Twenty Years After Darwin on Trial, ID is Dead
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Randy C
Dec 6, 2011, 1:17:24 PM12/6/11
to
The web page at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
theory for a number of years.
Here are some quotes from that site:
[quote]
Even leaving aside the blow of Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID has simply
collapsed under the weight of its own vacuity. In the nineties and
early 2000s, ID seemed to be producing one novel argument after
another. They were variations on familiar themes, of course, but books
like Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, No Free Lunch and even Icons
of Evolution, written by people with serious credentials and written
with far more skill than the YEC's could muster, seemed to advance the
discussion in original ways. These books attracted enormous interest
among scientists, if only in the sense that they were promoting bad
ideas that needed be countered. Many books were written to counter
ID's pretensions, and major science periodicals took notice of them.
Not so today. Consider the two biggest ID books of recent years.
Michael Behe's follow-up book, The Edge of Evolution, dropped like a
stone. It got a few perfunctory reviews written by scientists who
perked up just long enough to note its many errors, and then everyone
ignored it. Frankly, even the ID folks don't seem to talk about it
very much. Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell was likewise met
with crickets. It briefly seemed like a big deal, a big book released
by a mainstream publisher, but scientists gave it a scan, saw nothing
remotely new, and yawned.
[/quote]
It ends with this paragraph:
[quote]
In the mid-nineties it was possible to wonder seriously if ID was a
serious intellectual movement, or just another fad that would die out
on its own. That verdict is now in. ID is dead. As a doornail. Even as
YEC shows renewed life with the success of the Creation Museum and the
fracas over their planned Noah's Ark theme park, the ID corpse isn't
even twitching anymore.
[/quote]
has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
theory for a number of years.
Here are some quotes from that site:
[quote]
Even leaving aside the blow of Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID has simply
collapsed under the weight of its own vacuity. In the nineties and
early 2000s, ID seemed to be producing one novel argument after
another. They were variations on familiar themes, of course, but books
like Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, No Free Lunch and even Icons
of Evolution, written by people with serious credentials and written
with far more skill than the YEC's could muster, seemed to advance the
discussion in original ways. These books attracted enormous interest
among scientists, if only in the sense that they were promoting bad
ideas that needed be countered. Many books were written to counter
ID's pretensions, and major science periodicals took notice of them.
Not so today. Consider the two biggest ID books of recent years.
Michael Behe's follow-up book, The Edge of Evolution, dropped like a
stone. It got a few perfunctory reviews written by scientists who
perked up just long enough to note its many errors, and then everyone
ignored it. Frankly, even the ID folks don't seem to talk about it
very much. Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell was likewise met
with crickets. It briefly seemed like a big deal, a big book released
by a mainstream publisher, but scientists gave it a scan, saw nothing
remotely new, and yawned.
[/quote]
It ends with this paragraph:
[quote]
In the mid-nineties it was possible to wonder seriously if ID was a
serious intellectual movement, or just another fad that would die out
on its own. That verdict is now in. ID is dead. As a doornail. Even as
YEC shows renewed life with the success of the Creation Museum and the
fracas over their planned Noah's Ark theme park, the ID corpse isn't
even twitching anymore.
[/quote]
raven1
Dec 6, 2011, 1:41:30 PM12/6/11
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
<randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The web page at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
>has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
>is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
>theory for a number of years.
Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
<randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The web page at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
>has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
>is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
>theory for a number of years.
Bruce Stephens
Dec 6, 2011, 2:39:29 PM12/6/11
to
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> writes:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The web page at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
>>has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
>>is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
>>theory for a number of years.
>
> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The web page at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
>>has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
>>is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
>>theory for a number of years.
>
> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
[...]
pnyikos
Dec 6, 2011, 4:33:48 PM12/6/11
to nyi...@math.sc.edu, nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> > <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
Anyway, Jaspm Rosenhouse's whole article reads like a bunch of fluff
to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
[begin excerpt]
But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
ID has to offer.
[end of excerpt]
I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
real refutations.
The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
propaganda post somehow admires:
"What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
all these years.
Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
[begin excerpt]
Let’s not forget all those other science bloggers and writers who’ve
also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
___________ end of excerpt
from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-hearted-creationists/
Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
recall him arguing with Julie.]
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
wrote:
> > <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> >>has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> >>is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>theory for a number of years.
>
> > Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
>
> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
>
> [...]
Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
> >>is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>theory for a number of years.
>
> > Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
>
> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
>
> [...]
Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
Anyway, Jaspm Rosenhouse's whole article reads like a bunch of fluff
to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
[begin excerpt]
But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
ID has to offer.
[end of excerpt]
I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
real refutations.
The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
propaganda post somehow admires:
"What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
all these years.
Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
[begin excerpt]
Let’s not forget all those other science bloggers and writers who’ve
also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
___________ end of excerpt
from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-hearted-creationists/
Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
recall him arguing with Julie.]
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Bruce Stephens
Dec 6, 2011, 4:55:37 PM12/6/11
to
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes:
[...]
> Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
> Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
I believe it is, more or less. A few years ago the DI announced they
[...]
> Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
> Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
were funding a research lab, and it appears the Biologic Institute is
it: <http://www.biologicinstitute.org/>
About
Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in
2005 for the purpose of developing and testing the scientific case
for intelligent design in biology and exploring its scientific
implications. Its founding was made possible by Discovery
Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which continues to
support its ongoing work.
[...]
alextangent
Dec 6, 2011, 4:54:11 PM12/6/11
to
>
> Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> recall him arguing with Julie.]
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
I'm flabbergasted.
> Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> recall him arguing with Julie.]
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Show anyone here some ID science first. If you can't, recruit someone
who can. Make a prediction.
Anything, really anything at all, would help.
John Harshman
Dec 6, 2011, 5:08:33 PM12/6/11
to
including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
> The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
> sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
> one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
> propaganda post somehow admires:
>
> "What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
> why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
>
> The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
> sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
> all these years.
> Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
> misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
> doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
> He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
> having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
> relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
> Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
> who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
>
> [begin excerpt]
> Let’s not forget all those other science bloggers and writers who’ve
> also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
> Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
> MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
> ___________ end of excerpt
> from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-hearted-creationists/
>
> Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> recall him arguing with Julie.]
JohnN
Dec 6, 2011, 5:49:52 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 1:17 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
new generation of IDiots.
JohnN
Kalkidas
Dec 6, 2011, 6:39:53 PM12/6/11
to
because you're ignoring it you can't tell if it's really going away.
And the problem with the "repeat that it's gone long enough and it'll
really be gone" strategy is the same problem as trying *not* to think of
an elephant.
Burkhard
Dec 6, 2011, 6:51:01 PM12/6/11
to
highly trained bokor to make one, just for starters
pnyikos
Dec 6, 2011, 7:11:06 PM12/6/11
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Dec 6, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
> >>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> >>> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> >>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> >>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>>> theory for a number of years.
> >>> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
> >> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
> >> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
> >> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
>
> >> [...]
>
> > Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
> > Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
Do you know the answer, John?
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
> >>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> >>> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> >>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> >>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>>> theory for a number of years.
> >>> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
> >> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
> >> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
> >> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
>
> >> [...]
>
> > Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
> > Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
> > Anyway, Jason Rosenhouse's whole article reads like a bunch of fluff
> > to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
> > the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
>
> > [begin excerpt]
> > But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
> > simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
> > absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
> > internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
> > ID has to offer.
> > [end of excerpt]
>
> > I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
> > talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
> > the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
> > clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
> > evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
>
> > If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
> > real refutations.
>
> Joe Felsenstein has decisively refuted most of Dembski's stuff,
> including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
> of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
To me, it is. Can you give me some urls?
> > the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
>
> > [begin excerpt]
> > But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
> > simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
> > absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
> > internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
> > ID has to offer.
> > [end of excerpt]
>
> > I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
> > talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
> > the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
> > clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
> > evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
>
> > If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
> > real refutations.
>
> Joe Felsenstein has decisively refuted most of Dembski's stuff,
> including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
> of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
> > The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
> > sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
> > one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
> > propaganda post somehow admires:
>
> > "What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
> > why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
>
> > The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
> > sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
> > all these years.
> > Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
> > misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
> > doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
>
> That sounds like fluff to me, with no attempt to back up your conclusions.
flattery."] But there are some minor differences:
(1) Jason initiated the discussion, and had enough time to come up
with meaningful links. If he posted any, I missed them.
(2) Myers is long gone from here, except for a brief cameo appearance
earlier this year when certain people [I don't think you were
included, btw.] fawned all over him without bothering to defend
anything he said. I'm not sure anyone is interested in defending him
now. Are you?
(3) I'm willing to defend my claims; I haven't seen much sign of Jason
Rosenhouse defending his. See beginning of a defense at the end of
this post. But before that...
The post to which you are replying has a lot in common with something
I posted to his blog post at about the same time. It will be
interesting to see whether he does any better than the people who have
replied to me up to now. So far, none of them has shown any sign of
knowing the definition of "irreducible complexity" and plenty of sign
of being wedded to standard misconceptions about the concept.
> > He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
> > having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
> > relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
> > Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
> > who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
>
> > [begin excerpt]
> > also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
> > Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
> > MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
> > ___________ end of excerpt
> > fromhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-heart...
> > Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
> > MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
> > ___________ end of excerpt
>
> > Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> > who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> > some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> > With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> > they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> > never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> > recall him arguing with Julie.]
>
> Your mileage may vary.
Here is a little teaser for you about my mileage:
> > Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> > who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> > some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> > With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> > they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> > never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> > recall him arguing with Julie.]
>
> Your mileage may vary.
____________ begin excerpts from 1997 reply to Myers_____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Irreducibly Complex ATP Synthase
References: <650n98$2...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <347497BD.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.71.17.12
41...@super.zippo.com> <3479a942.149140283@nn\
tp.ix.netcom.com> <65agcd$2...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <myers-
ya02408000R24...@netnews.netax\
s.com>
Myers's biological experise is nowhere in evidence here; instead,
we see some name-dropping and a brazen display of disingenousness
and hypocrisy from him.
CC to Julie, with the usual reminder that Myers has buried
his head in the sand over my posts.
my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) writes:
>In article <65agcd$2...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Julie Thomas) wrote:
>> This is the first reply to my ATP synthase article that my server has
>> picked up. But apparently there are other replies. If anyone wants
>> to be sure that I see their reply, I suggest they e-mail me a copy.
Myers left this in without comment. OTOH he makes a
highly suspicious looking snip below.
>> In a previous article, sar...@ix.netcom.com (Stanley Friesen) says:
>>
>> >Chris Carrell <cjc...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>> >>Well, that perks the ears up. Doing a search, I find no mention of
>> >>Andrew Leslie and one mention of Paul Boyer. Was this really based
>> >>on primary literature? (No mention of John Walker, either.)
>>
>> What now? I'm supposed to be a name-dropper? My article was
>> based on recent review articles and primary literature. If the folks
>> you name have anything relevant to say about the origin of the
>> F-ATP synthases, why not share it? My article (like the previous
>> DNA rep and flagellum articles) was not intended as the conclusive
>> last word.
Myers responds with some more name-dropping.
>Ummmm...you are aware that Boyer and Walker (with Jens Skou) won
>this year's Nobel in chemistry for their work on, you guessed it,
>*ATP synthase* and Na+/K+-ATPase, aren't you?
____________end of first excerpt, begin second__________
>[snip]
Let's just see some of what Myers snipped, shall we?
======================= begin restoration, names added in brackets
[Julie:]
>>>> What about the literature? I have been unable to find any speculations
>>>> about the origin of this complex.
[Chris:]
>>>>Why is "We don't know," such an unacceptable answer to you? Do you
>>>>want science to have easy answers? (If it did, it wouldn't be very
>>>>interesting.)
[Stanley:]
>>>Indeed, considering how *recent* the discovery of this mechanism is, our
>>>lack of knowledge of its origin is to be expected.
=========================== end restoration
>> When it came to DNA replication, "we" didn't know. When it came to
>> the bacterial flagellum, "we" didn't know. When it came to the
>> eucaryotic flagellum, "we" didn't know. When it comes to abiogenesis,
>> "we" didn't know. Now, "we" don't know about the origin of the F-ATPase?
>> It ain't goin' stop here, folks. An if y'all don't know about the origin
>> of this, and that, and that, and that, and that, and that, etc., how
>> do y'all know they evolved without intelligent intervention? After all,
>> if these are indeed designed features, that y'all "don't know" is to
>> be expected. After all, if someone still subscribed to the old
>> blending theory of inheritence, I expect she wouldn't know how to
>> explain Mendel's results also.
>Why all the emphasis on "we"?
As if you didn't know from Chris and Stanley's words,
which you snipped and I restored, dissembler.
> Do **you** know?
As if you didn't know from Julie's words which you snipped
and I restored, hypocrite.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
========== end of excerpts
There's plenty more where that came from.
Ray Martinez
Dec 6, 2011, 7:11:23 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 10:17�am, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
acceptance of all the major terms and claims of Darwinism to exist
conceptually in nature (natural selection, microevolution/mutability,
macroevolution and common descent).
IIRC Johnson said in "Darwin On Trial" that nearly everyone accepts
mutability (meaning him and his friends); Dembski has said he can live
with all the major tenets of Darwinism as long as ID is accepted to
exist at the molecular level (yet he has had a scathing epigrammatic
paragraph posted at his blog denouncing Darwinism as Materialism thus
contradicting what he can live with); and Behe has said that he
accepts all the major terms and claims of Darwinism, including human
evolution.
Like I said "IDiots," not IDists.
Real IDists do not accept the main claims of their scientific enemy.
Johnson, Dembski and Behe are manifestly confused and/or ignorant. So
much for their credentials. The facts here are BASIC.
Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
Kalkidas
Dec 6, 2011, 7:23:20 PM12/6/11
to
Frank J
Dec 6, 2011, 7:20:39 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 6:39 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many of my fellow "Darwinists" seem to think that the ID scam is dead
(or dying fast) but that old-fashoned creationism is alive and well
("Creation Museum" etc.). My take is that the ID scam changed much of
the language, and doesn't need to do much more. People who never heard
of ID and can't name one of it's leaders nevertheless parrot it's
misleading sound bites. Decades ago one would hear a lot about how the
Bible is true, whereas now it's all about how "Darwinism" is "weak."
And becoming more about how accepting "Darwinism" leads to all evil
behavior. Many people, maybe half who are *not* Genesis literalists,
continue to be fooled. The ID scammers *could* rest on their laurels,
but they don't. They continue to publish increasingly paranoid
propaganda (e.g. "Expelled"), target politicians etc. And leave poor
fools like John Freshwater to fend for themselves.
John Harshman
Dec 6, 2011, 7:27:22 PM12/6/11
to
pnyikos wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
>>>>> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
>>>>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
>>>>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
>>>>>> theory for a number of years.
>>>>> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
>>>> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
>>>> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
>>>> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
>>>> [...]
>>> Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
>>> Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
>
> Do you know the answer, John?
Yes, but someone else has answered already.
> On Dec 6, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
>>>>> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
>>>>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
>>>>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
>>>>>> theory for a number of years.
>>>>> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
>>>> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
>>>> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
>>>> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
>>>> [...]
>>> Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
>>> Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
>
> Do you know the answer, John?
>>> Anyway, Jason Rosenhouse's whole article reads like a bunch of fluff
>>> to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
>>> the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
>>> [begin excerpt]
>>> But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
>>> simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
>>> absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
>>> internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
>>> ID has to offer.
>>> [end of excerpt]
>>> I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
>>> talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
>>> the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
>>> clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
>>> evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
>>> If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
>>> real refutations.
>> Joe Felsenstein has decisively refuted most of Dembski's stuff,
>> including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
>> of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
>
> To me, it is. Can you give me some urls?
>>> The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
>>> sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
>>> one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
>>> propaganda post somehow admires:
>>> "What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
>>> why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
>>> The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
>>> sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
>>> all these years.
>>> Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
>>> misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
>>> doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
>> That sounds like fluff to me, with no attempt to back up your conclusions.
>
> Thanks for flattering me. ["Imitation is the sincerest form of
> flattery."] But there are some minor differences:
>
> (1) Jason initiated the discussion, and had enough time to come up
> with meaningful links. If he posted any, I missed them.
> (2) Myers is long gone from here, except for a brief cameo appearance
> earlier this year when certain people [I don't think you were
> included, btw.] fawned all over him without bothering to defend
> anything he said. I'm not sure anyone is interested in defending him
> now. Are you?
Myers, not just from the mid-'90s. Has he indeed not produced any good
arguments against the claims of any prominent IDer?
> (3) I'm willing to defend my claims; I haven't seen much sign of Jason
> Rosenhouse defending his. See beginning of a defense at the end of
> this post. But before that...
>
> The post to which you are replying has a lot in common with something
> I posted to his blog post at about the same time. It will be
> interesting to see whether he does any better than the people who have
> replied to me up to now. So far, none of them has shown any sign of
> knowing the definition of "irreducible complexity" and plenty of sign
> of being wedded to standard misconceptions about the concept.
one, and Behe certainly encouraged that misunderstanding.
>>> He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
>>> having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
>>> relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
>>> Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
>>> who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
>>> [begin excerpt]
>>> also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
>>> Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
>>> MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
>>> ___________ end of excerpt
>>> fromhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-heart...
>>> Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
>>> who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
>>> some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
>>> With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
>>> they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
>>> never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
>>> recall him arguing with Julie.]
>> Your mileage may vary.
>
> Here is a little teaser for you about my mileage:
[snipped]
>>> Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
>>> MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
>>> ___________ end of excerpt
>>> fromhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-heart...
>>> Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
>>> who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
>>> some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
>>> With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
>>> they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
>>> never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
>>> recall him arguing with Julie.]
>> Your mileage may vary.
>
> Here is a little teaser for you about my mileage:
> There's plenty more where that came from.
consists largely of your own snide attacks on various posters, including
Myers, and very little from Myers himself.
Burkhard
Dec 6, 2011, 7:35:07 PM12/6/11
to
Kalkidas
Dec 6, 2011, 7:48:17 PM12/6/11
to
other .7% comes from the Secret Sauce.
Kalkidas
Dec 6, 2011, 7:54:03 PM12/6/11
to
believe it's a scam" strategy is that the kinds of people who'll believe
something just because they heard it repeatedly are not really the kind
of people you want on your side. Unless you're a totalitarian dictator
looking for serfs to grind under your iron fist, or a paranoid
mediocrity of an academic looking for an educational system to hijack,
that is.
pnyikos
Dec 6, 2011, 9:58:48 PM12/6/11
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Dec 6, 7:20 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:39 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
> > > The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> > > has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> > > is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> > > theory for a number of years.
>
> > > Here are some quotes from that site:
>
> > > [quote]
> > > Even leaving aside the blow of Kitzmiller v. Dover,
...to the Dover school board. But the DI remains unscathed by it
> On Dec 6, 6:39 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
> > > The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> > > has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> > > is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> > > theory for a number of years.
>
> > > Here are some quotes from that site:
>
> > > [quote]
> > > Even leaving aside the blow of Kitzmiller v. Dover,
except for the huge numbers of people who ignorantly think otherwise.
> > > Not so today. Consider the two biggest ID books of recent years.
> > > Michael Behe's follow-up book, The Edge of Evolution, dropped like a
> > > stone. It got a few perfunctory reviews written by scientists who
> > > perked up just long enough to note its many errors, and then everyone
> > > ignored it. Frankly, even the ID folks don't seem to talk about it
> > > very much. Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell was likewise met
> > > with crickets. It briefly seemed like a big deal, a big book released
> > > by a mainstream publisher, but scientists gave it a scan, saw nothing
> > > remotely new, and yawned.
> > > [/quote]
>
> > > It ends with this paragraph:
>
> > > [quote]
> > > In the mid-nineties it was possible to wonder seriously if ID was a
> > > serious intellectual movement, or just another fad that would die out
> > > on its own. That verdict is now in.
> > > ID is dead. As a doornail. Even as
> > > YEC shows renewed life with the success of the Creation Museum and the
> > > fracas over their planned Noah's Ark theme park, the ID corpse isn't
> > > even twitching anymore.
> > > [/quote]
>
> > The problem with the "ignore it and it'll go away" strategy is that,
> > because you're ignoring it you can't tell if it's really going away.
ignoring posts that refute what they say.
> > And the problem with the "repeat that it's gone long enough and it'll
> > really be gone" strategy is the same problem as trying *not* to think of
> > an elephant.
the "right" side of issues like ID, they can get away with it.
> > Many of my fellow "Darwinists" seem to think that the ID scam is
perfectly sincere to me. And I am totally sincere in my own brand of
ID, which has to do with directed panspermia.
> People who never heard
> of ID and can't name one of it's leaders nevertheless parrot it's
> misleading sound bites.
parrots here in t.o. fall into the latter category.
> And leave poor
> fools like John Freshwater to fend for themselves.
about ID, when the reality is that I blaze my own trails and follow
those of Crick and Orgel.
Anyway, I am quite happy to fend for myself, unencumbered by any
baggage. Even Behe only gets the benefit of me pointing out how
people just can't get straight what he has said and done, and what he
is all about. As far as any conclusions drawn from irreducible
complexity go, I leave him to fend for himself.
By the way, who is John Freshwater?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Dec 6, 2011, 10:19:17 PM12/6/11
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Dec 6, 7:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
> >>>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> >>>>> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> >>>>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> >>>>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>>>>> theory for a number of years.
[...]
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
> >>>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> >>>>> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> >>>>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> >>>>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>>>>> theory for a number of years.
> >>> Anyway, Jason Rosenhouse's whole article reads like a bunch of fluff
> >>> to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
> >>> the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
> >>> [begin excerpt]
> >>> But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
> >>> simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
> >>> absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
> >>> internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
> >>> ID has to offer.
> >>> [end of excerpt]
> >>> I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
> >>> talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
> >>> the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
> >>> clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
> >>> evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
> >>> If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
> >>> real refutations.
> >> Joe Felsenstein has decisively refuted most of Dembski's stuff,
> >> including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
> >> of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
>
> > To me, it is. Can you give me some urls?
>
> Just google "felsenstein dembski" and you will get several.
Sorry, I'm holding out for an url that you are willing to stand
> >>> to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
> >>> the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
> >>> [begin excerpt]
> >>> But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
> >>> simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
> >>> absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
> >>> internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
> >>> ID has to offer.
> >>> [end of excerpt]
> >>> I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
> >>> talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
> >>> the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
> >>> clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
> >>> evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
> >>> If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
> >>> real refutations.
> >> Joe Felsenstein has decisively refuted most of Dembski's stuff,
> >> including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
> >> of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
>
> > To me, it is. Can you give me some urls?
>
> Just google "felsenstein dembski" and you will get several.
behind. Felsenstein may be incommunicado these days.
> >>> The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
> >>> sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
> >>> one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
> >>> propaganda post somehow admires:
> >>> "What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
> >>> why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
> >>> The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
> >>> sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
> >>> all these years.
> >>> Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
> >>> misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
> >>> doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
> >> That sounds like fluff to me, with no attempt to back up your conclusions.
>
> > Thanks for flattering me. ["Imitation is the sincerest form of
> > flattery."] But there are some minor differences:
>
> > (1) Jason initiated the discussion, and had enough time to come up
> > with meaningful links. If he posted any, I missed them.
>
> So you're pleading a lack of time?
posts, which I would be doing if I were to take seriously all the flak
I get for not supporting this or that statement on the spot.
Usenet is the ideal medium for extended give and take. State your
objections to what I write, and I'll do my best to answer them.
> > (2) Myers is long gone from here, except for a brief cameo appearance
> > earlier this year when certain people [I don't think you were
> > included, btw.] fawned all over him without bothering to defend
> > anything he said. I'm not sure anyone is interested in defending him
> > now. Are you?
>
> I'm more interested in having you back up your general claim about
> Myers, not just from the mid-'90s. Has he indeed not produced any good
> arguments against the claims of any prominent IDer?
from Myers, it's the same old same old. Got any counterexamples?
Myers shamelessly lied through his teeth, aggressively and massively,
about a lecture Behe gave at Temple University in the 1990's while he
was there.
And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you are not
the best person to ask whether he has gotten any more honest.
> > (3) I'm willing to defend my claims; I haven't seen much sign of Jason
> > Rosenhouse defending his. See beginning of a defense at the end of
> > this post. But before that...
>
> > The post to which you are replying has a lot in common with something
> > I posted to his blog post at about the same time. It will be
> > interesting to see whether he does any better than the people who have
> > replied to me up to now. So far, none of them has shown any sign of
> > knowing the definition of "irreducible complexity" and plenty of sign
> > of being wedded to standard misconceptions about the concept.
>
> If it's the misconception I imagine,
to be proof of ID.
> many IDers subscribe to the same
> one, and Behe certainly encouraged that misunderstanding.
same as encouraging it.
> >>> He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
> >>> having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
> >>> relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
> >>> Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
> >>> who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
> >>> [begin excerpt]
> >>> Let s not forget all those other science bloggers and writers who ve
> >>> also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
> >>> Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
> >>> MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
> >>> ___________ end of excerpt
> >>> fromhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-heart...
> >>> Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> >>> who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> >>> some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> >>> With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> >>> they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> >>> never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> >>> recall him arguing with Julie.]
> >> Your mileage may vary.
>
> > Here is a little teaser for you about my mileage:
>
> [snipped]
>
> > There's plenty more where that came from.
>
> One may hope that plenty more contains something better than this,
it's a teaser, nothing more.
> which
> consists largely of your own snide attacks on various posters, including
> Myers,
challenging them to justify their name-dropping, and me focusing
exclusively on Myers.
Try harder to figure out who's who next time.
> and very little from Myers himself.
little bit from Myers told a lot about him.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
Dec 6, 2011, 10:59:10 PM12/6/11
to
http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/criticisms-of-d.html
do you know this?
> And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you are not
> the best person to ask whether he has gotten any more honest.
>>> (3) I'm willing to defend my claims; I haven't seen much sign of Jason
>>> Rosenhouse defending his. See beginning of a defense at the end of
>>> this post. But before that...
>>> The post to which you are replying has a lot in common with something
>>> I posted to his blog post at about the same time. It will be
>>> interesting to see whether he does any better than the people who have
>>> replied to me up to now. So far, none of them has shown any sign of
>>> knowing the definition of "irreducible complexity" and plenty of sign
>>> of being wedded to standard misconceptions about the concept.
>> If it's the misconception I imagine,
>
> There are several of them. The most prominent is that it is supposed
> to be proof of ID.
>> many IDers subscribe to the same
>> one, and Behe certainly encouraged that misunderstanding.
>
> He hasn't campaigned zealously against that one, but that's not the
> same as encouraging it.
>> which
>> consists largely of your own snide attacks on various posters, including
>> Myers,
>
> False. It contains Julie making sarcastic remarks about them, but also
> challenging them to justify their name-dropping, and me focusing
> exclusively on Myers.
>
> Try harder to figure out who's who next time.
>
>> and very little from Myers himself.
>
> And even less from me. But, to anyone who hates insincerity, even that
> little bit from Myers told a lot about him.
that it was valid. If you have a smoking gun, this would be the point to
whip it out.
Harry K
Dec 6, 2011, 11:35:50 PM12/6/11
to
Where did the original source come from?
Harry K
pnyikos
Dec 7, 2011, 12:01:58 AM12/7/11
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
study them carefully.
I trust you are willing to stand behind them. Be ready to do so.
> http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-argum...
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/criticisms-of-d.html
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
> >>>>> sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
> >>>>> one of the worst offenders was PZMyers,
[...]
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/criticisms-of-d.html
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
> >>>>> sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
> >>>>> one of the worst offenders was PZMyers,
> >> I'm more interested in having you back up your general claim about
> >> Myers, not just from the mid-'90s. Has he indeed not produced any good
> >> arguments against the claims of any prominent IDer?
>
> > Judging from the Myers post Jason linked, and other writing I've seen
> > from Myers, it's the same old same old. Got any counterexamples?
> > Myers shamelessly lied through his teeth, aggressively and massively,
> > about a lecture Behe gave at Temple University in the 1990's while he
> > was there.
>
> You tend to accuse people of lying quite a bit, on flimsy evidence.
evidence for it, except for some tortuous logic about things I've said
about you which I deny to have been accusations of lying.
> How
> do you know this?
posted it, and it bore no resemblance to the fantasy he shoved in
Julie's face and said was a description of what Behe had said.
Needless to say, the fantasy made Behe look stupid.
Would you like me to dig up the relevant posts in Google archives?
> > And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you are not
> > the best person to ask whether he has gotten any more honest.
>
> Perhaps not. He probably hasn't stopped beating his wife either.
> >>> (3) I'm willing to defend my claims; I haven't seen much sign of Jason
> >>> Rosenhouse defending his. See beginning of a defense at the end of
> >>> this post. But before that...
> >>> The post to which you are replying has a lot in common with something
> >>> I posted to his blog post at about the same time. It will be
> >>> interesting to see whether he does any better than the people who have
> >>> replied to me up to now. So far, none of them has shown any sign of
> >>> knowing the definition of "irreducible complexity" and plenty of sign
> >>> of being wedded to standard misconceptions about the concept.
> >> If it's the misconception I imagine,
>
> > There are several of them. The most prominent is that it is supposed
> > to be proof of ID.
>
> Is most of the burden there on the word "proof"?
would have a case against Behe, but a rather flabby one.
> >> many IDers subscribe to the same
> >> one, and Behe certainly encouraged that misunderstanding.
>
> > He hasn't campaigned zealously against that one, but that's not the
> > same as encouraging it.
>
> Not quite the one I was thinking of.
Behe's encouraging the misunderstanding.
[...]
> >>> There's plenty more where that came from.
> >> One may hope that plenty more contains something better than this,
>
> > Lots better. I just grabbed the first thing I found. Like I said,
> > it's a teaser, nothing more.
>
> I am not teased.
>
> >> which
> >> consists largely of your own snide attacks on various posters, including
> >> Myers,
>
> > False. It contains Julie making sarcastic remarks about them, but also
> > challenging them to justify their name-dropping, and me focusing
> > exclusively on Myers.
>
> > Try harder to figure out who's who next time.
>
> >> and very little from Myers himself.
>
> > And even less from me. But, to anyone who hates insincerity, even that
> > little bit from Myers told a lot about him.
>
> There's nothing there apart from your exegesis,
this is another one.
> and no real evidence
> that it was valid. If you have a smoking gun, this would be the point to
> whip it out.
reply, I'll just dig up some better evidence. Like I said, there's
lots more where that came from.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Dec 7, 2011, 12:05:28 AM12/7/11
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
panspermia, I've done a lot of fleshing out of Crick and Orgel's
theory over the years.
They're both dead now, and if you know of anyone else promoting the
theory that we arose from that beginning, I sure would like to know
it. Behe and other IDers mention it from time to time, but they don't
want to press ahead with it.
Peter Nyikos
AGWFacts
Dec 7, 2011, 1:20:55 AM12/7/11
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
<randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Twenty Years After Darwin on Trial, ID is Dead
Was it ever alive?
> The web page at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> theory for a number of years.
> Here are some quotes from that site:
>
> [quote]
> Even leaving aside the blow of Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID has simply
> collapsed under the weight of its own vacuity. In the nineties and
> early 2000s, ID seemed to be producing one novel argument after
> another.
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca
Tim Anderson
Dec 7, 2011, 2:55:21 AM12/7/11
to
On Dec 7, 11:54 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
<snip>
house should be complicit in its resurgence among a new generation of
credulous people by keeping quiet.
Would you apply that logic to, say, anti-fascism in the early 1930s?
A truth is never degraded by repetition in the face of persistent
lying.
<snip>
>
> The problem with the "call it a scam enough times and everyone'll
> believe it's a scam" strategy is that the kinds of people who'll believe
> something just because they heard it repeatedly are not really the kind
> of people you want on your side. Unless you're a totalitarian dictator
> looking for serfs to grind under your iron fist, or a paranoid
> mediocrity of an academic looking for an educational system to hijack,
> that is.
You seem to be arguing that we on the evolutionary science side of the
> The problem with the "call it a scam enough times and everyone'll
> believe it's a scam" strategy is that the kinds of people who'll believe
> something just because they heard it repeatedly are not really the kind
> of people you want on your side. Unless you're a totalitarian dictator
> looking for serfs to grind under your iron fist, or a paranoid
> mediocrity of an academic looking for an educational system to hijack,
> that is.
house should be complicit in its resurgence among a new generation of
credulous people by keeping quiet.
Would you apply that logic to, say, anti-fascism in the early 1930s?
A truth is never degraded by repetition in the face of persistent
lying.
Tim Anderson
Dec 7, 2011, 2:57:46 AM12/7/11
to
or "theory" in the sense of "an integrated explanation for a wide
range of evidence"?
Steven L.
Dec 7, 2011, 5:56:04 AM12/7/11
to
"Bruce Stephens" <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:878vmpm...@cenderis.demon.co.uk:
From a quick look at their website, it looks like they're trying to be
the creationist version of the Santa Fe Institute.
-- Steven L.
Ron O
Dec 7, 2011, 7:28:39 AM12/7/11
to
On Dec 6, 5:39 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw...
> On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
intelligent design "science" out of the public schools for the past
decade. The guys that sold IDiots like Kalk the ID scam are the ones
to put the brakes on. Any time an ignorant creationist IDiot steps up
and announces that they support teaching intelligent design it is the
ID perps that run in the bait and switch and only give the rubes a
switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Kalk
could demonstrate that I am wrong by putting up a single example of
where the bait and switch did not go down. What happened to Michele
Bachmann back in June? What will happen in her second whack at being
an IDiot this month? What happened when the IDiots in Texas and
Louisiana wanted to put ID in textbook supplements in the past year (I
think Louisiana was last November). What has happened in 100% such
cases? When have the IDiots ever gotten the ID science that is
supposed to exist? The ID perps even tried to run the bait and switch
on the Dover rubes, but they didn't take the switch scam and found out
in court that there was no ID science to teach.
What excuse do IDiots like Kalk and Nyikos have when the bait and
switch has been going down for nearly a decade? The ID perps aren't
running the scam on the science side. They are running the scam on
their own creationist support base. If ID isn't dead why do the guys
that sold the ID scam to the rubes have a new scam that doesn't even
mention that ID ever existed? Which scam do the IDiots always get
instead of any ID science?
Repetition is only required because there is one born every minute and
in this case they can be reborn as needed.
Really, all IDiots like Kalk can do in the face of reality is run
misdirection ploys and go into abject denial. Just watch. You won't
see any refutation because there isn't a valid one to make. Reality
is just what it is. Denial and prevarication won't change that.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Dec 7, 2011, 7:40:28 AM12/7/11
to
and switch did not go down. You can't use Dover because Buckingham
claimed that the ID perps did try to get the Dover board to go with
the switch scam. So put up where someone got the promised ID science
to teach. Kenyon and Thaxton have been fellows of the Discovery
Institute since the start and they are responsible for "cdesign
proponentsists" where they wrote a textbook (Pandas and People) that
was supposed to solve the problem that the scientific creationists ran
into in Arkansas where they couldn't put up any materials suitable to
use for teaching scientific creationism in the public schools. When
scientific creationism lost in the supreme court they changed
creationism to intelligent design throughout the book. All this came
out in the Dover trial.
What is not a scam about intelligent design? Nothing that the ID
perps ever produced was even good enough for them to support when they
had to put up or shut up. That is just a simple fact.
Don't just go into denial or run misdirection ploys, but refute
reality. Go for it.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Dec 7, 2011, 8:07:16 AM12/7/11