (not so very secular in Dobnhanakfs case). So what they did was to write two series of books! The first series was the professional series: lots of talk about models and causes and quantification and so forth. Not a whiff of culture or social values. Then there was the second series: openly writing for the general reader…with a couple of final chapters on life and its total meaning.

  6. You can start a journal all you want, but no one will read it if it is marginalized. Parapsychology has been producing high quality research, higher quality and more rigorous than regular psychology, but it is still not mainstream. It is marginalized. The peer-review process is a joke.

  7. So today the “case closed”, “proven”, “believed by all credible scientists”, theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has died. May the “case closed”, “proven”, “believed by all credible scientists”, theory of Evolution be next.

  8. I think you might be right. Starting up a new journal may be the solution. And who would the authors be?

    Among the authors would be those undertaking ID’s working research program like the work being done at the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and others. This research has to be published somewhere otherwise there’s little point doing it. If existing journals won’t take it, the only solution is to found one which will. If resources exist to create textbooks adequate for schools then there should be enough to create an outlet for the research programs.

  9. Make it a PDF only Journal, call it the world’s first green journal, get lots of publicity. :)

  10. “Make it a PDF only Journal, call it the world’s first green journal”

    That could help. With global reach online it could be the founding journal of a new scientific revolution which cracks the materialist edifice. The legacy journals will become irrelevant as intelligent design theory becomes the dominant perspective in science; they’ll have to either accept ID papers or just shut up shop when people stop wanting to publish in them.

  11. 11

    Actually I think any such journal should allow Darwinian explorations when they have merit – natural selection when it shows scientific merit. We don’t want to dismantle all of the Darwinian paradigm when there are some areas that are scientifically verified.

    Encroaching upon science with a view that appears to want revolution as opposed to looking closely at the merits and drawbacks of a particular theory, might only serve to marginalize such an effort.

    Do IDists want to do science, or simply to trigger a socio-ideological shift?

    I think it would be prudent for IDists to begin by showing their support for those areas of Darwinian evolution they believe show some promise – as well as to show how ID enhances them. If they are unhappy with the conclusions of current research – they should do some research of their own in this particular area.

  12. Re comment #1 by waterbear:

    Indeed; whatever happened to Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), the journal of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID), both founded by the founder of this website, Dr. William Dembski? It was supposedly a “peer-reviewed” online journal, the intent of which was to function as

    “…a cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism. The society [provided] a forum for formulating, testing, and disseminating research on complex systems through critique, peer review, and publication. Its aim is to pursue the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems.”

    ISCID’s tagline was “retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature”, and at its peak it claimed upwards of 2,000 members.

    PCID was an entirely electronic, online journal. Articles were submitted for “peer-review” online, and were published online as well. This supposedly shortened the time between discovery and publication, and saved on paper publication costs.

    Despite the fact that both the journal (PCID) and its supporting society (ISCID) were founded, managed, and run entirely by ID promoters, and that it had virtually no costs beyond server space and bandwidth, its publication history shows a constant decline in productivity:
    2002: three volumes: 1.1, 1.2/1.3, & 1.4
    2003: two volumes: 2.1/2.2 & 2.3
    2004: one volume: 3.1
    2005: two volumes: 4.1 & 4.2
    PCID seized publication with its volume for November 2005 (a month before Judge Jone’s descision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board trial. In September 2008 an announcement appeared on ISCID’s website that “ISCID is no longer being managed as an organization”.

    So, if a “peer-reviewed” journal and a society supporting it, founded and sponsored entirely by ID supporters cannot maintain itself, what prospect is there that ID supporters can “take over” a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal, staffed and supported by mainstream scientists virtually all of whom have views diametrically opposed to that of ID?

    Of course there’s always Revista de Biologia or the Occasional Papers of the Southeastern Iowa Society of Medical Entomologists

  13. waterbear

    Trying to force doctrine or ideology to triumph over patient observation and logical deduction is deplorable, but I don’t see that the published extracts of the hacked e-mails in fact show that such a thing has happened at the CRU.

    Really? From the email of Phil Jones to his hockestick brothers:

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    What part of “I just completed Mike’ Nature trick … to hide the decline” did you not get?

    “Mike” by the way is none other than climate fraud Michael Mann who based his entire hockey stick nonsense on data from a single tree somewhere in Russia and then published and refused to release his supporting data for a decade. And then when he did release it he released it on punch cards. Punch cards!

    Can you imagine a bigger group of tools than these guys? Oh wait. I can.

  14. Make it a PDF only Journal, call it the world’s first green journal, get lots of publicity. :)

    Sorry, wouldn’t be a first. For example, PLOS, a suite of journals created by scientists who thought that their research should be freely available to everyone without paying, publishes only online (I guess it’s pdf AND html).

    In addition there are also ‘for profit’ journals (e.g. Molecular Systems Biology) that only publishes online.

  15. waterbear,

    “intelligent design theory becomes the dominant perspective in science;”

    You do not mean just ‘in biology’? It would seem you are asking for ID theory to underpin all science, yet Darwinism is not operative in most science specialties. Have I understood your statement correctly?

  16. I seem to recall that there was a journal published by ARN at one time.

    Wasn’t that Origins & Design?

  17. waterbear:

    I don’t understand why you think such a thing meets with my approval. . . but I don’t see that the published extracts of the hacked e-mails in fact show that such a thing has happened at the CRU.

    Isn’t this precisely the problem? You don’t ‘see’ the problem; but it’s right there before your nose, as has already been pointed out above.

    Laboratory work . . . glad such work is available though saddened that the authors feel the need to hide their identities. Where has this been published? Also many scientists such as Dr Dembski, Meyer, Berlinski, Behe, Gonzalez, Sternberg, and the many signatories of the Dissent From Darwinism statement are quite comfortable to counter the current paradigm under their own names. So there should be some people willing to publis

    What universe do you live in? Look at the names you’ve mentioned. Do you have idea what these people have experienced already? Dembski was basically forced out of his position at Baylor University. Sternberg was run out of the Smithsonian because he permitted an article with ID argumentation (it was Meyer’s paper) to be published in a “peer-reviewed” journal. Gonzalez was refused tenure. The faculty in the department at Lehigh University where Behe works (he has tenure, you see, so they can’t really do anything about him) have signed a document stating that they disagree with Behe’s views. So naturally they’re “quite comfortable” criticizing the establishment–they’ve already been marginalized by that establishment, so what is there left to lose.

    Open your eyes.

  18. it makes you wonder how deep the conspiracy goes. So far two branches of science have been shown to be shaky here. We should keep a watchful eye out as there may be other fields equally as full of bs.

    Also, while we may complain about some of the so called “carbon polluters”, it’s good to know that they are willing to check into the data as well. Without them, there would probably be no funding to counter the doomsday data that Al Gore and his followers feed us daily.

  19. To convince the masses, a set of video and audio lectures such as offered by The Teaching Company would be of great service to the ID community and the wider society. In fact, TTC have many lectures on science and more, but nothing on ID. I suggested it to them but they were not interested :-(

  20. Jehu:

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    What part of “I just completed Mike’ Nature trick … to hide the decline” did you not get?

    It is a good question but perhaps it just as important to ask it of yourself.

    First off, don’t you also find it suspicious that they are “adding in the real temps” to a series of something – it seems an odd thing to do if you are trying to fake data – and it would be nice to know what series they are talking about.

    Secondly, do you understand what the word ‘trick’ means in this context? Are they trying to ‘trick’ us or are they using a clever technique to improve the readability of a data series – I developed a trick for representing data during my PhD but the trick was in making a set of data easier to understand, not in misleading the reader – Perhaps a preceding e-mail pointed out that a graphic was confusing so someone suggested a particular trick to improve clarity? This is quite common and making complex data easier to understand is not fraud.

    Next – do you know what ‘decline’ they are referring to? are they inserting real temperatures into a temperature series to hide the decline in temperatures? that makes no sense! so perhaps they are trying to hide a measurement artefact that makes a trend they are studying hard to identify in a noisy data set. Perhaps the decline they refer to is the annual drop in temperature caused by winter when what they really want is are global mean temps over a decade? perhaps the decline is not temperature but some other element that obscures an important – and real – signal in the data?

    I don’t know which of these scenarios might be true, but like a good sceptic I won’t jump to conclusions based on a single e-mail with no context that can be interpreted in many different ways – unless of course you have a prior commitment to a particular view?

    “Mike” by the way is none other than climate fraud Michael Mann who based his entire hockey stick nonsense on data from a single tree somewhere in Russia…

    The ‘hockey stick’ data has been reproduced independently by dozens of other research groups using various data sources – multiple lines of evidence indicate the same overall pattern – are you claiming that they are all faking them as well?

  21. @ semigloss # 14

    “intelligent design theory becomes the dominant perspective in science;”

    You do not mean just ‘in biology’? It would seem you are asking for ID theory to underpin all science, yet Darwinism is not operative in most science specialties. Have I understood your statement correctly?

    Obviously biology’s the place to start and that’s where it is starting with the currently active research programs mentioned above. But just as unguided materialism started with physics and mechanics but has spread as far as biology and neuroscience, so could a paradigm which is based on design. The Discovery Institute has stated the goal that intelligent design theory come to be the dominant perspective in science including in biology, physics and cosmology. This would be natural for an effort to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

  22. @ PaV # 16

    What universe do you live in?

    The same one as you, in which there clearly are a lot of people prepared to put their names to intelligent design work. You asked who would publish in a new ID journal and the answer is “many people”; over 500 signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism statement to begin with. I read elsewhere on Uncommon Descent that the darwinian castle is crumbling so there’s less and less of an establishment to be scared of anyway.

    All I did was suggest that the ID movement could found a journal. We can all agree that there are ongoing research programs in intelligent design. Thus the fruit of these programs must be published or all that effort is wasted. If current journals are unwilling to take this work, what other route is there than to create your own?

    That Dr Dembski was forced from his position at Baylor by the insidiuous ploy of keeping him on the staff for 5 years while not giving him any teaching duties (as Dr Dembski said to the Louisville Courier-Journal “In a sense, Baylor did me a favor … I had a five-year sabbatical”) is a travesty. But on the upside he’s now one of the leading figures in a growing scientific enterprise and his name will be remembered alongside the likes of Faraday and Newton long after Darwin’s has been relegated to a footnote.

  23. A journal of Intelligent Design is a good idea in principle but it would depend for its survival, like any other, on a steady supply of material to publish.

    As Allen MacNeill pointed out, evolutionary biology is currently a thriving enterprise. It generates huge amounts of data which feed into thousands of research papers which, in turn, are channeled into the many journals published each year in the field.

    Intelligent Design, by comparison, seems to be conducting little if any primary research. Apart from the papers which Dr Dembski is trying to get published, it would appear that there is not much else apart from a few popular science books.

    On that basis alone, it seems unlikely that evolutionary theory will be toppled any time soon. If anything the reverse is true. ID is taking on the appearance of a movement in the doldrums. It would be premature to suggest that it is moribund but, since it is really only being kept afloat by the sterling efforts of a few proponents and a larger number of sympathizers, its position would seem to be precarious.

  24. Seversky,

    The debate is about conducting SCIENTIFIC research and then being allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data warrants.

    However all you and your ilk can do is declare there aren’t any design inferences to be had. And that we may not know all the answers but we “know” it was via design.

    That said can you point to any non-telic research?

    IOW what research has been conducted that demonstrates all we observe can be accounted for via blind and undirected processes?

    BTW the theory of evolution should have been abandoned decades ago.

    That it hasn’t been tells me it will hang around regardless of its lack of support.

  25. Cannuckyankee,

    I think that is a good idea.

    Allen et al.

    Isn’t it very difficult to do primary research without government funding?

  26. I uploaded an access database to a free file uploading site with the contents of all 1000+ emails appended in a single table, with From, To, cc, subject, body and date all parsed into seperate fields. The original file name is also included.

    This allows one to sort by date and read or filter by sender or keyword.

    I created a simple form, Emails, which makes for easy browsing.

    Here’s the link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/4yl22f

  27. The Discovery Institute has stated the goal that intelligent design theory come to be the dominant perspective in science including in biology, physics and cosmology.

    In many ways this is already the case. As one biology book puts it “The program of biology is reverse engineering on a grand scale.” Now while the book repeatedly speaks of design and finds parallels to human engineering and design principles, it makes sure to give the obligatory “evolution did it,” without once addressing how.

    As the evidence mounts, the case for design can’t help but be strengthened, just look inside the cell, at how complex it all is, at the organization and inter-working of it’s systems.

  28. @ Collin #25

    Isn’t it very difficult to do primary research without government funding?

    The research is already being done. The problem is with access to journals for publishing the results.

  29. Joseph @ 24

    Seversky,

    The debate is about conducting SCIENTIFIC research and then being allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data warrants.

    Nobody is stopping you from doing research. Conduct away. Reach whatever inferences you think are warranted by the data. Your only problem is persuading others to agree with you.

    However all you and your ilk can do is declare there aren’t any design inferences to be had. And that we may not know all the answers but we “know” it was via design.

    We have no problem with design inferences. It is done all the time where there is clear evidence of the existence of designers – in other words, us.

    Your problem is either finding evidence of non-human or extra-terrestrial designers – and not mocking anyone who even makes the suggestion – or finding a reliable method of identifying design regardless of who or what the designer is.

    That said can you point to any non-telic research?

    IOW what research has been conducted that demonstrates all we observe can be accounted for via blind and undirected processes?

    You have it backwards.

    In the absence of any evidence for designers other than ourselves, the default assumption is that “non-telic” causation accounts for what we see. It works pretty well, too. That computer you’re using, modern medicine, men on the moon, seeing galaxies 13bn light-years away, they are all derived from “non-telic” research.

    You want us to believe there is some great, even supernatural, designer behind it all? That’s fine. You’re making the claim. Go ahead and prove it.

    BTW the theory of evolution should have been abandoned decades ago.

    It would have been, if it didn’t work so well. Scientists are pragmatic. They would like perfection as much as the next person, but they will settle for the best available. Evolution works better than any of the alternatives. It will be used until something better comes along.

    That it hasn’t been tells me it will hang around regardless of its lack of support.

    You mean like phlogiston or the ether or a geocentric cosmos have hung around long after their sell-by dates? If an explanation doesn’t work it will be dumped when there is something better to replace
    it. Falling back on conspiracy theories when others won’t accept your pet explanations on your say-so is a cop-out.

  30. Mung @ 27

    As the evidence mounts, the case for design can’t help but be strengthened, just look inside the cell, at how complex it all is, at the organization and inter-working of it’s systems.

    Neo-Paleyism.

    That was dealt with by the great Scottish philosopher David Hume long before Paley wrote his Natural Theology. British philosopher Simon Blackburn summarizes the arguments nicely here:

    The problems with the divine architect, creating a cosmos in a manner analogous to the way humans design artefacts, are manifold and familiar. Our own creative activities are highly dependent on the delicate adjustments of the physical world. Our ideas are ideas of the things we come across in that world. Human designers are dependent on parents, not self-caused or self-explaining. Finally our aims and passions are adapted to the animal and social lives we lead. None of this is supposed true of the divine architect. But suppose we waive those difficulties, we still have it that human designers work in groups, refine the designs of others, sometimes lose interest in their designs, go on to make improved versions, and so on.

    Cleanthes’ theology leaves it open that the world, “for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance: it is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity; and is the object of derision to his superiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him.”

    Philo rightly concludes: “I cannot, for my part, think that so wild and unsettled a theology is, in any respect, preferable to none at all.” Demea agrees: Cleanthes is little better than an atheist.

  31. Getting back on track…
    Lying Scientist were hacked
    What they covered
    and tried to smother
    the public discovered
    now they deserve to be smacked.

    Down that is, to the ground that is.
    Like the pond scum they say they come from.

    ;-)

    Notice how the Darwinist fail to see the link between this discovery and their own fascist lifestyles.

    Give credit where credit is due. The Design Theorist called out the Global Warming Hoax a long time ago. We’ve had 11 years of cooling now, something the models never predicted. So any hockey stick interpretation was proven wrong long ago, with bad data as well as shown by McIntyre.

    Al Gore’s fiction and lies was shot down by an English Court and forced to admit at least 9 erroneous claims with a lable that it was a political book, not science.

    This is disgusting behavior by the Climate freaks that seek to malign and visciously attack those who question their claims.

    Likewise now for years the Darwinist have acted and behaved the same way. With attacks on their peers like Sternberg.

    Darwinist at these publications are no longer operating as scientist, much like the Global Warming Homers, they seek nothing but to censor and shut out all existing opponents to their god of unguided processes.

    That the atheist now worship Darwin in churches lets us know that it is a religion today more than a science.

    No more distractions. What these climatologist did and are doing is vulgar and offensive to any true liberal and freethinker.

    What we have today is a bunch of close-minded bigots in Global Warming huxters like Gore, waiting to make his Billions off of Carbon tax scams, and the Darwinist who seek to retain their bankroll in making up cute bedtime stories about the past.

    What a waste of minds, time, money and effort. Such political correctness is a killer of science and holds us back from progress.

    150 years of dead tree ideas.

    How’s that bear in the water doing these days Darwinist? Still swimming around eating bugs? OR did it evolve into a whale yet?

    Pffft… science fiction.

  32. Neo-Paleyism.

    It is a mistake to think that Hume ever refuted Paley. It’s as if you think Paley was not aware of Hume’s argument when he wrote. Do you actually believe that is the case?

    Philosophers today acknowledge that the argument “refuted” by Hume, is not the argument which Paley made.

    This is why it is necessary to claim that “natural selection” can bring about the appearance of design.

    Design was still on the table when Paley wrote, it was still on the table when Darwin wrote, it was still on the table after Darwin, and it’s still on the table today.

    There’s a simple, obvious, reason for that.

    Trying to resurrect Hume’s tired old misguided argument doesn’t help.

  33. Mung @ 32

    t is a mistake to think that Hume ever refuted Paley. It’s as if you think Paley was not aware of Hume’s argument when he wrote. Do you actually believe that is the case?

    I think we both know that Paley was a well-educated and highly-intelligent man who was well aware of Hume’s work.

    It does not alter the fact that Paley argues by analogy which, while not a fallacy itself, is vulnerable to the fallacies of selective observation and argument from incredulity.

    Those criticisms still stand.

    Philosophers today acknowledge that the argument “refuted” by Hume, is not the argument which Paley made.

    I just quoted a contemporary who disagrees.

    This is why it is necessary to claim that “natural selection” can bring about the appearance of design.

    Design was still on the table when Paley wrote, it was still on the table when Darwin wrote, it was still on the table after Darwin, and it’s still on the table today.

    Yes, it is.

    But in the 150 years since Darwin published his theory, evolutionary biology has grown into the thriving discipline it is today.

    ID, meanwhile, is still little more than a fading proposal on the table.

    Trying to resurrect Hume’s tired old misguided argument doesn’t help.

    Hume’s case is the one that has stood the test of time, not Paley’s.

  34. It does not alter the fact that Paley argues by analogy which, while not a fallacy itself, is vulnerable to the fallacies of selective observation and argument from incredulity.

    You agree that Paley was aware of Hume, but then go on to assert that he committed the very error against which Hume argued.

    It is Darwin who argued by analogy.

    ID, meanwhile, is still little more than a fading proposal on the table.

    The same author who wrote, “The program of biology is reverse engineering on a grand scale,” also wrote the following:

    Every biochemical interaction is exquisitely crafted, and cells contain networks of thousands of such interactions. These networks are the result of evolution…

    …evolutionary biology has grown into the thriving discipline it is today.

    If you can call the occasional obligatory yet content-less nod towards “evolution” as the cause in a book otherwise fully about design in the cell a “thriving discipline”…

  35. Seversky,

    Hume’s case is the one that has stood the test of time, not Paley’s.

    That’s actually not true. Hume’s argument was that things that reproduce can become complex, while Paley’s answer was that things that reproduce make them even more complicated than his watch analogy, which, we know today, is absolutely correct. Hume assumed that simple things could be produced and reproduce themselves until they became complicated. We know that in order to reproduce, you are already complex. Besides, Thomas Reid effectively refuted Hume too.

  36. Seversky:

    We have no problem with design inferences. It is done all the time where there is clear evidence of the existence of designers – in other words, us.

    So the only way to reach a valid design inference, in your opinion, is to know the designer?

    That is backwards.

    Ya see the only way to know anything about the designer, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    If we know the designer then we do not need to reach a design inference as design would be a given.

    Your problem is either finding evidence of non-human or extra-terrestrial designers – and not mocking anyone who even makes the suggestion – or finding a reliable method of identifying design regardless of who or what the designer is.

    It isn’t a problem.

    Ya see we have tried and true design detection techniques.

    Then there is reducibility- that is figuring out what it takes to account for what we are observing.

    That said can you point to any non-telic research?

    IOW what research has been conducted that demonstrates all we observe can be accounted for via blind and undirected processes?

    You have it backwards.

    Nope you still need POSITIVE evidence for your position.

    In the absence of any evidence for designers other than ourselves, the default assumption is that “non-telic” causation accounts for what we see.

    1- That is nonsense because,

    2- There is evidence for design

    And I take it that means you cannot provide a testable hypothesis and can only say “we win because you can’t introduce me to the designer(s)”.

    What a schmuck.

    That computer you’re using, modern medicine, men on the moon, seeing galaxies 13bn light-years away, they are all derived from “non-telic” research.

    So now you have to lie?

    Is lying the best you have?

    Not one of those relied on “non-telic research”. Not one.

    You want us to believe there is some great, even supernatural, designer behind it all?

    And you want us to believe sheer dumb luck is behind it all?

    BTW ID doesn’t require the supernatural.

    And natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.

    So whare does that leave your position besides contorting reality to suit your needs?

    So what do you have Seversky?

    Any evidence for your accumulating genetic accidents actually producing useful complex protein machinery and new body plans?

    Any positive evidence at all beyond teh refusal to accept the design inference just because you haven’t met the designer(s)?

    Anything?

  37. Seversky:

    But in the 150 years since Darwin published his theory, evolutionary biology has grown into the thriving discipline it is today.

    It is such a thriving discipline that we don’t even know if any amout of genetic modification can account for the transformations required.

    For example evolutionary biologists can’t even account for the change in primate feet from a grasping foot with an opposable big toe to a running foot with all toes in line.

  38. But the bear, the bear, the bear is still swimming and will one day turn into a whale…

    hahahaha… what absurdity.

    Watching Dawkins cling to his religion, explaining about some 4 legged land creature moving into the ocean is like watching a Harvard graduate explain where wood comes from in a tree. Or, for that matter Al Gore.

  39. Seversky:

    If an explanation doesn’t work it will be dumped when there is something better to replace
    it.

    If an explanation doesn’t work it gets dumped (or modified until it does work).

    If an alternative is waiting, fine.

    If not we (humans) work on it- or not. That is the “thing” about being human. Sometimes we get to choose.

    I would also say that designed to evolve/ evolved by design is a better explanation than evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    That genetic accident pap you’ve been pushing explains diseases and other malfunctions very well.

    But that is the only contribution to understanding living organisms that your position has provided.

    I guess something is better than nothing.

Leave a Reply