Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists in real time – a reflection

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Since the revelations from Monday’s press conference in Iowa regarding the true reason for Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure denial, I have been studying the comments of Darwinists, to this and this post. The comments intrigue me for a reason I will explain in a moment.

Some commenters are no longer with us, but they were not the ones that intrigued me.*

I’ve already covered Maya at 8, 10, and 12 here, arguing a case against Gonzalez, even though the substance of the story is that we now KNOW that her assertions have nothing to do with the real reason he was denied tenure.

Oh, and at 15, she asserts, “The concern is not about Gonzalez’s politics or religion but about his ability to serve as a science educator.”

So … a man can write a textbook in astronomy, as Gonzalez has done, but cannot serve as a science educator? What definition of “science” is being used here, and what is its relevance to reality?

And getawitness, at 18, then compares astronomy to Near East Studies, of all things. NES is notorious for suspicion of severe compromise due to financing from Middle Eastern interests! I won’t permit a long, useless combox thread on whether or not those accusations are true; it’s the comparison itself that raises an eyebrow.

Just when I thought I had heard everything, at 35, Ellazimm asks, apparently in all seriousness, “Having been involved in a contentious tenure decision myself I can’t see why the faculty are not allowed to make a decision based on their understanding of the scientific standard in their discipline.”

She must have come in after the break,  when the discussion started, because she seems to have missed the presentation. Briefly, Ellazimm the facts are these: They decided to get rid of him because of his sympathies with intelligent design BEFORE the tenure process even began, then cited a variety of other explanations that taken as a whole lacked merit (though there are people attempting to build a case to this day – see Maya above). THEN the truth came out when e-mails were subpoenaed through a public records request. That was AFTER President Geoffroy had represented a facts-challenged story to the public media. In other words, the entire tenure process sounds like a sham and the participants may have engaged in deliberate deception to cover up the fact that it was a sham.

Now, tell me, is that how your faculty makes decisions? Then I hope they have a top law firm and super PR guys.

I see here where Maya tries again at 38: “You may be right that some of his colleagues voted solely due to his ID leanings, but based on my experience with academia I doubt it. ”

What has Maya’s “experience” to do with anything whatever? We now have PUBLIC RECORDS of what happened in the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure case. I could tell you about hiring and promotion decisions I’ve been involved with too, but it wouldn’t be relevant.

Oh, and Maya again at 40: “Produce a predictive, falsifiable theory that explains the available evidence. If Gonzalez, or any other ID proponent, did this, universities would be falling over themselves to offer tenure.”

As a matter of fact, Gonzalez’s theory of the galactic habitable zone – a direct contradiction of Carl Sagan’s interpretation of the Copernican Principle – is eminently testable and falsifiable, and it was passing the tests and not being falsified – as The Privileged Planet sets out in detail, in a form accessible to an educated layperson.

At 59, displaying complete ignorance of legal standards regarding discrimination, tyke writes, “As others have said, even if there was some discriminatory language against GG for his pursuit of ID, there are clearly still enough grounds for ISU to deny him tenure.”

Tyke: If I fire someone because I discover that he doubts the hype about global warming, and he then sues me, I CANNOT say afterward, “Well, I was justified in firing him anyway because he was a crappy employee.” The actual reason I fired him is the one that must be litigated because it is a fact, not a variety of suppositions after the fact. To the extent that the faculty had decided to deny GG tenure on account of his sympathy for intelligent design, and the tenure process itself was an elaborate sham, they cannot now say that they were justified by it. Whether they should have made the decision based on the process is neither here nor there. That was not how they made the decision.

Not a whole lot new here except that MacT sniffs, “Judging by the comments on this and other threads regarding GG’s tenure case, it seems clear that there is very little understanding or familiarity with the tenure process.”

On the contrary, MacT, there is way more understanding and familiarity now than there was before the Register and Disco started publishing the real story.

I studied the comments in depth for a reason, as I said: It was a golden opportunity to see how Darwinists and materialists generally would address known facts in real time when all the participants are alive. After all, I must take their word for the trilobite and the tyrannosaur. But this time the relevant data are easy to understand.

What’s become quite clear is their difficulty in accepting the facts of the case. Intelligent design WAS the reason Gonzalez was denied tenure. We now know that from the records. Again and again they try to move into an alternate reality where that wasn’t what really happened or if it did, itwasn’t viewpoint discrimination.

At this point, I must assume that that is their normal way of handling data from the past as well. Except that I won’t know what they have done with it.

I think I do know why they do it, however. To them, science is materialism, and any other position is unacceptable even if the facts support it. I’d had good reason to believe that from other stories I have worked on, but it is intriguing and instructive to watch the “alternate reality” thing actually happening in real time.

Meanwhile, last and best of all, over at the Post-Darwinist, I received a comment to this post**, to which I replied:

Anonymous, how kind of you to write …

You said, “Opponents of ID complain about the lack of empirical research and evidence to back up ID – and, to be honest, they have a point. There isn’t a lot to show yet.”

With respect, you seem to have missed the point. Gonzalez WAS doing research that furthered ID. His research on galactic habitable zones – an area in which he is considered expert – was turning up inconvenient facts about the favourable position of Earth and its moon for life and exploration.

In other words, when Carl Sagan said that Earth is a pale blue dot lost somewhere in the cosmos, he was simply incorrect. But he represents “science”, right?

Gonzalez is correct – but he represents “religion”, supposedly.

So an incorrect account of Earth’s position is science and a correct account is religion?

Oh, but wait a minute – the next move will be the claim that whatever Gonzalez demonstrated doesn’t prove anything after all, and even talking about it is “religion”, which is not allowed – so bye bye career.

We may reach the point in my own lifetime when one really must turn to religion (“religion?”) in order to get a correct account of basic facts about our planet and to science (“science”?) for propaganda and witch hunts.

Oh, by the way, if you work at a corporation where I “would be astonished at what kinds of things get passed through email”, I must assume that you are prudent enough to make sure that your name isn’t in the hedder.

*Uncommon Descent is not the Thumb, let alone the Pharyngulite’s cave, so if you would be happier there, don’t try to change things here, just go before you get booted.

**I have cleaned up the typos.

Comments
[...] his argument? Note: The character of Gonzalez’s opposition speaks for itself in that some continued to defend the mythical grounds even after the truth was out. (May [...]Expelled: “Denormalizing” the Darwin thugs | Uncommon Descent
April 5, 2008
April
04
Apr
5
05
2008
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Thank you for your input, kairosfocus. Dr. Dembski kindly answered my inquiry. Essentially, he reiterated what he has said elsewhere, that compressibility is one of the properties that can give us a specification, functionality being another. He has never said that incompressibility is required for or indicative of complexity, and his examples certainly belie that assertion. With no disrespect intended for Joseph, CJYman, or Stephen Meyer, I'll side with Dr. Dembski on this.Peace
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: Thank you for your very complete and clear contribution to this fundamental point. I warmly encourage everybody on this blog to carefully read your new linked discussion on CSI and causal factors. Sometimes we get sidetracked in our discussions regarding relatively minor points, but we should from time to time get back to the true strength of the ID theory: CSI, IC, and the principles of design inference. Those are the fundamental truths which no darwinist dares address, and which will ultimately change forever the scientific scenario. We need to get back to simplicity, clarity and focus, and your contribution is a perfect example of how to do that.gpuccio
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
A footnote: DK at 63 raised the issue of snowflakes. Given the IMHCO somewhat unsatisfactory and incomplete nature of several remarks above on this, and also other questions on CSI I decided to develop a new appendix in my always linked, on the origin, coherence and significance of the CSI concept. As a part of that, I addressed the snowflake as a claimed counter-example to the concept. (NB: I also added a few remarks on the issue of causal factors: chance, necessity, agency; here.) The interesting point about snowflakes is that hey partly constitute crystals, and are partly an agglomeration of crystals formed under the influence of atmospheric conditions at their time and place of formation. The crystalline structure is obviously a manifestation of order. The complex but essentially random agglomeration is a manifestation of random complexity constrained by orderly bonding forces that push them towards the hexagonal symmetry. Thus, in looking at his case we need to bear the two levels of structure in mind. This is rather similar to DNA and proteins: the monomers are relatively simple orderly structures, the polymers are information rich because they are functionally specified and (generally speaking) beyond the UPB's limit of 500 - 1,000 bits of information storing capacity. We can call that limit, the edge of chance. For, we know from a wealth of direct observation of cases of the origin of such, that CSI manifesting structures beyond that limit are the product of intelligent agency. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Peace: Maybe I can help clarify, re:
Dembski’s math explicitly says that, all else being equal, more compressible strings have more specified complexity .
Take a long enough digital element string. “Long enough” meaning that it can store at least 500 – 1,000 bits of information. Thus, it has 10^150 to 10^301 or more cells in its configuration space. Surely, such strings can reasonably be described as contingent [for any one value instantiated, there are many other possible values that could have been instantiated] and complex [there is a “lot” of information storing capacity there]. Now, consider two alternatives:
CASE A: a random string, e.g. fiedbhvfgfjdkyfdgfjdkidgtfdigcvydosydhcklxsiud CASE B: a meaningful text string written out in English, that is according to the rules and structures of written English
The later can be simply and detachably – and indeed, functionally, be described. The former, can in effect only be described by reproducing the string. [Even in the case of a wining lottery combination, that would hold.] Now, on a random text generation event, something like case A is exceedingly more likely than something like Case B. But, intelligent agents routinely generate things like case B. Indeed, sufficiently long cases like B have ONLY been generated by such agents, in our observation. Observe how A has in it "fie," "kid," "iud" and "dos" but not even one seven-letter word. (I in fact simply closed my eyes then typed at random for a few seconds.) Three-letter words and acronyms are far more common in the space of 26^3 [~ 1.76 * 10^4 config space cells] than are seven-letter words in the space 26^7 [~ 8.03 * 10^9 cells; the vocab of English was ~ 800,000 words when I was growing up and learning such trivia in the name of education]. This was of course pointed out by Denton in that 1985 ID sleeper, Evolution: A Theory in crisis. This is significant. Putting that more or less in the terms Prof Sewell now prefers: objects in nature do not spontaneously do macroscopically describable things that are microscopically improbable. That is, since the more chaotic macrostates are so much more likely on chance, it is maximally unlikely that we get the sort of case B outcome by chance. The obvious challenges? First, DNA and other nanotechnologies in the cell exhibit patterns that look like case B not A, and we know that the cell's functionality is closely coupled to he exactitude of the chemical composition and folding of its key molecules. (This has relevance tot he origin of life and to he body-plan level diversity of life.) Second, if we were to summarise the physics that apparently undergirds our life-facilitating cosmos, we see that it is a case of organised, fine-tuned complexity that would exhibit a pattern more like case B than A again. [Cf. My always linked for a discussion.] So, why then is there such an insistence in many quarters that the observed CSI and/or IC and/or OC in the cases just pointed out “must” only be explained relative to chance + necessity only? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
Joseph,
I can honestly say that I do not.
Well, I appreciate the effort. Since Dembski's math explicitly says that, all else being equal, more compressible strings have more specified complexity, and since his examples reinforce this principle, I'll try to contact Dembski directly for an explanation. Thanks for your help.Peace
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Patrick: Thanks, ever so much. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Yes, 4 links is the limit before a comment will be held in moderation. The reason for this is that a common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.Patrick
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
PS: Okay, I see four links is the limit. (I had five. Hope this does not send me back to Mark and co.) Patrick, thanks for the new little statement that there is a mod piling.kairosfocus
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
SteveB and others: A few notes on Kant, Sally_T, radical skepticism and the like: 1] SteveB, 342: I realize that this thread is flooded with distractions from the main theme which ought to have dramatized the injustice that has been visited on GG, and I agree with all those, especially kairosfocus, who lamented the fact that we simply changed direction without any good reason . . . Sadly, on evidence of repeated refusal to address that main issue, while raising every sort of red herring and strawman one could imagine, there was indeed a reason, but not a good one: plainly, desire on the part of Evo Mat advocates to distract attention from major injustice on their party's part. We need to draw the lesson and heed its implications. 2] Design inference does not rely on ontological presupposition . . . . no one has yet dealt with the recurring theme that design inference requires an ontological assumption. In fact, first, it is more of a deceptive rhetorical trick in too many cases. It is not too hard for reasonably educated people to follow a line of reasoning that is commonplace to anyone who has done a FIRST course in statistics – and that more or less includes anyone who has done a Biology major: a] It is well-known relative to vast and commonplace experience that one or more of three common causal patterns MAY act into a given situation: [1] chance [manifesting through stochastic processes that produce statistical distributions in outcomes], [2] mechanical necessity [showing itself in observable natural regularities], [3] intentional agent action [showing itself in outcomes that are contingent and specified relative to plausible purposes of candidate agents, and in outcomes that would be improbable relative to a chance null hypothesis]. b] In cases that are dominated by contingency as opposed to fixed, regular patterns perhaps perturbed by a bit of noise, we see that we face alternatives: chance or agency. At this stage all that we have done is that we have ruled out natural regularities. (We have not assumed that agents are acting or that they actually exist, only that they are POSSIBLE and should not be assumed away -- especially by selective hyperskepticism and undue burden of proof shifting -- ahead of examining evidence.) c] As a standard approach, chance based on a reasonable model is the null hypothesis. We then test the actual outcome against the pattern that the chance hyp would throw out. d] If the actual outcome is credibly within the rejection regions, we reject the null at whatever reasonable level of confidence is appropriate. One sets the rejection regions relative to what proneness to errors are acceptable or preferred: rejecting the null when we should accept it, or accepting the null when we should reject it. [The explanatory filter cheerfully accepts many false negatives on design because of the significance of the cases it rules in; it is set up that way.] e] Thus, we have found epistemic warrant for the hypothesis that the outcome is dominated by agent action, and that is in fact without the need to assume anything about any particular class of agent. --> As I discuss in my always linked, [and as is commonly and easily accessible all over the Internet] Dembski and others have simply taken up this basic, commonly applied and effective Fisherian approach to statistical inference and have applied it to cases of interest to the Design theory movement. [He addresses the manufactured objection that there must be a Bayesian approach instead here and here, noting that in fact there is an excellent reason to see that we revert to Bayesian approaches because we have intuitively at least applied the Fisherian approach and see that something is fishy! [Pun not intended, at least at first . . .]] --> What has happened is that because the results cut across the currently dominant evolutionary materialism in the Guild of scholarship, selective hyperskepticism has been applied to dispute what should be a no-brainer. 2] If Kant, the philosopher had not concluded that the image of design in the mind isn’t real, Darwin would never have dared to claim that design in nature isn’t real. According to Kant, these images of reality in the mind (in this case design) do not necessarily reflect the object that is being observed. In fact, Kant here actually outright contradicts himself. How can he know that it is the real case that the image of design in the mind isn’t real”? In short, he is being self-referentially inconsistent. (One could just as easily assert that the image of non-design in the mind is not “real.”) That is, once we make a radical assertion that the world of ideas and the world of reality are radically isolated from one another, the whole project of rationality collapses. In fact, as I have already excerpted recently, this little error in Kant has long since been exposed, e.g. In F. H. Bradley 's gentle but stinging opening salvo in his Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn (Clarendon Press, 1930), p.1:
"The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is impossible has . . . himself . . . perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena [of metaphysics] . . . . To say that reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is to claim to know reality."
On the “little errors” reference, Adler has implied as much. 3] According to Kant, these images of reality in the mind (in this case design) do not necessarily reflect the object that is being observed. Given this assumption, ID is defeated even before it enters the arena First, all that we need to take from that, is that we are finite and fallible creatures and so all of our reasoning is subject to error. Including, all our scientific reasoning. So, we must be careful and humble, recognising that our scientific reasoning is provisional and subject to correction in light of future investigations. That of course includes a certain research programme known as the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, and the asserted “rule of procedure” methodological naturalism.. Balancing that, until and unless we have good reason to infer that we are in error in a given case, it is reasonable to be confident that reasoning based on reliable approaches is to be trusted over against radical, self-destructive global skepticism or selective application of the principles of such radicalism to reject what one does not want to believe while implicitly “exempting” those things one is inclined to believe – the fallacy of selective hyper-skepticism in short. (Simon Greenleaf's subtly acid comment is well worth hitting the link, folks!) 4] What I am taking issue with is the claim that this [Hume-Kant] “argument has never been dealt with.” I agree. And in fact even in my always linked asdn onward links, there are things that would address this issue, if Sally_T had been inclined to actually take up the phil issue seriously and explicitly on a level playing field comparative difficulties basis on worldview analysis matters. She obviously was not, being insistently content to state vague assertions and dismiss what she was not wishing to face, on the main issue of injustice, and on the secondary ones she raised, including this one. And, given the issue of blatant and indefensible injustice done to Dr Gonzalez she insistently wanted to distract us from, the reason is, sadly, obvious. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
stephenb, thanks for bringing up Dr. Adler, a great advocate of philosophy as common sense, refined and expanded. He was a great antidote to self satisfied postmodern navel gazing. http://radicalacademy.com/adler_little_errors.htmcrow thrall
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Here I believe Wm is saying that CSI helps identify those sequences which are non-random- ie someone cheated- beacuse if they were truly random they would not be algorithmically compressible.
Here you’re saying that compressibility can be an indication of cheating, which is a case of design.-Peace
Yes in special cases in which randomness, and therefore incompressibility, are expected.
CJYman excluded compressible strings from CSI.
No one said the compressed string contains CSI. It is just that in those special cases it is a sign of agent activity- IOW chance was not the only thing at play.
Do you see the contradiction I’m trying to resolve?
I can honestly say that I do not. Take care.Joseph
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Only one point has not been addressed. Design inference does not rely on ontological presupposition. I realize that this thread is flooded with distractions from the main theme which ought to have dramatized the injustice that has been visited on GG, and I agree with all those, especially kairosfocus, who lamented the fact that we simply changed direction without any good reason. Still, no one has yet dealt with the recurring theme that design inference requires an ontological assumption. This false and destructive idea underpins the neo-Darwinist notion that design is illusory. If Kant, the philosopher had not concluded that the image of design in the mind isn’t real, Darwin would never have dared to claim that design in nature isn’t real. According to Kant, these images of reality in the mind (in this case design) do not necessarily reflect the object that is being observed. Given this assumption, ID is defeated even before it enters the arena It is this philosophical skepticism visited on us from Hume, and complicated by Kant, that gives Darwinists the intellectual confidence to continue their bad science. It isn’t often that the scientists will provide us with testimony to that fact, but that is exactly what Sally T offered us on several occasions. -----“It may very well be that the ontological argument is the greatest strength of ID, but as Alvin Plantigna has commented about his ontological proofs, they are only logically valid if one holds the appropriate set of presuppostions a priori” ------“It is empirically equivalent to say ‘a cell is designed’ and ‘a cell just is’. The ontological burden is on the ‘designed’ proponent, and Hume showed very well the problems with this argument and they have never been countered.” ------“There is no way, that I can see, to parse the two hypotheses ‘the universe is designed that way’ and ‘the universe is that way’.” ------“So what you are saying cannot be done (forcing ontological commitments from data) is certainly what the ‘design inference’ entails.” ------“THAT is selective hyperskepticism at it’s finest (cherrypicking data to produce a priori convictions). ------“What you are attempting to sneak into the discussion is an ontological account of complexity.” ------“I think it is an attempt to force a particular ontological presupposition onto science that is an unnecessary encumbrance to inquiry. It is true I would predict that this tautological issue will be a major obstacle to the theory of ID, when formalized, being established as a working model for science.” What I am taking issue with is the claim that this “argument has never been dealt with.” Few people are aware of it, but it has indeed been answered, and we all need to be aware of it. If we are going to win the argument about design in nature, we must be also be prepared to refute this philosophical skepticism that upholds the Darwinist scheme. I will not generate an insufferably long post over this matter. You either grasp the importance of it or you don’t. Suffice it to say that Dr. Adler echoes Aquinas and Aristotle with his warning that a “a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end.” As Aristotle points out, “The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” This is precisely what happened when Kant extended Hume’s errors and tried to create an elaborate philosophical system to solve a problem that wasn’t really there in the first place. We really can trust our mind to report the truth about nature’s design. I hope that you will google “Little Errors in the Beginninng,” by Mortimer J. Adler, PhD. He is one of the finest minds of the twentieth century. We have all had enough experience to know that if you want the truth, you are going to have to search for it diligently, apply yourself assiduously, and fight your way past the obfuscators in the process. This is the truth and it ties in with what most on this blog are trying to do. Again, that is, "Little Errors in the Beginning," by Mortimer Adler Ph.D.StephenB
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Before this thread dies off I'd like to point out that Sally was not rejecting ID itself. Instead, she was rejecting the foundational science that ID builds upon. It's difficult to hold a conversation when she rejects the methods that other Darwinists used for years before Dembski ever became an ID proponent. Now one part of her objections makes sense to me. The major methods of ID are limited in usability for general purposes due to the propensity to produce false negatives. So why can't there be an extension to ID that is acknowledged as not being 100% accurate but is more practical? After all, our minds do it all the time: we detect design but it's not 100% accurate. A revised method that is optimized for realtime calculations would be useful for AI programs. I realize that the ID community has a focus of combating Darwinism now but producing such general purpose applications of ID would help ID become more acceptable. I think she was using "emergence" in a limited sense and not a "Shazam, we have CSI somehow" manner. In comment #187 I pointed out that even though there ARE emergent properties they rely on the design of the controlling factors. But she focused on the emergent properties instead of whether Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing these controlling factors. Also, back in #155:
Back in #78 I asked a question about your focus in that paper. The subject matter is broad, ranging from motility to cell wall metabolism in relation to pathogenesis. Perhaps you were referring to this line? By BLAST analysis, we found that PKD repeats present in Listeria LPXTG proteins are also weakly similar to the Bap family repeats. Together, these data suggest an evolutionary relationship between all these repeated domains. Or perhaps you were referring to the references in there as a starting point?
I gave it a quick read but didn't follow back the references. Unless I'm overlooking something, the primary focus was on making predictions about the functionality related to certain sections of the genome that control surface proteins. They then analyzed everything to see if the function-to-genome-section prediction was correct. In other words, normal good biology that has little to do with providing positive evidence for Darwinian mechanisms (no, comparing the genomes and assuming the mechanisms work does not count). The only thing related to Darwinism I noticed in my scan was that obligatory salute and some references. But I may have overlooked something, so that's why I asked MacT what page/section he was referring to. Unfortunately, I've asked twice now so I'm forced to write it off as a literature bluff. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science%20-%20MainPage&id=2228
Literature bluffing is the indiscriminate citation of scientific papers and articles whose titles or abstracts may seem germane to the problem at hand, but which on careful reading prove not to settle the issue, or even not to have any relevance to it. Like a squid spewing out ink to confuse a pursuer, or a fighter jet dispensing chaff to deflect incoming missiles, a literature bluffer floods the discussion with citations to distract attention from the real issues. Bibliographic search engines such as PubMed make it easy for literature bluffers to compile long lists of citations. The literature bluffer, however, rarely explains the arguments or evidence contained in the publications on the list. That would defeat the bluffer’s purpose, which is not really to address the merits of the case, but rather to overwhelm the reader with the apparent weight of scientific authority. The reader is then left with the work of actually studying the publications and assessing their relevance.
From Sal:
What I learned however, is bluffing via materials not available online. When we deal with materials that require subscription or a book that is out of print or really expensive. It becomes cumbersome to combat the literature bluff. And honestly, how many are willing to spend the time and money? The critics count on the fact that you’ll read the entire book or article and realize it was irrelevant. But that is VERY HARD to demonstrate irrelevance. And by that time, the discussion is out of the public eye. They successfully used a stalling tactic to make a quick getaway from the debate…. They can leave the audience with the illusion that maybe it was relevant and addressed the issue. After all the audience must take your word against theirs.
Unfortunately, MacT already has a history of doing such things. See these comments: Modularity and Design I first corrected his misstatement that the “mutational bias” was a mechanism in itself; it really was an outcome with an unspecified "mutational process". He responded:
The proposed mutational process is an inference based on considerations of how modularity could arise. The authors state that there are now several models that are consistent with this account, and suggest how empirical data could help decide.
I asked in turn:
Yes, but what is this “proposed mutational process” and what are the “several models that are consistent with this account”? Obviously you cannot copy and paste the entire paper but some specifics (or external references) would be nice.
He never responded. It's difficult to discuss things when someone is trying to make a point with vague references and no details. I'd still like to follow up on this article so perhaps if I have time I'll find a copy. Becoming a Jedi Master in the online ID Wars Evolutionary LogicPatrick
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Joseph,
Here I believe Wm is saying that CSI helps identify those sequences which are non-random- ie someone cheated- beacuse if they were truly random they would not be algorithmically compressible.
Here you're saying that compressibility can be an indication of cheating, which is a case of design. But CJYman excluded compressible strings from CSI. Do you see the contradiction I'm trying to resolve? Thank you for your help.Peace
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Sally: "Actually, Stephen, were one to use the explanatory filter consistently, he would find that every single artifact under scrutiny is designed. What is the probability that these particular atoms, out of all the individual atoms in the universe, are configured together in this lump of space-time? To claim that this is not information is very inconsistent. How do you know it is not information?" Dembski dealt with these points many times over. The reason specified is attached to complexity is to provide a means by which outcomes resulting from undirected causal factors can be distinguished from intelligent causation. It is the difference between aiming at a wall and landing an arrow on it randomly and hitting a bullseye drawn on the wall. The first could be done blindfolded and the location of the hit not an intended result. The second implies a purposeful outcome- design. Sally: "If you were honest, and not (apparently) intent on shoehorning the baby jesus into science discussions in public school classrooms,..." Your whole approach is dishonest. You are the one focused in religious implications of discussions focused on DNA, information and other non-religious topics. That comment exposes you.pk4_paul
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Davescot, and I’m wearing black. Allow them a eulogy. Getawttness, was a great Darwinist he never said anything substantive. And Sallyt won’t be missed at all because she was a bloviating methodological materialist ideologue. She ignored everything that people told her and just pulled a broken record campaign of total gibberish. Talking to Sallyt was like talking to a wall. RIP GAW & ST.Frost122585
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
To getawitness, Everything that Futuyma presented, with the exception of natural selection- which is a result, is a stochastic process. Natural selection just means that nature did the culling. However NS is nothing more than whatever survives to produce more offspring, survives to produce more offspring. IOW "there is no way to tell what will be selected for at any point in time" (Dennett). My prediction about Sally_T- she will join the ranks of others and will go to other blogs claiming some sort of victory.Joseph
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Sally_T is no longer with us.DaveScot
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
LoL!! Sally_T describes her position: If you had been paying attention instead of picking your nose, or going neener neener neener I can’t hear you, That is all Sally has been doing- picking her nose, and closing her mind.Joseph
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Futuyma’s description is fine, subtle, elegant, and right. But you’re no Futuyma. -gaw
And my representation is the same as Futuyma's, Dawkins' and Mayr's. Mayr tells us in "What Evolution Is" that teleology is NOT allowed! IOW my alleged caricature is borne from the minds of the top evolutionists!!! Go figure. Not to mention the 38 Nobel prize winners who sent a letter to Kansas stating "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." IOW stochastic processes.
Your caricature (”the universe and living organisms are the result of purely stochasttic processes” and variations thereof) is much more sweeping and crude, and elevates “stochastic processes” to include everything — including, apparently, non-stochastic, determinate processes that also exist in nature, to say nothing of our recent — and only recent — manipulation of evolution in particular directions by breeding and more modern technologies.
Artificial selection, ie breeding, is NOT part of the theory of evolution. Artificial selection is a telic process, meaning those breeds would not have appeared had nature operated freely. Also how do you think those alleged "determinate processes", such as the laws of naturte, arose in a non-telic scenario? It had to be via stochastic processes.
If you think repeating “stochastic processes” and “culled genetic accidents” ad nauseum says anything resembling that fine quote from Futuyma, I don’t know what to say. I’m speechless in the face of such delusion.
EVERY mutation, by evolutionary standards, IS a genetic accident. To deny that is to prove you do not know anything about the theory of evolution. Culling is the process of elimination- and it is also part of the evolutionary scenario- some mutations are kept while others are not. So the bottom line here is gaw doesn't know what he(?) is talking about and then thinks this ignoarance can be used as some sort of refutation.Joseph
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Sally -- you would attempt to demonstrate how one would determine that a peanut butter sandwich is designed, per the method that Dembski . . . But Dembski's method doesn't work well with peanut butter sandwiches. It would be the same for patterned wallpaper. We know it's designed, but Dembski's way would indicate that it's not. We can start with the little things that we know have required human agency, before moving onto others where there is not a hint But why? Imagine a group many generations ago moving an undressed stone to a spot to use as a boundary marker. Now, this spot is at the bottom of a hill. Dembski's EF's will never pick up that the stone was used for a designed purpose. Dembski never claims his method will not give false negatives. A more interesting -- and impeaching --exercise will be to use his method to give a false positive.tribune7
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Isn't it interesting to see just how hard and how insistently evolutionary materialism advocates have run away from the vital focus of the thread as set by Denyse? Namely, the issue of addressing a blatant injustice based on the imposition of so-called methodological naturalism as a question-begging and prejudicial redefinition of science, which has in turn shown just how effectively it censors the truth and seeks to silence those who would stand up for it in the halls of science. Let's remind ourselves again [cf OP and 239]:
Since the revelations from Monday’s press conference in Iowa regarding the true reason for Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure denial, I have been studying the comments of Darwinists . . . . I’ve already covered Maya [NB, now no longer with us] at 8, 10, and 12 here, arguing a case against Gonzalez, even though >the substance of the story is that we now KNOW that her assertions have nothing to do with the real reason he was denied tenure. Oh, and at 15, she asserts, “The concern is not about Gonzalez’s politics or religion but about his ability to serve as a science educator.” . . . . getawitness, at 18, then compares astronomy to Near East Studies, of all things. NES is notorious for suspicion of severe compromise due to financing from Middle Eastern interests! . . . . at 35, Ellazimm asks, apparently in all seriousness, “Having been involved in a contentious tenure decision myself I can’t see why the faculty are not allowed to make a decision based on their understanding of the scientific standard in their discipline.” . . . . Briefly, Ellazimm the facts are these: They decided to get rid of him because of his sympathies with intelligent design BEFORE the tenure process even began, then cited a variety of other explanations that taken as a whole lacked merit . . . THEN the truth came out when e-mails were subpoenaed through a public records request. That was AFTER President Geoffroy had represented a facts-challenged story to the public media. In other words, the entire tenure process sounds like a sham and the participants may have engaged in deliberate deception to cover up the fact that it was a sham.
Of course, at 56 [and 239] above we can see, courtesy an excerpt from GG's ISU HOD, Dr. Eli Rosenberg:
Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the realm of science. … But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.
Notice carefully how not one of the above higlighted Darwinism advocates and their fellow travellers has seriously and cogently explained how it can be philosophically or historically warranted that such methodological naturalism can be taken as a criterion of competence as either a scientist or science educator. And for excellent reason. It is in fact a back-door way to smuggle in the politically correct principle too often used to silence serious dicussion in recent years, namely, the tendentious idea that science – as a “proper” rule of the game -- is censored from addressing the third major cause of events, agents, whenever it does not suit the evolutionary materialist worldview. That should serve as a clear and present warning sign on the tyrannical tendencies of such evolutionary materialism. So, let us take due note and act to protect ourselves before it is too late. Now, let us pause and deal with a few of the usual red herrings, rabbit trails and strawman issues that the evo mat advocates have so persistently sought to hijack this thread with: 1] Poachy, 275: Today it is the astronomy department at the Iowa State University. Tomorrow it could be the whole world . . . This probable troll evidently does not realise the ironical accuracy of his remark. For, as the UD blog has discussed in recent months: [1] the European Union has drafted a policy statement that would do just the same sort of oppressive imposition EU-wide, [2] the Minister of Education in Sweden has put up an equally indefensible policy on private schools, and [3] at the Dawkins-supported recent Crystal-Clear Atheism conference, conferees made this same agenda all too blatantly plain. In short, what has been happening in recent years to Dr Richard von Sternberg and Prof Guillermo Gonzalez is not an isolated phenomenon. It is a decades-long trend, one that is under-reported, and one that is laced with terrible memories of what Darwinism-inspired regimes have done over the past 100 years. And all of that was foreseen by Uncle Charlie himself, as we can cite from Ch 6 of his 1871 The Descent of Man:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ________ Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236
Next, he doesn't even pause to reflect on the monstrous implications of what he has just said. Instead he coolly continues:
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell’s discussion,* where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process . . .[and yes, that plea to “explain” gaps has been made ever since Darwin, never mind just how embarrassingly rich the record has become since then . . . BTW, I am simply re-excerpting here what I posted in the 24th Mar 07 Darwin and the Irish thread, at no 21.]
Well over 100 million ghosts rise to warn us – but are we even listening? 2] Sally_T, 284: I’m just not sure how to calculate the ‘information’ in the bread making process . . . . How does one measure a ‘bit’ of information? . . . . this is of course important. I would like to see the math for the CSI in a peanut butter sandwich H'mm, as important as, say, cogently and seriously addressing a major on-topic question of injustice, Sally_T? Besides, the sort of question was actually long since addressed in the thread, in my always linked [cf. Section A, esp. the excerpt from Connor on defining and measuring information, then the onward point of identifying CSI.] But, just in case, let's summarise it again: [a] how many yes/no steps are involved in an algorithm to make a Peanut butter sandwich? [b] Each yes/no step implies one bit – binary digit -- of information. So as others have highlighted: to identify and assemble the ingredients, then top put them together in order entails a chain of actions based on yes/no choices. [c] The sum of those choices is the information content of a PB sandwich. It turns out that on the sandwich itself, the information content is well below the threshold that RELIABLY signals design; and of course the UPB threshold was deliberately chosen to be a tight filter that will only pass cases of design inference that are not reasonably expected to happen on the scope of our whole observed universe, across its entire lifespan. BTW, they are a lot commoner than you think, Sally_T! [Now, for instance, the biological origin of the sandwich's ingredients as deriving from life-forms is another matter, one with genetic information that is far beyond the 500 – 1,000 bits that marks the UPB. (I include up to 1,000 bits to take in islands and even archipelagos of functional information in the relevant configuration space.)] 3] Regarding GG, anyone bringing in less than 50 grand in six years is not going to get tenure [etc]. . . Just as Denyse pointed out in the OP, Sally_T predictably ducks the plain facts on the record to make an irrelevant, red herring leading out to a strawman, point (that also ducks the fact that we see that there is reason to infer a hostile intellectual climate driven by the attitudes and agendas we see at work, and of course the mere fact that GG is responsible for a major breakthrough in planet-detecting astronomical research). May we note Denyse again, putting in Sally_T for Ellazim:
Briefly, [Sally_T] the facts are these: They decided to get rid of him because of his sympathies with intelligent design BEFORE the tenure process even began, then cited a variety of other explanations that taken as a whole lacked merit . . . THEN the truth came out when e-mails were subpoenaed through a public records request. That was AFTER President Geoffroy had represented a facts-challenged story to the public media. In other words, the entire tenure process sounds like a sham and the participants may have engaged in deliberate deception to cover up the fact that it was a sham.
And, finally . . . 4] 331: Unless . . . the aim is to raze the edifice of biology and replace with ‘infermayshunology’ in which case we should talk about some other things first. In short, we may safely conclude that Sally_T is not serious, and is certainly willfully obtuse and non-responsive on cogent and easily available facts, and should simply be ignored – save as a classic example of the problems we face. FYI Sally_T, Design theory is a separate theory of information that just so happens to have something very cogent to say to a gaping, information-shaped hole in the current evo mat paradigm in biology and related areas. But obviously, the evo mat ideologues are not listening to the message being sent by the information-bearing DNA molecules at the core of cell-based life. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2007
December
12
Dec
10
10
2007
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
Stephen, according to which 'neo-darwinists' do organisms neither think nor plan? This should be good. Reaches for popcorn, pokes the slumbering RTH in the corner. Actually, Stephen, were one to use the explanatory filter consistently, he would find that every single artifact under scrutiny is designed. What is the probability that these particular atoms, out of all the individual atoms in the universe, are configured together in this lump of space-time? To claim that this is not information is very inconsistent. How do you know it is not information? Aren't you letting the evidence lead you 'where it may'. That is evidence that you must deal with, this staggering improbability that we are here instead of anywhere else, before going on to more banal calculations like the amount of CSI in a turkey drumstick or perhaps a quiche. The EF is tripped when mice fart. What good is that? You can only bypass the EF by cherrypicking 'information'. If you had been paying attention instead of picking your nose, or going neener neener neener I can't hear you, then you would have recognized the discussion of emergence has revolved around how scientific theories accomodate processes and entities that are not reducible to lower levels. Not any sort of magic properties that theism could not predict nor any sort of 'design' that is supposedly quantifiable but cannot tell a peanut butter sandwich from a pile of droppings (which, containing DNA, would undoubtedly trip the EF. Again, it's hard to keep the explanatory filter supplied with batteries, it's always going off). If you were honest, and not (apparently) intent on shoehorning the baby jesus into science discussions in public school classrooms, you would attempt to demonstrate how one would determine that a peanut butter sandwich is designed, per the method that Dembski has written in jello. We can start with the little things that we know have required human agency, before moving onto others where there is not a hint (i.e., organisms and higher level entities). You should demonstrate that the method 1) is usable for a variety of objects, 2) uses the complete set of 'information' that you can woo from an object, and 3) actually means something in terms of other domains of biological knowledge. Unless, of course, the aim is to raze the edifice of biology and replace with 'infermayshunology' in which case we should talk about some other things first.Sally_T
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
Futuyma's description is fine, subtle, elegant, and right. But you're no Futuyma. Your caricature ("the universe and living organisms are the result of purely stochasttic processes" and variations thereof) is much more sweeping and crude, and elevates "stochastic processes" to include everything -- including, apparently, non-stochastic, determinate processes that also exist in nature, to say nothing of our recent -- and only recent -- manipulation of evolution in particular directions by breeding and more modern technologies. If you think repeating "stochastic processes" and "culled genetic accidents" ad nauseum says anything resembling that fine quote from Futuyma, I don't know what to say. I'm speechless in the face of such delusion.getawitness
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Thank you for admitting the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.
No, I said that your ridiculous caricature of the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.
It's not mine and it's not a caricature.
Actually, it’s a supplemental text for high school students.
So they are teaching a ridiculous caricature to high school students? Is that what you are saying? How about Dawkins? He also seems to support the same model as I do. Does that mean he supports a ridiculous caricature? How can that be that the head of science at Oxford supports a ridiculous caricature?
"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)." - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
I take it you think that is another ridiculous caricature. Something that has become painfully obvious- YOU are a ridiculous caricature.Joseph
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Joseph,
Thank you for admitting the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.
No, I said that your ridiculous caricature of the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought.This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
Actually, it's a supplemental text for high school students. From the publisher's web site:
Engaging, accessible, and challenging, this volume is an inviting survey of the field of evolution for high school students.
Also:
Interest Level: Grades 10 - 12 Reading Level: Grades 10 - 12
http://www.rosenpublishing.com/showtitle.cfm?id=PK000004283getawitness
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.-- Ernst Mayr
Simpson echoed those comments:
From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.
IOW nested hierarchy was and is used as evidence for Common Design. Charles knew this and had to account for NH any way he could. So he hijacked the idea, just as he hijacked natural selection. IOW UCD accomodates nested hierarchy. It wasn't expected.Joseph
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought.This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10
Ya see gaw, evolution does NOT have a direction! Traits can be gained or lost depending on the mutations and the circumastances.
The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro
“While hierarchic schemes correspond beautifully with the typological model of nature, the relationship between evolution and hierarchical systems is curiously ambiguous. Ever since 1859 it has been traditional for evolutionary biologists to claim that the hierarchic pattern of nature provides support for the idea of organics evolution. Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.” “Of course evolutionary biologists do not look for the direct evidence in the hierarchy itself but rather argue, as Darwin did, that the hierarchic pattern is readily explained in terms of an evolutionary tree.”- page 131 of "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis"
Only if diagnostic character traits remain essentially immutable in all members of the group they define is it possible to conceive of a hierarchic pattern emerging as the result of an evolutionary process.-Ibid page 135
Charkes Darwin in "On the Origins of Species...":
Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important role in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other- forinstance, of birds from all other vertebrate animals- by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate class.
Go ahead- spin that as you will. The bottom line is nested hierarchy is a totally unexpected outcome as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. gaw sez:
No scientific method can determine “that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes.”
Thank you for admitting the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.
Why the fixation on that word?
That is what is being debated.
That’s partly what I meant by your idiosyncratic vocabulary: you’re putting words in the mouths of others.
What do you think culled genetic accidents are? A stochastic process. IOW had you known anything about the theory of evolution or the debate you would know that "stochastic processes" are at the heart of both.Joseph
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Joseph, I should clarify 324 above. It's true that nested hierarchy plus the historical progression of forms forms are best explained by descent. Darwin looked at nested hierarchy in context rather than in isolation. So if you want to say he didn't use nested hierarchy by itself as evidence for descent, big deal. That would be like complaining that he was too smart.getawitness
December 9, 2007
December
12
Dec
9
09
2007
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 12

Leave a Reply