The Reasonable Minority
Evopeach
reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
"The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
like Dawkins.
Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
information theory and yes theology.
These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
quite accomplished in both.
The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
that history presents.
For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
I hope to do better.
If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
well read.
If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
experiences do shape us all.
I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
Mark VandeWettering
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
>
> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
Presumably you meant "Dembski". I can assure you that his take on
information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
Only half right.
> as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.
Such politesse is more by accident than by design, and occurred largely
because religion dominated thought for much of that time, effectively
supressing dissent from scientists.
> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.
>
> For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> I hope to do better.
>
> If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> well read.
>
> If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
Perhaps a degree of skepticism would also be warranted, at least
equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
counter to your own beliefs.
> I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> experiences do shape us all.
>
> I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
You'll have to show that there is some truth in your camp for this to
happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
on your journey.
Mark
snex
francis collins thinks seeing a waterfall is proof that certain
magical events happened in galilee 2000 years ago. is this what you
consider scientific thinking?
John Harshman
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
What did he say?
> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.
Are you really a formal student in the history of science? I would
interpret that to mean that you're enrolled in a degree program
somewhere. Mind saying where?
> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.
I wonder whether Collins would consider Dembski as one of the rapid
outliers. Do you have any evidence on that?
> For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> I hope to do better.
>
> If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> well read.
>
> If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
If.
> I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> experiences do shape us all.
I generally find that "extremists" are always defined as people who are
far from your position. Everyone, to himself, is apparently in the
rational middle ground. Is there any reason to pay attention to the
"extremist" label in itself? Or should one perhaps be prepared to argue
for one's position on its own merits?
> I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
All very nice, but some positions are indeed true. How will we tell
which they are? How do we recognize the reasonable minority? Oddly, I
would count myself in that group, and Dawkins too. What argument do you
have that I'm wrong?
Inez
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
>
> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
>
> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.
>
> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.
>
> For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> I hope to do better.
>
> If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> well read.
>
> If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>
> I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> experiences do shape us all.
>
> I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
Civility is not much of a virtue in arguments carried on by book.
Book yellin' isn't really such a terrible thing.
Earle Jones
<3890c415-9fe7-40c3...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well...
*
....and if they do, we will.
earle
*
wf3h
> to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> experiences do shape us all.
what creationists call an 'open mind' the rest of us call being
gullible....
>
> I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
kind of like a rape victim having a drink with the rapist. theology
has little or nothing to contribute to science.
Steven L.
> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.
I'm not sure it was as "well behaved" back then as you claim:
Consider the reactions to the psychological theories and findings of
Sigmund Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Alfred Kinsey.
When the first anesthetics (ether, laughing gas) became available, there
was a Church outcry against giving anesthetics to women in childbirth,
because the Bible said women were supposed to bear children in pain.
The original meaning of the term "organic chemistry" meant the chemistry
of organisms, of course. It was believed that those compounds
incorporated a mystical "vital force" that made them impossible to
synthesize from inorganic chemicals (called vitalism). Until Wohler
synthesized urea entirely from inorganic chemicals in 1828. That was
the end of the vitalism theory, and from then on "organic chemistry"
meant only the chemistry of compounds of carbon and hydrogen.
What I see is that science has been steadily applying reductionism to
explain the basic laws and components of natural world. And as they
applied that same methodology to explaining the chemistry, behavior, and
genetics of humanity, they ran right into the religious belief that
humans are unique, separate, a breed apart from the rest of the world.
That has just accelerated in today's world, with genetic engineering,
neuroscience, neuropsychiatry, etc. But it's not a sudden revolution,
as the above examples demonstrate. 100 years ago, Freud and
Krafft-Ebing dared to try to investigate human sexual behavior
scientifically and objectively, leaving the morality and religious
issues aside. That set off a lot of alarm bells.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Grandbank
(snip)
>
> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.
>
(snip)
For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
Dembski's ideas on his blog.
KP
John Wilkins
> Evopeach wrote:
>
> > As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> > quite accomplished in both.
>
> I'm not sure it was as "well behaved" back then as you claim:
>
> Consider the reactions to the psychological theories and findings of
> Sigmund Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Alfred Kinsey.
>
> When the first anesthetics (ether, laughing gas) became available, there
> was a Church outcry against giving anesthetics to women in childbirth,
> because the Bible said women were supposed to bear children in pain.
But when it was administered to Queen Victoria, it became quite
acceptable :-)
>
> The original meaning of the term "organic chemistry" meant the chemistry
> of organisms, of course. It was believed that those compounds
> incorporated a mystical "vital force" that made them impossible to
> synthesize from inorganic chemicals (called vitalism). Until Wohler
> synthesized urea entirely from inorganic chemicals in 1828. That was
> the end of the vitalism theory, and from then on "organic chemistry"
> meant only the chemistry of compounds of carbon and hydrogen.
>
> What I see is that science has been steadily applying reductionism to
> explain the basic laws and components of natural world. And as they
> applied that same methodology to explaining the chemistry, behavior, and
> genetics of humanity, they ran right into the religious belief that
> humans are unique, separate, a breed apart from the rest of the world.
>
> That has just accelerated in today's world, with genetic engineering,
> neuroscience, neuropsychiatry, etc. But it's not a sudden revolution,
> as the above examples demonstrate. 100 years ago, Freud and
> Krafft-Ebing dared to try to investigate human sexual behavior
> scientifically and objectively, leaving the morality and religious
> issues aside. That set off a lot of alarm bells.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
In a land where 50 bucks or so can buy you a degree, should we be impressed
by this statement (assuming it's even true - I won't bother to check
because... see below)?
> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side
IDiots per definitionem are not scientists (or at least IDiocy doesn't have
anything to do with science except that it may well sound like science
superficially).
Next time you feel that you have to rant against good science and pro
dogmatic nonsense, make sure that you know the scientific method and compare
said method with the nonsense the IDiots babble. Will spare you lots of
embarrassment in the future. Thank you.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Bill Morse
The reasonable minority is me and thee and I'm not so sure about thee :-)
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
I have the utmost respect for Dawkins' knowledge of evolution. I find his
faith in atheism somewhat amusing. I am now going to duck.
> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
I have never read either and so can't comment on their writing style.
> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.
>
> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.
>
> For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> I hope to do better.
Good luck to you. Genteel discussion is not a hallmark of usenet. For my
part, I put the odds of evolution being proved incorrect at exactly zero,
but that in no way justifies insulting those who differ in their opinion. I
am all in favor of reasoned discourse, even though I, like you, frequently
find it difficult to refrain from responding sharply (and as you may have
noted from my initial statement, it is hard to resist what strikes me as a
straight line).
--
Yours, Bill Morse
Evopeach
> On 2007-12-10, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> > like Dawkins.
>
> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> Presumably you meant "Dembski". I can assure you that his take on
> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
> illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
his advisors, committee members and grantors?
>
> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>
> Only half right.
Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
>
> > as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> > Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> > me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> > As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> > quite accomplished in both.
>
> Such politesse is more by accident than by design, and occurred largely
> because religion dominated thought for much of that time, effectively
> supressing dissent from scientists.
Actually the same people were prominent scientists and philosophers
and often theists which a serious student of the history would be well
aware. The record is unimpeachable.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> > that history presents.
>
> > For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> > succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> > I hope to do better.
>
> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> > with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> > well read.
>
> > If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>
> Perhaps a degree of skepticism would also be warranted, at least
> equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
> counter to your own beliefs.
I prefer reading, considering, evaluation by reasoning, and openness
to a broad perspective to skepticism and cynicism.
>
> > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> > experiences do shape us all.
>
> > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>
> You'll have to show that there is some truth in your camp for this to
> happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
> on your journey.
My camp includes Dr. Collins, Dempski, and other reasonable talented
and qualified people from a multidisciplinary prespective. I hardly
think biology has all the answers for how the universe came to be or
how it operates and there is much of science that lies outside such a
narrow field.
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evopeach
I doubt that Dr. Collins considers his particular enlightenment was an
example of his scientific thinking and your characterization of
Christianity as "magical events" is inconsistent with any mainstream
theology I am familiar with.
Rodjk #613
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
>
> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
>
> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
Sorry, I could not read any further than this without gagging.
Rodjk #613
John Harshman
> On Dec 10, 9:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>>presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>>open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>>that history presents.
>
> For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
> Dembski's ideas on his blog.
The explanation is simple. Dembski occupies the center. Being critical
of Dembski is ipso facto evidence that you belong to the cynical, rabid
outliers. Atheist scum.
John Harshman
> Evopeach wrote:
>
> The reasonable minority is me and thee and I'm not so sure about thee :-)
>
>
>>This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>>reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>>"The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>>While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>>evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>>chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>>like Dawkins.
>
> I have the utmost respect for Dawkins' knowledge of evolution. I find his
> faith in atheism somewhat amusing. I am now going to duck.
This isn't really the proper newsgroup to discuss Dawkins' atheism. And
I will forbear to ask why you find it amusing, or why you decided to use
the word "faith", because that would invite a reaponse.
[snip]
snex
then what does he consider it? is there some way other than science to
learn about events that happened in galilee 2000 years ago?
and in what way is magic inconsistent with mainstream theology? is it
your claim that a dead body rising to heaven wouldnt be characterized
as magic?
Evopeach
wrote:
> Evopeach wrote:
> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> > like Dawkins.
>
> Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
instructor, and has little published current research.
>
> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>
> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> > well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
> and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
>
> > Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> > me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> What did he say?
I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
>
> > As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> > quite accomplished in both.
>
> Are you really a formal student in the history of science? I would
> interpret that to mean that you're enrolled in a degree program
> somewhere. Mind saying where?
A Masters in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in The History of
Science at the University of Oklahoma.
>
> > The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> > that history presents.
>
> I wonder whether Collins would consider Dembski as one of the rapid
> outliers. Do you have any evidence on that?
No, but as a fellow believer I would certainly doubt Collins would
agree with your characterization od Dembski.
>
> > For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> > succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> > I hope to do better.
>
> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> > with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> > well read.
>
> > If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>
> If.
>
> > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> > experiences do shape us all.
>
> I generally find that "extremists" are always defined as people who are
> far from your position.
You find wrongly.
Everyone, to himself, is apparently in the
> rational middle ground. Is there any reason to pay attention to the
> "extremist" label in itself? Or should one perhaps be prepared to argue
> for one's position on its own merits?
The word extremist does not appear ..."extreme endpoints" in context
simply means in the outlier areas of opinion, advocacy, generally
driven by egomania, psychosis, dogma and unfortunate life experiences
leading to cynicism and irrational approaches to a subject.
>
> > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>
> All very nice, but some positions are indeed true. How will we tell
> which they are?
Generally by openminded inquiry, thoughtful reasoning, investigation
of various evidences and almost never by unthinking personal attacks,
unwarrented assertions, childish sophistry and absolute certainty of
ones own position as being the real truth.
How do we recognize the reasonable minority? Oddly, I
> would count myself in that group, and Dawkins too. What argument do you
> have that I'm wrong?
I have no idea what your positions are only what you assert about
others.
Evopeach
> On Dec 10, 11:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> > experiences do shape us all.
>
> what creationists call an 'open mind' the rest of us call being
> gullible....
Define creationist? Historically it has many flavors and a host of
scientists would and have considered themselves creationists since the
1500's through today. >
>
>
> > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>
> kind of like a rape victim having a drink with the rapist. theology
> has little or nothing to contribute to science.
That is an unsubstantiated assertion and a rediculous analogy all in
one breath. I don't anticipate any fertile discussion.
R. Baldwin
news:a238beeb-30a2-42f7...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.
[snip]
I would like to know what William Dembski's "significant credentials" in
Information Theory are. His web site
(http://www.arn.org/authors/dembski.html) does not mention a degree in this
field, or that he ever taught Information Theory. I looked in the usual
places for Information Theory articles and found nothing published by
Demski. He has no Information Theory articles (or any articles) at arXiv
(http://arxiv.org). The only Demski article listed by CiteSeer
(http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/) is published by the Discovery Institute. I
did an article search on the web site of the International Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE, http://www.ieee.org), and found 0 documents out
of 1.7 million mentioning "Dembski". The IEEE Information Theory Society
does not list Demski as a researcher (http://www.itsoc.org/directory.html).
The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM, http://www.acm.org/) does not
show him as an author. Now since the IEEE and the ACM are the two foremost
professional societies publishing on Information Theory in the United
States, you would think Demski would at least get a cite if he had
"significant credentials", wouldn't you?
By comparison, Vitanyi (who does have significant credentials in Information
Theory) gets:
292 hits in CiteSeer
48 articles in arXiv
33 hits at IEEE Xplore
150 hits at ACM Digital Library
It sure doesn't look like Demski has "significant credentials" in
Information Theory.
Evopeach
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
The socalled war between science and religion is way oversold when
examined with real scholarship. There are evidences of intolerance on
each side to be sure but many scientists have been and are religious
persons as well as accomplished scientists.
On strictly scientific and ethical grounds some of those mentioned are
no longer respected by mainstream science. A reading of "Intellectual
Morons" might be enlightening.
Evopeach
Try posting anything remotely in opposition or even questioning of
naturalism on this site.
Evopeach
<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> Evopeach:
>
> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> In a land where 50 bucks or so can buy you a degree, should we be impressed
> by this statement (assuming it's even true - I won't bother to check
> because... see below)?
>
> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side
>
> IDiots per definitionem are not scientists (or at least IDiocy doesn't have
> anything to do with science except that it may well sound like science
> superficially).
> Next time you feel that you have to rant against good science and pro
> dogmatic nonsense, make sure that you know the scientific method and compare
> said method with the nonsense the IDiots babble. Will spare you lots of
> embarrassment in the future. Thank you.
I don't respond to this sort of mental midget rambling so save your
"breath."
Cj
>snip<
>> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
>> > with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
>> > well read.
>snip<
These gentlemen didn't have to deal with epistles from liars...
R. Baldwin
> On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Evopeach wrote:
>> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> > like Dawkins.
>>
>> Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
>> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
> What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> instructor, and has little published current research.
Dawkins is a professor at Oxford, a Fellow of the Royal Society, has
published research in Nature, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behaviour,
Theoretical Biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Behavioral
and Brain Science, and other journals. He has a long list of publications.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/biblio.shtml
>
>
>>
>> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory,
>> exactly?
>
> He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.
[snip]
Kermit
Is that why I can't read this post?
Kermit
Rusty Sites
Apparently you, like Dembski, consider criticism of his supposedly
scientific work a personal attack.
>
>>> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
>>> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>> What did he say?
>
> I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
>>> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
>>> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
>>> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
>>> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
>>> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
>>> quite accomplished in both.
>> Are you really a formal student in the history of science? I would
>> interpret that to mean that you're enrolled in a degree program
>> somewhere. Mind saying where?
>
> A Masters in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in The History of
> Science at the University of Oklahoma.
>>> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>>> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>>> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>>> that history presents.
>> I wonder whether Collins would consider Dembski as one of the rapid
>> outliers. Do you have any evidence on that?
>
> No, but as a fellow believer I would certainly doubt Collins would
> agree with your characterization od Dembski.
Ah, after all the formalities about credentials, we finally get to the
real issue. You would expect Collins to endorse Dembski's scientific
work based on your common religious beliefs.
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> These two men [Collins and Dembski] are not in agreement in totality
> but certainly have respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on
> their side, as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
Apparently you are not familiar with the body of Dembski's work. Or do
you consider animations featuring nothing but farting noises from
images of one's critics to be respectful, honest, sincere, and good
scholarship?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
> On Dec 10, 8:28 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 9:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> > The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>> > that history presents.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
>> Dembski's ideas on his blog.
>
> Try posting anything remotely in opposition or even questioning of
> naturalism on this site.
Different as [CENSORED] and day, aren't they?
richardal...@googlemail.com
Quite so.
The creationism issue comes down to something more basic than that:
honesty.
Creationist arguments are built on distortion, misrepresentation and
outright falsehoods. The creationist movement is founded on the
falsehood that the Biblical account of creation is supported by
science.
If creationists were to drop that claim there would be no dispute.
RF
Rolf
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
>
> information theory and yes theology.
>
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.
>
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.
>
> succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> I hope to do better.
>
> with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> well read.
>
> arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>
> to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> experiences do shape us all.
>
You really think you can deal with ReMine and Dembski?
Rolf
Ratio, rational, rationalism. The latter (a) "philosophy which makes reason
the sole guide; system opposed to supernatural or divine revelation."
Rolf
"Teach the controversy" but a minor skirmish? Are you familiar with
approaches like palaeontologist Kurt Wise's:
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a
young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As
I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the
evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to
admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word
of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
Religion vs. Ratio: 1 - 0.
Rolf
> On Dec 10, 9:25 pm, Thurisaz the Einherjer
> <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> > Evopeach:
> >
> > > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> > > information theory and yes theology.
> >
> > In a land where 50 bucks or so can buy you a degree, should we be
impressed
> > by this statement (assuming it's even true - I won't bother to check
> > because... see below)?
> >
> > > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> > > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side
> >
> > IDiots per definitionem are not scientists (or at least IDiocy doesn't
have
> > anything to do with science except that it may well sound like science
> > superficially).
> > Next time you feel that you have to rant against good science and pro
> > dogmatic nonsense, make sure that you know the scientific method and
compare
> > said method with the nonsense the IDiots babble. Will spare you lots of
> > embarrassment in the future. Thank you.
>
> I don't respond to this sort of mental midget rambling so save your
> "breath."
The iron fist in the glove, eh?
wf3h
> On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> > > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>
> > Only half right.
>
> Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
> without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
creationism is a dishonesty, by definition. what more can one say?
>
> > Such politesse is more by accident than by design, and occurred largely
> > because religion dominated thought for much of that time, effectively
> > supressing dissent from scientists.
>
> Actually the same people were prominent scientists and philosophers
> and often theists which a serious student of the history would be well
> aware. The record is unimpeachable.
>
the record is also inimpeachable that, for a thousand years, there was
little else to study. the reason most scientists were clergymen was
that those were the only educated people around.
>
> > Perhaps a degree of skepticism would also be warranted, at least
> > equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
> > counter to your own beliefs.
>
> I prefer reading, considering, evaluation by reasoning, and openness
> to a broad perspective to skepticism and cynicism.
and at some point one must take a stand and declare 'that idea is
wrong'. at some point the evidence is overwhelming that some ideas are
simply invalid. creationism/design is one of these.
>
> > You'll have to show that there is some truth in your camp for this to
> > happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
> > on your journey.
>
> My camp includes Dr. Collins, Dempski, and other reasonable talented
> and qualified people from a multidisciplinary prespective. I hardly
> think biology has all the answers for how the universe came to be or
> how it operates and there is much of science that lies outside such a
> narrow field.
since it's not the biologist's job to tell us 'how the universe came
to be' (sic), you're right. it doesn't have the answers.
and his name is 'dembski', not 'dempski'.
wf3h
> On Dec 10, 8:00 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 11:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> > > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> > > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> > > experiences do shape us all.
>
> > what creationists call an 'open mind' the rest of us call being
> > gullible....
>
> Define creationist? Historically it has many flavors and a host of
> scientists would and have considered themselves creationists since the
> 1500's through today. >
science as we understand it barely existed in the 1500's. the
theological view of nature was all there was in western civilization
for over 1800 years. it's not a very powerful idea since it led
nowhere.
a creationist is someone who believes natural forces are not involved
in the development of life. the fact that darwin's theory didn't exist
for the first 1800 years of xtianity doesn't mean the creationist
model was valid.
>
>
>
> > > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> > > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> > > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> > > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>
> > kind of like a rape victim having a drink with the rapist. theology
> > has little or nothing to contribute to science.
>
> That is an unsubstantiated assertion and a rediculous analogy all in
> one breath. I don't anticipate any fertile discussion.
nor do i; that's my point. theology has nothing to do with science. if
theology disappeared tomorrow, science would exist pretty much the
same as it is.
nmp
Ernest Major
<022a4eb3-4e9a-4c7a...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> > like Dawkins.
>>
>> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
>> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
>> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
>> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
>I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
>theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
>consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
>you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
>from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
>his advisors, committee members and grantors?
>>
>> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
>> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>>
>> Only half right.
>
>Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
>without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
>>
>>
>> > me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>>
>> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
>> > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
>> > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
>> > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
>> > quite accomplished in both.
>>
>> because religion dominated thought for much of that time, effectively
>> supressing dissent from scientists.
>
>Actually the same people were prominent scientists and philosophers
>and often theists which a serious student of the history would be well
>aware. The record is unimpeachable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>> > that history presents.
>>
>> > succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>>
>> > I hope to do better.
>>
>> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
>> > with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
>> > well read.
>>
>> > If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
>> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>>
>> equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
>> counter to your own beliefs.
>
>I prefer reading, considering, evaluation by reasoning, and openness
>to a broad perspective to skepticism and cynicism.
>>
>> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
>> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
>> > experiences do shape us all.
>>
>> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
>> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
>> > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>>
>> happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
>> on your journey.
>
>My camp includes Dr. Collins, Dempski, and other reasonable talented
>and qualified people from a multidisciplinary prespective. I hardly
>think biology has all the answers for how the universe came to be or
>how it operates and there is much of science that lies outside such a
>narrow field.
If your camp includes Dr. Collins then we would expect you to accept
common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes, and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. This is difficult
to reconcile with it including Dembski (sic), but he has said the ID can
accommodate all the results of "Darwinism".
You then proceed to confuse the issue with a red-herring. No-one would
expect biology to provide an explanation of how the universe came to be
(that would be cosmology), or to provide "all the answers" for how it
operates (depending on how we interpret operate, than might be physics,
or it might be the totality of science, except that even science as a
whole does not yet, and may never, offer a complete explanation.
It is a mischaracterisation to describe biology as a narrow field; I
fear than I may be forgetting something, but I'd place biology as one of
the 4 major divisions of science (physics, chemistry, geology and
biology).
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<faeae636-8647-4698...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>> Evopeach wrote:
>> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> > like Dawkins.
>>
>> Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
>> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
>What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
>instructor, and has little published current research.
>
not be doing the same for Behe and Gonzalez?
And you shouldn't be avoiding the question with weasel words like
"current" - Dawkins may not have published much research recently, but
that doesn't allow you to ignore his work in the 60's, 70's, 80's and
90's.
>
>>
>> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
>
>He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
>where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
>statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
>mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
>from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
>fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
>1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
>at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
>philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
>UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
You neglected to tell us about them.
>>
>> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
>> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
>> > well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>>
>> I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
>> and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
>Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
>M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
>M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
>Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
>S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
>M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
>B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
>
>http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
>A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
>disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
>publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
>cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
You have adopted the former? (Earlier in the post you wrote - "What
scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
>instructor, and has little published current research.")
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.12.11....@earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:59:25 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > These two men [Collins and Dembski] are not in agreement in totality
> > but certainly have respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on
> > their side, as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> Apparently you are not familiar with the body of Dembski's work. Or do
> you consider animations featuring nothing but farting noises from
> images of one's critics to be respectful, honest, sincere, and good
> scholarship?
>
On the rare occacions when I have nothing better to do I sometimes take a
quick look at Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog. Does the company he keeps
tell us something about who he is?
Garamond Lethe
> On Dec 10, 8:00 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 11:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
>> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
>> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
>> > experiences do shape us all.
>>
>> what creationists call an 'open mind' the rest of us call being
>> gullible....
>
> Define creationist? Historically it has many flavors and a host of
> scientists would and have considered themselves creationists since the
> 1500's through today. >
Do you have a cite for creationism earlier than 1910? I'm restricting
"creationism" here to a literal interpretation of the Genesis narratives.
<snip>
stew dean
> On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> > > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> > > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> > > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> > > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> > > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> > > like Dawkins.
>
> > > information theory and yes theology.
>
> > information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
> > mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
> > illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
> > knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
> > essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
> I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
> theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
> consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
> you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
> from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
> his advisors, committee members and grantors?
You claim to know about critical thinking yet use mostly appeals to
authority? Perhaps you're not being critical enough. Which university
you are from etc does not indicate how intelligent you are. If you
look at those that think in a truely critical way you will see they
don't do as you are doing and appeal to authority, talk up those that
support their view and certainly don't use Dr or other title
constantly - and certainly not on the front cover of their books.
Creationism, on all levels, does not stand up to scrutiny - and that
includes intelligent design.
If you would like to debate this you are welcome but appeals to
authority will be seen as the logical fallacies they are.
Stew Dean
Evopeach
wrote:
> "Evopeach" <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:faeae636-8647-4698...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Evopeach wrote:
> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> >> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> >> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> >> > like Dawkins.
>
> >> Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
> >> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
> > What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> > instructor, and has little published current research.
>
> Dawkins is a professor at Oxford, a Fellow of the Royal Society, has
> published research in Nature, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behaviour,
> Theoretical Biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Behavioral
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> >> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory,
> >> exactly?
>
> > He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> > where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> > statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> > mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> > from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> > fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> > 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> > at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> > philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> > UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>
> Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.
In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
And I know ...you once stayed in a Holiday Inn.
>
> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evopeach
No you commit the usual logical fallacies of red herring, false
attribution and mischaracterization of statements. I simply stated
that Collins would not be one who resorts to ad hominems, crude
language, logical fallacies and cheapshot cynical remarks as evidenced
here.
The scholastic achievments, books, publications and work product of
Dembski would not be subject to hipshooter remarks and silly
assertions based on nothing material in presentation.....Collins is an
honest man with an ethic of respect and decorum in addition to his
considerable skills.
Evopeach
I certainly have not read all his works. But they certainly have the
respect of several major universities, publishers and a host of his
peers.
How about you??
If you have evidence of your claims ...lets see it referenced and bona
fide...otherwise its just tripe.
Evopeach
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's one version of creationism. There are yet today those who are
OEC, theists not literalists, and even Collins who says he is a
creationist in terms of the origin of the universe and its operating
laws.
Evopeach
> "Evopeach" <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
> "Evopeach" <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A commitment to faith does not disqualify a scholar and scientist like
Wise from pursuing his particular craft.
Ernest Major
<32fad6de-0cb3-4015...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
According to Dembski's CV, as cited by yourself, Dembski's contribution
to that work was a reprint of “Reinstating Design within Science.”
Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1(4), 1998: 503–518.
That title does not give an impression that the work is evidence that
Dembski has significant credentials in Information Theory.
>
>And I know ...you once stayed in a Holiday Inn.
>>
>> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Evopeach
> In message
> <022a4eb3-4e9a-4c7a-8011-df7052a8f...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
You apparently do not include mathmatics as a major science, even
though it underpins every aspect of those you listed. In the context
of the areas of science touched by mathmatics, physics, and chemistry,
biology is indeed narrow..not quite as narrow as say paleontology of
course. The non-living world and science so associated is a vast area
of scientific work comparatively speakng.
Evopeach
>
> - Show quoted text -
If an open audience blog is your definition of keeping
company ...well, that is quite telling of your perspective.
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Evopeach wrote:
> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> >> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> >> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> >> > like Dawkins.
>
> >> Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
> >> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
> >What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> >instructor, and has little published current research.
>
> If you're going to denigrate Dawkins as a pop science writer, should you
> not be doing the same for Behe and Gonzalez?
I did not denigrate Dawkins I stated a fact: Popscience is a
worthwhile work for the mass audience and he has essentially no
published research in more than a decade...that's not CURRENT
research.
Let's compare the publishing record of research among the three since
say 1995...last 17 years.
>
> And you shouldn't be avoiding the question with weasel words like
> "current" - Dawkins may not have published much research recently, but
> that doesn't allow you to ignore his work in the 60's, 70's, 80's and
> 90's.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> >> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
>
> >He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> >where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> >statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> >mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> >from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> >fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> >1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> >at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> >philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> >UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>
> And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
> You neglected to tell us about them.
No I didn't if you read his dissertation and for instance his peer
reviewed publication on information in the context of origins of
complexity. I suppose you wish me to list every course he completed in
the various degrees and all post doc work as well. I suspect your idea
of credentials is rather skewed to your position.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> >> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> >> > well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> >> I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
> >> and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
> >Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
> >M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
> >M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
> >Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
> >S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
> >M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
> >B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
>
> >http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
> >A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
> >disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
> >publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
> >cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
>
> You have adopted the former? (Earlier in the post you wrote - "What
> scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> >instructor, and has little published current research.")
Point out where that is inaccurate. Is he full time on any staff with
a full teaching load, are his books not marketed to the mass popular
audience, are his research publications less than a decade old?
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gary Bohn
news:022a4eb3-4e9a-4c7a...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-12-10, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins
>> > and "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in
>> > physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect
>> > for people like Dawkins.
>>
>> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> Presumably you meant "Dembski". I can assure you that his take on
>> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
>> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
>> illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
>> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
>> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
> I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
> theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
> consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
> you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
> from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
> his advisors, committee members and grantors?
>>
>> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
>> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>>
>> Only half right.
>
> Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
> without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
>>
>> > as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>>
>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
Why do you insist on mis-spelling Dembski's name even when the correct
spelling is within the text you are responding to? Is there some hidden
motive at work?
BTW, experts in biology have reviewed Dembski's understanding of biology
and he gets poor marks. Experts have also reviewed his understanding of
information theory and he again gets poor marks. It seems he is a jack
of all trades (well just a few actually) but an expert in none.
As far as I have experience with, the only people who believe they have
cornered the market on 'Trvth(tm)' are religious literalists. Scientists
are just looking to improve their understanding of what they don't know,
and confidence level in what they hope they do know.
--
Gary Bohn
NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE!
Evopeach
Try "God and NAture" by Linburg and Numbers various essays. The point
is that your definition is about 100 years old and the creation
paradigm in science and religion and philosophy is 500 years older.
>
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
>
> - Show quoted text -
You fail to understand that appeals to authority are perfectly
acceptable in true rhetoric under the conditions:
The authority has education, publications, and work product that
indicate a significant degree of expertise in the field.
It's a fallacy if you say ... no but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last
night or in general reference a source who by generally accepted
standards is not qualified to speak authoritatively on a subject.
Any standard text on critical thinking will confirm same.
TomS
<475e7a82$0$26519$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com>, Garamond Lethe stated..."
The earliest citation in the Oxford English Dictionary for "creationism"
/"creationist", in the sense of "denial of evolution" is from 1859 - in a
letter of Darwin's.
The concept that species were fixed ever since creation seems to go
back to the 17th century.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Gary Bohn
news:32fad6de-0cb3-4015...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago
>> > (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in
>> > 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an
>> > S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in
>> > 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a
>> > postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science
>> > Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and
>> > philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He
>> > was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same
>> > subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton
>> > Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>>
>> Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.
>
> In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
> DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
> explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
> University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
>
<snip>
I think you forgot part of the title. It should be:
Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Rhetoric and Public Affairs
Series)
It was written by Stephen C. Meyer not Bill Dembski. I believe you were
discussing Dembski's qualifications were you not?
Here is a quote from Barbra Forrest on the book which directly addresses
its science content:
[q]
"Nineteen of the twenty-seven essays are by ID creationists and their
supporters, not one of whom is a working evolutionary biologist. Among
the eight pro-evolution essays, only four are by scientists. Of those,
only two are by evolutionary biologists. There is a preponderance of
humanities scholars; some, like rhetorician John Angus Campbell, are ID
proponents while others are pro-evolution." [/q]
That ain't a peer reviewed publication by any stretch of the
imagination.
The last thing the editors of that book want to do is critically review
a pro-ID article.
As Mark Isaac once said about the book "Anthologies and conference
proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards" ...
"reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The
purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant
omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the
reviewers are uncritical"
Mark VandeWettering
> On Dec 10, 8:28 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 9:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>> > The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>> > that history presents.
>>
>>
>> For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
>> Dembski's ideas on his blog.
>>
>> KP
>
> Try posting anything remotely in opposition or even questioning of
> naturalism on this site.
This isn't a site. But the distinction is simple: posting anything here
may draw response, but it isn't censored. Posting anything critical to
Dembski on his blog results in removal of the offending messages and
banning.
Which party is now part of the rational debate?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> by this statement (assuming it's even true - I won't bother to check
>> because... see below)?
>>
>>
>> IDiots per definitionem are not scientists (or at least IDiocy doesn't have
>> anything to do with science except that it may well sound like science
>> superficially).
>> Next time you feel that you have to rant against good science and pro
>> dogmatic nonsense, make sure that you know the scientific method and compare
>> said method with the nonsense the IDiots babble. Will spare you lots of
>> embarrassment in the future. Thank you.
>
> I don't respond to this sort of mental midget rambling so save your
> "breath."
Uh. You *did* respond. What you fail to respond to are any substantive
posts criticizing your claims.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Sadly, it might have been previously nominated, and is not original to me.
Mark
Geoff
>>> What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
>>> instructor, and has little published current research.
>>
>> Dawkins is a professor at Oxford, a Fellow of the Royal Society, has
>> published research in Nature, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behaviour,
>> Theoretical Biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
>> Behavioral
>> and Brain Science, and other journals.
I guess that shut you up.
>>>> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory,
>>>> exactly?
>>
>>> He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago
>>> (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in
>>> 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an
>>> S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in
>>> 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a
>>> postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science
>>> Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and
>>> philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He
>>> was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same
>>> subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton
>>> Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>>
>> Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.
>
> In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
> DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
> explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
> University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
It's a paper by Stephen Meyer. How does this attest to *Dembski's*
credentials in Information Theory?
Ernest Major
<96424ed9-a147-4d64...@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
don't consider mathematics as science. Mathematics is indeed a major
tool of science, but that doesn't make it science, any more than the
science underpinning engineering makes science into engineering, or the
widespread use of mathematics in engineering makes mathematics a field
of engineering.
You might like to check that number of scientists working in the various
fields, and the number of papers that they produce. Then again, you
might not, as it would demonstrate the falsity of your claims about the
balance of scientific work.
From http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2007/03/07022214/002/003.htm
"The life sciences field, which includes papers in the medical sciences,
biology, agricultural sciences, and plant and animal science, accounts
for the relatively high proportion of as much as 60% of all scientific
papers in the United States and the United Kingdom. In Japan, Germany,
and France, by contrast, the life sciences field accounted for about 50%
of all scientific papers, with the fields of physics and chemistry
accounting for a relatively high 30% of their totals."
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Evopeach wrote:
>>
>>>This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>>>reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>>>"The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>>>While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>>>evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>>>chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>>>like Dawkins.
>>
>>Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
>>Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
>
> What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> instructor, and has little published current research.
I will agree that his direct contributions to science ended about 20
years ago, but before that he was an active scientist who has indeed
made major contributions to evolutionary biology. Your personal dislike
seems to be blinding you. Dembski, on the other hand, has made no
contributions to science that I know of.
>>>Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>>>information theory and yes theology.
>>
>>So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
>
> He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
That didn't answer the question. What are his significant credentials in
*information theory*?
>>>These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
>>>respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
>>>well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>>
>>I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
>>and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
>
> Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
> M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
> M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
> Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
> S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
> M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
> B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
>
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
> A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
> disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
> publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
> cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
That didn't answer any of the questions either. So he has some degrees.
So what? Are you saying that anyone with a degree should be respected?
Yet you don't appear to respect Dawkins, who has such degrees.
>>>Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
>>>me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>>
>>What did he say?
>
> I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
Then why bring it up?
>>>As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
>>>discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
>>>that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
>>>and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
>>>great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
>>>quite accomplished in both.
>>
>>Are you really a formal student in the history of science? I would
>>interpret that to mean that you're enrolled in a degree program
>>somewhere. Mind saying where?
>
> A Masters in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in The History of
> Science at the University of Oklahoma.
Are you currently a student, or did you mean "former" when you said
"formal"?
>>>The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>>>presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>>>open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>>>that history presents.
>>
>>I wonder whether Collins would consider Dembski as one of the rapid
>>outliers. Do you have any evidence on that?
>
> No, but as a fellow believer I would certainly doubt Collins would
> agree with your characterization od Dembski.
Really? I certainly know of a number of believers who would agree with
me. Kenneth Miller comes to mind. What makes you think a believer has to
respect Dembski? I thought that ID was supposed to be independent of
religion.
>>>For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
>>>succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>>
>>>I hope to do better.
>>
>>>If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
>>>with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
>>>well read.
>>
>>>If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
>>>arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>>
>>If.
>>
>>
>>>I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
>>>to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
>>>with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
>>>experiences do shape us all.
>>
>>I generally find that "extremists" are always defined as people who are
>>far from your position.
>
> You find wrongly.
Excellent argument. I'm convinced.
>> Everyone, to himself, is apparently in the
>>rational middle ground. Is there any reason to pay attention to the
>>"extremist" label in itself? Or should one perhaps be prepared to argue
>>for one's position on its own merits?
>
> The word extremist does not appear ..."extreme endpoints" in context
> simply means in the outlier areas of opinion, advocacy, generally
> driven by egomania, psychosis, dogma and unfortunate life experiences
> leading to cynicism and irrational approaches to a subject.
Repeating the claim is a very convincing argument too.
>>>I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
>>>theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
>>>concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
>>>may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>>
>>All very nice, but some positions are indeed true. How will we tell
>>which they are?
>
> Generally by openminded inquiry, thoughtful reasoning, investigation
> of various evidences and almost never by unthinking personal attacks,
> unwarrented assertions, childish sophistry and absolute certainty of
> ones own position as being the real truth.
I agree. So why the unthinking personal attacks on Dawkins?
>> How do we recognize the reasonable minority? Oddly, I
>> would count myself in that group, and Dawkins too. What argument do you
>> have that I'm wrong?
>
> I have no idea what your positions are only what you assert about
> others.
What argument do you have that Dawkins is not a member of the reasonable
minority? All we have so far is an assertion -- without evidence -- that
Francis Collins has little respect for "people like" him. I would not
consider that to be openminded inquiry, thoughtful reasoning, etc.
Mark VandeWettering
> On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> > like Dawkins.
>>
>> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
>> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
>> illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
>> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
>> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
> I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
> theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
> consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I.
I suppose you think that you are a better than average driver too.
More than 50% of people think similarly.
> If you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
> from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
> his advisors, committee members and grantors?
Yes. It would.
I won't bother critiquing his theological degrees, but you don't have to
look very hard to realize that Dembski is not only not a biologist, but in
fact has no advanced degrees (or, demonstratably any advanced expertise)
in any scientific field. His peer reviewed work in mathematics is meager.
It's unlikely he would even be accepted to a tenure track position, much
less achieve tenure in mathematics at any major university, or even any
reasonable university.
You don't have to take my word for it, you can read Shallit's comments
on the subject at:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/shallit.pdf
>> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
>> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>>
>> Only half right.
>
> Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
> without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
I'm not trying to convince you. Since you are demonstratably unconvinceable
it would be a waste of my time. Dembski isn't respected as a mathematician
or in the information theory world. His works have by and large not been
subject to peer review. Criticism of his ideas are frequently deleted from
forums where he contributes, and their criticisms deleted. This is not
honest.
>> > as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>>
>> > Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
>> > me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>>
>> > As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
>> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
>> > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
>> > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
>> > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
>> > quite accomplished in both.
>>
>> Such politesse is more by accident than by design, and occurred largely
>> because religion dominated thought for much of that time, effectively
>> supressing dissent from scientists.
>
> Actually the same people were prominent scientists and philosophers
> and often theists which a serious student of the history would be well
> aware. The record is unimpeachable.
Nonsense.
>> > The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>> > that history presents.
>>
>> > For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
>> > succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>>
>> > I hope to do better.
>>
>> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
>> > with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
>> > well read.
>>
>> > If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
>> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>>
>> Perhaps a degree of skepticism would also be warranted, at least
>> equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
>> counter to your own beliefs.
>
> I prefer reading, considering, evaluation by reasoning, and openness
> to a broad perspective to skepticism and cynicism.
This would seem to be a statement contrary to available evidence.
>> > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
>> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
>> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
>> > experiences do shape us all.
>>
>> > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
>> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
>> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
>> > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>>
>> You'll have to show that there is some truth in your camp for this to
>> happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
>> on your journey.
>
> My camp includes Dr. Collins, Dempski, and other reasonable talented
> and qualified people from a multidisciplinary prespective. I hardly
> think biology has all the answers for how the universe came to be or
> how it operates and there is much of science that lies outside such a
> narrow field.
You really should learn to at least pay him the courtesy of spelling his
name correctly.
Mark
>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:55:43 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
>
>
>>On Dec 10, 8:28 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 10, 9:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>>>>presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>>>>open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>>>>that history presents.
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
>>>Dembski's ideas on his blog.
>>
>>Try posting anything remotely in opposition or even questioning of
>>naturalism on this site.
>
>
> Different as [CENSORED] and day, aren't they?
>
In case you don't get it, what happens on Dembski's site is that the
post gets removed, and you get banned from further posting.
What happens on TO is that you get an argument from people who think
you're wrong. No removal, no banning.
Which is more intellectually honest? Which is more in the tradition of
open inquiry, etc.?
Ferrous Patella
df7052...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
> without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
>
Would you prefer we point out Dembski's latest case of plagiarism or would
you like to see where he portrayed is critics with farts noises?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 2007-12-11, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> On 2007-12-10, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> >> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> >> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> >> > like Dawkins.
>
> >> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> >> Presumably you meant "Dembski". I can assure you that his take on
> >> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
> >> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
> >> illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
> >> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
> >> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
> > I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
> > theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
> > consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I.
>
> I suppose you think that you are a better than average driver too.
> More than 50% of people think similarly.
I read of a survey in which over 90% of people thought that they were
better than average drivers.
There's a big difference between perception of one's ability and
actual ability.
RF
Geoff
> What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> instructor, and has little published current research.
He's a popular commentator on science, religion and atheism. He has a long
list of publications in respected scientific journals, unlike Dembski.
>> I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
>> and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
> Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
> M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
> M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
> Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
> S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
> M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
> B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
>
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
> A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
> disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
> publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
> cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
Bullshit. John asked "Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest,
sincere, and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on
Dembski?" Only a completely defensive attitude would consider this a
"personal attack". Furthermore, it doesn't answer his question completely.
There's no question that he's a smart guy. Anyone that has two PhD's and two
master's (discounting the M.Div) is devoted to learning and is quite
intelligent. What's is in question is Dembski's professional outout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski#Peer-review_controversy
"One of the common objections to intelligent design being accepted as valid
science is that ID proponents have published no scientific papers in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of their conjectures. The
ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, found
that to date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Despite the Dover trial
ruling, the Discovery Institute claims that Dembski's book The Design
Inference has in fact been peer reviewed, and represents it as peer
reviewed. Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski's credentials as a
mathematician and scientist, he has no peer reviewed scientific publications
and no recent mathematical publications."
"Computer scientist and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit describes Dembski's
published mathematical output as 'extremely small' for a research
mathematician, and remarks that '[i]t is very unlikely that his meagre
output would merit tenure at any major university.' Dembski insists that The
Design Inference has in fact been peer reviewed. Dembski states: 'this book
was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a
distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction,
and Decision Theory'. Wesley R. Elsberry contacted the person in charge of
the manuscript of The Design Inference at Cambridge University Press, who
asserted that the book received 'normal' review without being willing to
give any detail as to what sort of process was 'normal'. In his expert
report, Shallit states 'I know that book manuscripts typically do not
receive the same sort of scrutiny that research articles do. ..it is not
uncommon for a 10-page paper to receive 5 pages or more of comments whereas
a book manuscript of 200 pages often receives about the same number...'"
>>> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response
>>> to me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>>
>> What did he say?
>
> I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
Then why the fuck do you bring it up?
> A Masters in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in The History of
> Science at the University of Oklahoma.
Was that the Integrated Studies Program in Natural Sciences? Sounds like
fun!
SeppoP
I *usually* don't touch on the spelling abilities of the interlocutors in these threads, but *repeated* inability to
spell "mathematics" correctly *in a single message* is an indication that the poster is not "quite there"...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Mark VandeWettering
> On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> > like Dawkins.
>>
>> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
> instructor, and has little published current research.
You can read his cv here:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml
>
>
>>
>> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>> > information theory and yes theology.
Here's an experiment. Compare his CV to Dawkins.
>>
>> So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
>
> He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
It's odd that you didn't actually answer the question that was asked.
>> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
>> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
>> > well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>>
>> I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
>> and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
> Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
> M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
> M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
> Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
> S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
> M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
> B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
This is also not an answer to the question asked, except to merely assert
that credentials convey respect or make one scholarly.
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
> A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
> disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
> publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
> cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
His CV in mathematics is woefully thin.
>> > Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
>> > me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>>
>> What did he say?
>
> I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
"I have many supporters in email."
>> > As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
>> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
>> > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
>> > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
>> > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
>> > quite accomplished in both.
>>
>> Are you really a formal student in the history of science? I would
>> interpret that to mean that you're enrolled in a degree program
>> somewhere. Mind saying where?
>
> A Masters in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in The History of
> Science at the University of Oklahoma.
It doesn't speak well for your institution that you demonstrate such a
severe lack of critical thinking skills.
>> > The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
>> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
>> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
>> > that history presents.
>>
>> I wonder whether Collins would consider Dembski as one of the rapid
>> outliers. Do you have any evidence on that?
>
> No, but as a fellow believer I would certainly doubt Collins would
> agree with your characterization od Dembski.
>>
>> > For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
>> > succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>>
>> > I hope to do better.
>>
>> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
>> > with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
>> > well read.
>>
>> > If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
>> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>>
>> If.
>>
>> > I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
>> > to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
>> > with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
>> > experiences do shape us all.
>>
>> I generally find that "extremists" are always defined as people who are
>> far from your position.
>
> You find wrongly.
It does appear to be consistent with your own rather dishonest position.
We often here appeals for "honesty" and "openness" and "fairness" from
people who want their own absurdly dishonest ideas considered to be
the equals of ideas which truely are honest.
> Everyone, to himself, is apparently in the
>> rational middle ground. Is there any reason to pay attention to the
>> "extremist" label in itself? Or should one perhaps be prepared to argue
>> for one's position on its own merits?
>
> The word extremist does not appear ..."extreme endpoints" in context
> simply means in the outlier areas of opinion, advocacy, generally
> driven by egomania, psychosis, dogma and unfortunate life experiences
> leading to cynicism and irrational approaches to a subject.
You finally appear to be talking about something that you might know something
about.
>> > I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
>> > theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
>> > concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
>> > may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>>
>> All very nice, but some positions are indeed true. How will we tell
>> which they are?
>
> Generally by openminded inquiry, thoughtful reasoning, investigation
> of various evidences and almost never by unthinking personal attacks,
> unwarrented assertions, childish sophistry and absolute certainty of
> ones own position as being the real truth.
Lead by example.
>> How do we recognize the reasonable minority? Oddly, I
>> would count myself in that group, and Dawkins too. What argument do you
>> have that I'm wrong?
>
> I have no idea what your positions are only what you assert about
> others.
Perhaps you should start by refuting the criticism of Dembski with something
more than parroting his CV.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> wrote:
>> "Evopeach" <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:faeae636-8647-4698...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Evopeach wrote:
>> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> >> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> >> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> >> > like Dawkins.
>>
>> >> Really? Does he actually say that? I can see how he might not like
>> >> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>>
>> > What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
>> > instructor, and has little published current research.
>>
>> published research in Nature, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behaviour,
>> Theoretical Biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Behavioral
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>>
>> >> exactly?
>>
>> > He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
>> > where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
>> > statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
>> > mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
>> > from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
>> > fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
>> > 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
>> > at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
>> > philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
>> > UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>>
>
> In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
> DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
> explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
> University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
Ummm. That's Meyer's publication. Not Dembski's. The Journal is an
interdisciplinary one, where articles are peer-reviewed by "a professor
of biological sciences, a professor of philosophy of science, and a professor
of rhetoric of science".
>
> And I know ...you once stayed in a Holiday Inn.
Apparently you haven't.
Mark
>>
>> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Geoff
>>> I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each
>>> side to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them,
>>> hopefully with respect and understanding...life is rather complex
>>> and personal experiences do shape us all.
>>
>> what creationists call an 'open mind' the rest of us call being
>> gullible....
>
> Define creationist? Historically it has many flavors and a host of
> scientists would and have considered themselves creationists since the
> 1500's through today.
No scientist worth their salt, their beliefs aside, would study the universe
and *assume* that a creator is responsible for anything.
Newto was a smart guy and his contributions to math and science were
singular. All of this was done before he turned 40 and subsequent to that
his studies turned to theology and alchemy and his mood turned positively
irascible.
>>> I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
>>> theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set
>>> in concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility
>>> that they may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the
>>> other camp.
>>
>> kind of like a rape victim having a drink with the rapist. theology
>> has little or nothing to contribute to science.
>
> That is an unsubstantiated assertion and a rediculous analogy all in
> one breath. I don't anticipate any fertile discussion.
It's not an assertion at all. No analogy is. And IMHO, the analogy has
merit. Science has progressed in spite of religion, not because of it.
The truth that religion has, insofar as it has any, is completely irrelevent
to science, and vice versa. It's not that religion and science are
compatible. It's not even that they are orthogonal. It's that they are
completely unrelated and have completely different goals.
Religion and science are compatible the same way that ice cream and
encyclopedias are compatible.
Geoff
> The socalled war between science and religion is way oversold when
> examined with real scholarship. There are evidences of intolerance on
> each side
How has any science been intolerant of religion?
> to be sure but many scientists have been and are religious
> persons as well as accomplished scientists.
Completely irrelevent. There are many lawyers that are religious too. I sure
don't want biblical law in my courts.
Mark VandeWettering
SeppoP
> On Dec 11, 2:44 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:59:25 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> These two men [Collins and Dembski] are not in agreement in totality
>>> but certainly have respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on
>>> their side, as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>> Apparently you are not familiar with the body of Dembski's work. Or do
>> you consider animations featuring nothing but farting noises from
>> images of one's critics to be respectful, honest, sincere, and good
>> scholarship?
>>
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
>> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
>> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
>> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
>> exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
>
> respect of several major universities, publishers and a host of his
> peers.
>
Umm... Could you point at references to *any* respect from *any* major universities?
(His "peers" are his "peers". Being a "peer" to a certified kook is not exactly an endorsement :) )
Neither is *any* endorsement from *any* uncertified diploma mill, quite the contrary.
> How about you??
>
> If you have evidence of your claims ...lets see it referenced and bona
> fide...otherwise its just tripe.
Geoff
>> For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
>> Dembski's ideas on his blog.
>
> Try posting anything remotely in opposition or even questioning of
> naturalism on this site.
I'm sorry. Are you being persecuted again by our inability to censor you?
Mark VandeWettering
>> "Evopeach" <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 10, 8:27 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > > Evopeach wrote:
>> > > > As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
>> > > > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
>> > > > that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
>> > > > and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
>> > > > great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
>> > > > quite accomplished in both.
>>
>>
>> > > Consider the reactions to the psychological theories and findings of
>> > > Sigmund Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Alfred Kinsey.
>>
>> > > When the first anesthetics (ether, laughing gas) became available, there
>> > > was a Church outcry against giving anesthetics to women in childbirth,
>> > > because the Bible said women were supposed to bear children in pain.
>>
>> > > The original meaning of the term "organic chemistry" meant the chemistry
>> > > of organisms, of course. It was believed that those compounds
>> > > incorporated a mystical "vital force" that made them impossible to
>> > > synthesize from inorganic chemicals (called vitalism). Until Wohler
>> > > synthesized urea entirely from inorganic chemicals in 1828. That was
>> > > the end of the vitalism theory, and from then on "organic chemistry"
>> > > meant only the chemistry of compounds of carbon and hydrogen.
>>
>> > > What I see is that science has been steadily applying reductionism to
>> > > explain the basic laws and components of natural world. And as they
>> > > applied that same methodology to explaining the chemistry, behavior, and
>> > > genetics of humanity, they ran right into the religious belief that
>> > > humans are unique, separate, a breed apart from the rest of the world.
>>
>> > > That has just accelerated in today's world, with genetic engineering,
>> > > neuroscience, neuropsychiatry, etc. But it's not a sudden revolution,
>> > > as the above examples demonstrate. 100 years ago, Freud and
>> > > Krafft-Ebing dared to try to investigate human sexual behavior
>> > > scientifically and objectively, leaving the morality and religious
>> > > issues aside. That set off a lot of alarm bells.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Steven L.
>> > > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>> > > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>>
>> > The socalled war between science and religion is way oversold when
>> > examined with real scholarship.
>>
>> approaches like palaeontologist Kurt Wise's:
>>
>> "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a
>> young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As
>> I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the
>> evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to
>> admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word
>> of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
>>
>> Religion vs. Ratio: 1 - 0.
>>
>> There are evidences of intolerance on
>>
>>
>>
>> > persons as well as accomplished scientists.
>>
>> > no longer respected by mainstream science. A reading of "Intellectual
>> > Morons" might be enlightening.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wise from pursuing his particular craft.
Why should you be convinced by any argument from a person who is so unabashedly
honest about their willingness to reject evidence contrary to their own
religious predisposition?
Mark
chris thompson
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
Hello, EP. Nice to see you again.
Here's hoping calmness and probity will reign over our discussion.
But I would, if you don't mind, like to clear up a couple small things
that were left hanging from our previous discussion. As you can see,
also, they bear on the present post you have made.
What are the rules for assigning organisms to a particular baramin?
What rules do you use to make the dividing lines? Are there any
categories above or below baramin? Is there a Tiger baramin and a Lion
baramin, or do they fall into some sort of Cat baramin? If there's a
Cat baramin, what makes it different from "Felidae"? And if there's a
Cat baramin, are Housecats and Jaguars and Pumas and Lynxes all part
that baramin? If they don't all belong to the same baramin, what are
the rules for excluding them? What about Hyeanas? Are they in a Dog
baramin, a Cat baramin, or their own? How many Kangaroo baramins are
there please, and do Kangaroo Rats and Kangaroo Mice belong there?
Are South American Possums in the same baramin as Australian Possums?
How about Red Wolves, Gray Wolves, Tasmanian Wolves, Huskies, Akitas,
Cockapoos and Coyotes? Speaking of Tasmanian Wolves, how does
the baramin concept deal with extinct species?
Does Dembski's information theory apply to baramins? How, please?
Thanks,
Chris
Geoff
> Evopeach wrote:
>
> The reasonable minority is me and thee and I'm not so sure about thee
> :-)
>
>> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>
>> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>> like Dawkins.
>
> his faith in atheism somewhat amusing. I am now going to duck.
Faith in atheism? How many holes does it take to fill the Albert Hall?
Geoff
> I certainly have not read all his works. But they certainly have the
> respect of several major universities, publishers and a host of his
> peers.
What evidence do you have that *any* of his work has the respect of "several
major universities" (other than his doctoral thesis at one top-tier school
and one at a third-tier school), "publishers (respect other than for his
ability to sell books) or a "host of his peers".
The Design Inference, certainly one of his best known publications, was in
fact one of his doctoral dissertations. But for Philosophy, not Mathematics
or any science.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Evopeach wrote:
> >>> I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each
> >>> side to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them,
> >>> hopefully with respect and understanding...life is rather complex
> >>> and personal experiences do shape us all.
>
> >> what creationists call an 'open mind' the rest of us call being
> >> gullible....
>
> > Define creationist? Historically it has many flavors and a host of
> > scientists would and have considered themselves creationists since the
> > 1500's through today.
>
> No scientist worth their salt, their beliefs aside, would study the universe
> and *assume* that a creator is responsible for anything.
Or rather, they'd assume that a creator is responsible for everything,
and then try to figure out how it works.
RF
Ash
> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.
>
> information theory and yes theology.
>
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
Ash
>>
>>> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
>>> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
>>> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>>> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
>>> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
>>> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
>>> like Dawkins.
>>> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
>>> information theory and yes theology.
>> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
>> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
>> illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
>> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
>> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
> I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
> theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
> consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
> you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
> from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
> his advisors, committee members and grantors?
>>> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>
Though people who have even more and actually understand it say he is
missapplying theory. Those who know biology realise his biological
knowledge is poor and understanding even worse
Ash
>> I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
>> and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
> Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
> M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
> M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
> Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
> S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
> M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
> B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
>
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
> A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
> disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
> publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
You avoid the question. who is claiming Dembski is honest, sincere
and/or scholarly?
> I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
What a surprise
Ernest Major
<01f76d39-31bc-453d...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> On the rare occacions when I have nothing better to do I sometimes take a
>> quick look at Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog. Does the company he keeps
>> tell us something about who he is?
>> > Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
>
>that is quite telling of your perspective.
1) Dembski is not the only contributor at Uncommon Descent.
2) Uncommon Descent, by reputation, is aggressively censored, so Dembski
doesn't get a free pass on what is left.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
5000, apparently, but you have to move them from Blackburn, Lancashire.
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 11:28 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> >> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> >> >> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> >> >> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> >> >> > like Dawkins.
>
> >> >> Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
> >> > What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> >> > instructor, and has little published current research.
>
> >> Dawkins is a professor at Oxford, a Fellow of the Royal Society, has
> >> published research in Nature, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behaviour,
> >> Theoretical Biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Behavioral
> >> and Brain Science, and other journals. He has a long list of
> >>publications.http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive
> >>/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> >> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> >> >> exactly?
>
> >> > He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> >> > where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> >> > statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> >> > mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> >> > from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> >> > fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> >> > 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> >> > at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> >> > philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> >> > UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>
> >> Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.
>
> >In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
> >DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
> >explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
> >University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
>
> to that work was a reprint of "Reinstating Design within Science."
> Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1(4), 1998: 503-518.
>
> That title does not give an impression that the work is evidence that
> Dembski has significant credentials in Information Theory.
>
>
>
> >And I know ...you once stayed in a Holiday Inn.
Yep! Your point is....Oh guess there isn't one.
>
> >> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quo
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:022a4eb3-4e9a-4c7a...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins
> >> > and "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in
> >> > physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect
> >> > for people like Dawkins.
>
> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> >> information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
> >> mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
> >> illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
> >> knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
> >> essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.
>
> > I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
> > theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
> > consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
> > you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
> > from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
> > his advisors, committee members and grantors?
>
> >> > These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> >> > respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,
>
> >> Only half right.
>
> > without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.
>
>
> >> > to me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> >> > discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am
> >> > chagrined that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in
> >> > which religion and science were quite well behaved one toward the
> >> > other in majority, great thinkers and practioners were integrated
> >> > in both endeavors and quite accomplished in both.
>
> >> largely because religion dominated thought for much of that time,
> >> effectively supressing dissent from scientists.
>
> > Actually the same people were prominent scientists and philosophers
> > and often theists which a serious student of the history would be well
> > aware. The record is unimpeachable.
>
> >> > debate presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict
> >> > tradition of open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and
> >> > mutual respect that history presents.
>
> >> > succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at
> >> > times.
>
> >> > I hope to do better.
>
> >> > If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common
> >> > ground with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain
> >> > open and well read.
>
> >> > If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> >> > arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>
> >> equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
> >> counter to your own beliefs.
>
> > I prefer reading, considering, evaluation by reasoning, and openness
> > to a broad perspective to skepticism and cynicism.
>
> >> > side to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them,
> >> > hopefully with respect and understanding...life is rather complex
> >> > and personal experiences do shape us all.
>
> >> > and theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not
> >> > set in concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility
> >> > that they may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the
> >> > other camp.
>
> >> happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
> >> on your journey.
>
> > My camp includes Dr. Collins, Dempski, and other reasonable talented
> > and qualified people from a multidisciplinary prespective. I hardly
> > think biology has all the answers for how the universe came to be or
> > how it operates and there is much of science that lies outside such a
> > narrow field.
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> spelling is within the text you are responding to? Is there some hidden
> motive at work?
>
> BTW, experts in biology have reviewed Dembski's understanding of biology
> and he gets poor marks.
And some believe he is well versed and has the advice of experts in
the field at hand. You point ..oh yeah nothing substantive.
Experts have also reviewed his understanding of
> information theory and he again gets poor marks.
From people preconditioned to dislike him for philosophical and
metaphysical reasons. Original thinkers who combine expertise and
experience across multiple fields are seldom welcomed by the anchors
of staid conventional wisdom..they are wagon circlers.
It seems he is a jack
> of all trades (well just a few actually) but an expert in none.
>
> As far as I have experience with, the only people who believe they have
> cornered the market on 'Trvth(tm)' are religious literalists.
Scientists
> are just looking to improve their understanding of what they don't know,
> and confidence level in what they hope they do know.
Yes that's why the're so open to new ideas, alternative explanations,
multidiscliplinary scholarship researches...etc.
Better check your emails Iowa State forgot to wipe their server.
>
> --
> Gary Bohn
>
> NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE!- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:32fad6de-0cb3-4015...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago
> >> > (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in
> >> > 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an
> >> > S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in
> >> > 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a
> >> > postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science
> >> > Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and
> >> > philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He
> >> > was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same
> >> > subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton
> >> > Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>
> >> Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.
>
> > In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
> > DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
> > explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
> > University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
>
>
> I think you forgot part of the title. It should be:
> Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Rhetoric and Public Affairs
> Series)
>
> It was written by Stephen C. Meyer not Bill Dembski. I believe you were
> discussing Dembski's qualifications were you not?
>
> Here is a quote from Barbra Forrest on the book which directly addresses
> its science content:
>
> [q]
> "Nineteen of the twenty-seven essays are by ID creationists and their
> supporters, not one of whom is a working evolutionary biologist. Among
> the eight pro-evolution essays, only four are by scientists. Of those,
> only two are by evolutionary biologists. There is a preponderance of
> humanities scholars; some, like rhetorician John Angus Campbell, are ID
> proponents while others are pro-evolution." [/q]
>
> That ain't a peer reviewed publication by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> The last thing the editors of that book want to do is critically review
> a pro-ID article.
>
> As Mark Isaac once said about the book "Anthologies and conference
> proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards" ...
> "reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The
> purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant
> omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the
> reviewers are uncritical"
>
> --
> Gary Bohn
>
> NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So I should be surprised that the female hater disagrees with certain
review standards. Here's a clue ...rehearsing demagogary from sources
well identified with the haters, cynics, arch evolutionary true
believers is simply poisoning the well and has no standing with true
rhetoric but great standing in sophistry.
Quoting that lady as an expert in editorial standards, peer review
policies, or anything outside the occult studies she specializes in is
a really bad way to try an appeal to authority.
Is that your best shot?
Evopeach
> On 2007-12-11, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Dec 10, 9:59 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> >> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> >> > that history presents.
>
>
> >> For a good example of this, try posting something critical of
> >> Dembski's ideas on his blog.
>
>
> > Try posting anything remotely in opposition or even questioning of
> > naturalism on this site.
>
> may draw response, but it isn't censored. Posting anything critical to
> Dembski on his blog results in removal of the offending messages and
> banning.
>
> Which party is now part of the rational debate?
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
SO you're prepared to demonstrate that every critical comment on
Demski's site has been removed. Now wouldn't that be rather difficult
to show unless you saw all of them before they were removed or maybe
you have access to the deleted files immediately.
Hint..think before posting so it won't be quite so embarrassing.
Ernest Major
<9feda924-b1f1-4639...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
credentials" in Information Theory is unsupported by yourself?
From the context in which you cited Meyer's book it appears that you
were presenting it as evidence of Dembski's alleged credentials therein,
and specifically in response to the point that your previous attempt did
not offer any evidence of said alleged credentials. So the point should
be obvious - you are still failing to support the claim that Dembski has
"significant credentials" in Information Theory. With supporters like
yourself Dembski hardly needs detractors.
--
alias Ernest Major
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 4:31 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >> >On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2007-12-10, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >> >> > reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> >> >> > "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >> >> > While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >> >> > evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> >> >> > chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> >> >> > like Dawkins.
>
> >> >> > information theory and yes theology.
>
> >> >> > presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> >> >> > open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> >> >> > that history presents.
>
> >> common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
> >> and other processes, and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. This is difficult
> >> to reconcile with it including Dembski (sic), but he has said the ID can
> >> accommodate all the results of "Darwinism".
>
> >> You then proceed to confuse the issue with a red-herring. No-one would
> >> expect biology to provide an explanation of how the universe came to be
> >> (that would be cosmology), or to provide "all the answers" for how it
> >> operates (depending on how we interpret operate, than might be physics,
> >> or it might be the totality of science, except that even science as a
> >> whole does not yet, and may never, offer a complete explanation.
>
> >> It is a mischaracterisation to describe biology as a narrow field; I
> >> fear than I may be forgetting something, but I'd place biology as one of
> >> the 4 major divisions of science (physics, chemistry, geology and
> >> biology).
>
> >> --
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >though it underpins every aspect of those you listed. In the context
> >of the areas of science touched by mathmatics, physics, and chemistry,
> >biology is indeed narrow..not quite as narrow as say paleontology of
> >course. The non-living world and science so associated is a vast area
> >of scientific work comparatively speakng.
>
> don't consider mathematics as science. Mathematics is indeed a major
> tool of science, but that doesn't make it science, any more than the
> science underpinning engineering makes science into engineering, or the
> widespread use of mathematics in engineering makes mathematics a field
> of engineering.
WIKIPEDIA
Mathematics (colloquially, maths or math) is the body of knowledge
centered on such concepts as quantity, structure, space, and change,
and also the academic discipline that studies them. Benjamin Peirce
called it "the SCIENCE that draws necessary conclusions".[2] Other
practitioners of mathematics maintain that mathematics is the SCIENCE
of pattern, and that mathematicians seek out patterns whether found in
numbers, space, science, computers, imaginary abstractions, or
elsewhere.
Webster: 1 : the SCIENCE of numbers and their operations,
interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of
space configurations and their structure, measurement,
transformations, and generalizations
Hyperdictionary: Definition: [n] a SCIENCE(or group of related
sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and
arrangement
A check on the catalogs ( you know the internet) of several major
universities list the Dept. of Mathematics in their Arts and SCIENCES
College organizationally...guess these dictionaries and higher ed
universally have it all wrong.
Does you mommy know you're on the computer again??
>
> You might like to check that number of scientists working in the various
> fields, and the number of papers that they produce. Then again, you
> might not, as it would demonstrate the falsity of your claims about the
> balance of scientific work.
>
> Fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2007/03/07022214/002/003.htm
>
> "The life sciences field, which includes papers in the medical sciences,
> biology, agricultural sciences, and plant and animal science, accounts
> for the relatively high proportion of as much as 60% of all scientific
> papers in the United States and the United Kingdom. In Japan, Germany,
> and France, by contrast, the life sciences field accounted for about 50%
> of all scientific papers, with the fields of physics and chemistry
> accounting for a relatively high 30% of their totals."
Moving the goal posts is a logical fallacy as in going from biology to
every possible life science in gathering your stats.
According to the NSF from 1996 to 2003: Your original groups as
posted: Chemistry 8.1%, Physics 8.6%, EarthScience 7.5%, Biology 7.0%
and the scientific category listed in its own right MATH 7.7%
Now the question is can you pick out the smallest number in the group?
All fields 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.1
Chemistry 10.0 9.7 10.0 9.8 9.9
Physics 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.9 8.6
Biomedical research 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.0
Mathematics 6.9 7.9 7.6 7.4 7.7
Clinical medicine 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5
Earth/space sciences 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Biology 7.0 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.0
Social sciences 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.0 6.8
Engineering/technology 5.3 5.4 5.9 6.5 6.7
Psychology 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.9
(Percent of U.S. S&E articles)
If you had said all life sciences I would have agreed, but you didn't
so try again junior.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I can't respond
Mistake in former posting corrected for everyone's convenience.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Evopeach
wrote:
> Evopeach wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>>This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> >>>reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> >>>"The Design Revolution" by William Demski.
>
> >>>While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> >>>evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> >>>chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> >>>like Dawkins.
>
> >>Dawkins' theology, but how could he not respect Dawkins' scientific work?
>
> > What scientific work? Dawkins is a pop science writer , parttime
> > instructor, and has little published current research.
>
> years ago, but before that he was an active scientist who has indeed
> made major contributions to evolutionary biology. Your personal dislike
> seems to be blinding you. Dembski, on the other hand, has made no
> contributions to science that I know of.
S you are for instance aware of all his work in post doc, grad school,
etc. in great detail or maybe you're just hipshooting an unlearned
personal opinion.
>
> >>>Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> >>>information theory and yes theology.
>
> >>So? And what are his significant credentials in information theory, exactly?
>
> > He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC),
> > where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and
> > statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in
> > mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both
> > from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral
> > fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from
> > 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science
> > at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He was awarded an M.A. in
> > philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from
> > UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996
>
> That didn't answer the question. What are his significant credentials in
> *information theory*?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> >>>respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side, as
> >>>well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.
>
> >>I doubt that. Who respects Dembski? Who claims he is honest, sincere,
> >>and/or scholarly? Does Collins have an expressed opinion on Dembski?
>
> > Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1996
> > M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary 1996
> > M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago 1993
> > Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago 1988
> > S.M. mathematics University of Chicago 1985
> > M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983
> > B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago 1981
>
> >http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
>
> > A review of such credentials and his vitae leaves one with a choice of
> > disrespecting those in the academic community at major institutions,
> > publishing house editorial review boards, and peers or agreeing to
> > cease unthoughtful personal attacks based on no evidence.
>
> That didn't answer any of the questions either. So he has some degrees.
> So what? Are you saying that anyone with a degree should be respected?
Can't answer until I know if you have a degree.
> Yet you don't appear to respect Dawkins, who has such degrees. He was apparently a real scientist 20 years ago. He is a good writer and illustrator of his views
>
> >>>Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> >>>me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.
>
> >>What did he say?
>
> > I am hardly going to share personal correspondence with you.
>
> Then why bring it up?
>
> >>>As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> >>>discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> >>>that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> >>>and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> >>>great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> >>>quite accomplished in both.
>
> >>Are you really a formal student in the history of science? I would
> >>interpret that to mean that you're enrolled in a degree program
> >>somewhere. Mind saying where?
>
> > A Masters in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in The History of
> > Science at the University of Oklahoma.
>
> Are you currently a student, or did you mean "former" when you said
> "formal"?
>
I am a retired person so I take one class at a time toward a MS Degree
as described. I am currently enrolled and will be in the spring as
well.
> >>>The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> >>>presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> >>>open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> >>>that history presents.
>
> >>I wonder whether Collins would consider Dembski as one of the rapid
> >>outliers. Do you have any evidence on that?
>
> > No, but as a fellow believer I would certainly doubt Collins would
> > agree with your characterization od Dembski.
>
> Really? I certainly know of a number of believers who would agree with
> me. Kenneth Miller comes to mind. What makes you think a believer has to
> respect Dembski? I thought that ID was supposed to be independent of
> religion.
Respect for him as a person, a sincere seeker, a qualified scientist
and an innovator is not the same as agreement with his work product.
Believers like Collins would accord same to another person.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> >>>succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.
>
> >>>I hope to do better.
>
> >>>If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> >>>with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> >>>well read.
>
> >>>If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> >>>arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.
>
> >>If.
>
> >>>I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> >>>to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> >>>with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> >>>experiences do shape us all.
>
> >>I generally find that "extremists" are always defined as people who are
> >>far from your position.
>
> > You find wrongly.
>
> Excellent argument. I'm convinced.
>
> >> Everyone, to himself, is apparently in the
> >>rational middle ground. Is there any reason to pay attention to the
> >>"extremist" label in itself? Or should one perhaps be prepared to argue
> >>for one's position on its own merits?
>
> > The word extremist does not appear ..."extreme endpoints" in context
> > simply means in the outlier areas of opinion, advocacy, generally
> > driven by egomania, psychosis, dogma and unfortunate life experiences
> > leading to cynicism and irrational approaches to a subject.
>
> Repeating the claim is a very convincing argument too.
>
> >>>I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> >>>theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> >>>concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> >>>may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.
>
> >>All very nice, but some positions are indeed true. How will we tell
> >>which they are?
>
> > Generally by openminded inquiry, thoughtful reasoning, investigation
> > of various evidences and almost never by unthinking personal attacks,
> > unwarrented assertions, childish sophistry and absolute certainty of
> > ones own position as being the real truth.
>
> I agree. So why the unthinking personal attacks on Dawkins?
I never attacked him personally..I stated quite accurately his status
and work presently.
>
> >> How do we recognize the reasonable minority? Oddly, I
> >> would count myself in that group, and Dawkins too. What argument do you
> >> have that I'm wrong?
>
> > I have no idea what your positions are only what you assert about
> > others.
>
> What argument do you have that Dawkins is not a member of the reasonable
> minority? All we have so far is an assertion -- without evidence -- that
> Francis Collins has little respect for "people like" him. I would not
> consider that to be openminded inquiry, thoughtful reasoning, etc.- Hide quoted text -
Richard Dawkins is the holder of a donated "post"[2] at the Museum of
Natural History, an institution owned by the University of Oxford. The
"post" does not entail "substantial teaching."[3] Michael W.
DeLashmutt of the University of Glasgow described the "post" as being
a "Chair", not a professorship, in his brief biography of Dawkins.[4]
The special terms of this gift allowed Richard Dawkins to bypass the
peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving
the title of "professor".[9] In other words, the gift establishes an
endowment for future professors, but is held initially as a "post" by
Dawkins who was apparently never subjected to the full peer review
election process specified in the endowment.[10]
As of October 5, 2007, the Oxford University's Zoology Department
lists the status of Richard Dawkins status as "other" rather than as
"academic".[11] Since March 30, 2005, Dawkins' online resume has
stated his academic credential as "Charles Simonyi Professor of the
Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford," when in fact
Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History, an institution
merely owned by the University of Oxford.[12] The title "professor" is
misleading, if not fraudulent, as the position donated for his benefit
does not satisfy the Merriam-Webster definition of "professor": "a
faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of
higher education."[13]
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
loua...@yahoo.com
(re Barbra Forrest)
> So I should be surprised that the female hater ...
> (snip)
> Quoting that lady ...
Argumentum ad ick-girl-cooties?
Mark Isaak
>[...]
> BTW, experts in biology have reviewed Dembski's understanding of
> biology and he gets poor marks. Experts have also reviewed his
> understanding of information theory and he again gets poor marks.
And experts have reviewed his understanding of mathematics, and again he
gets poor marks. Dembski's _No Free Lunch_ is based, in part, on the No
Free Lunch theorem by David Wolpert. Wolpert himself wrote, "William
Dembski's Treatment of the NFL Theorems is Written in Jello."
I don't know if any experts have formally reviewed his theology work, but
they have reviewed intelligent design as Dembski presents it, and, no
surprise, it gets poor marks, too.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
loua...@yahoo.com
> Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > When the first anesthetics (ether, laughing gas) became available, there
> > was a Church outcry against giving anesthetics to women in childbirth,
> > because the Bible said women were supposed to bear children in pain.
>
> But when it was administered to Queen Victoria, it became quite
> acceptable :-)
That's one of the things I like most about her.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Evopeach wrote:
> > The socalled war between science and religion is way oversold when
> > examined with real scholarship. There are evidences of intolerance on
> > each side
>
> How has any science been intolerant of religion?
Any time science finds a series of facts that does not confirm a
religious dogma (Earth not the center of the solar system or universe,
women don't have one less rib than men), some subset of religion finds
it offensive. But that's their problem.
Ernest Major
<c251175b-a05c-40d7...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
Unlike you I realise that usage varies on this point, and the issue
cannot be resolved by reference to dictionaries, which is why I stated
my position of the matter, rather than making a claim of universally
agreed truth.
>
>A check on the catalogs ( you know the internet) of several major
>universities list the Dept. of Mathematics in their Arts and SCIENCES
>College organizationally...guess these dictionaries and higher ed
>universally have it all wrong.
Referring to the administrative divisions of tertiary institution of
learning is not a sensible argument. There was one UK university were
geography could be studied as an art (humanity), science or social
science.
But, you seem to have mangled your argument - the inclusion of a
department in an "ARTS and sciences" college is hardly evidence that its
subject is a science.
>
>Does you mommy know you're on the computer again??
Weren't you trying to claim the moral high ground?
--
alias Ernest Major