Thursday, October 01, 2009

Dear Darwinists,

Dear Darwinists,

From Tuesday night's performance, we have:
-Meyer and Wells LOTS
-Darwinists in attendance ZERO
Seriously you guys. The best you can do during the Q&A is
1) Have Prof Hutchison ask why it's proper to quote non-ID people expressing their views on a relevant topic (and then have Prof Hutchison warmly pat Dr Meyer on the arm and tell him that he didn't ask another question b/c he didn't want to embarrass him)?
2) Ask about the presence of ERVs evidenced during mammalian evolution (which is, for the uninitiated, AFTER the Cambrian explosion) (oh yeah, the DVD was about nothing but the Cambrian explosion)?
3) Ask about Hox genes and gene duplication (and then go into a tizzy when challenged on why a Designer just couldn't conceivably want to do it that way)?
4) Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)
5) Ask why the DVD sometimes said "designers" and sometimes "Designer"?
6) Ask whether using the normally-accepted geological scale was an intentional jab at YEC?
7) Then come right back a few minutes later and claim that I have no standing or reasonable ability to judge ToE wrong b/c I lack the qualifications, the PhD? When there were 2 PhDs standing right on the stage whom you (who don't have a PhD) were judging their theory wrong?
8) Beg the question repeatedly and mercilessly when asked to give an explanation for one's materialistic views (that was you, Prof Hutchison)?
Umm, so yeah. Not exactly the best of performances from our Darwinist friends. Send us more, we're hungry.
Peace,
Rhology

11 comments:

Dr Funkenstein said...

4) Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)

You are aware that this is the whole reason why ID is ignored as a scientific hypothesis? Because noone can validate what the designer did or didn't want to do, something the ID proponents actively try to avoid investigating (despite the fact numerous sciences investigate designers, such as archeology). So if we don't know anything about the designer, why assume he/she/it has any preferences at all, in the event he/she/it even exists/ed at all?

What if it wanted to give us all the same genes? But then what if it wanted to give all organisms different genes (after all it'd make diseases far harder if not impossible to cross the species barrier if we all had different basic biological make ups). What if it was all powerful - maybe it wouldn't care about the effort required to 'reinvent the wheel' of genetics for each species. Who knows?

Maybe it designs irreducibly complex biological structures. But then on the other hand, maybe it doesn't because it doesn't care about or like irreducible complexity. Who knows?

Maybe it inserts ERVs in whatever manner it feels like, but then again maybe it doesn't because it doesn't even care about ERVs. Again, who knows?

(and then go into a tizzy when challenged on why a Designer just couldn't conceivably want to do it that way)?

This really answers your own question, since the exact same argument could be applied in the opposite direction (see above examples) - if I say an unknown designer, working via unknown methods at unknown time and places, all of which the ID hypothesis claims can't be found out (or at least aren't important) doesn't like designing irreducibly complex structures, why is that a worse hypothesis than the ID one which states that the designer does like doing these things? How would they know what the designer does or doesn't like doing if they don't know, and don't want to know, anything about him/her/it and its methods etc?

This is why Behe was forced to admit at Dover v Kitzmiller that ID was as much a science as astrology was - because the more ID avoids making anything beyond vague, untestable claims, the less chance it has of being shot down, exactly the same as astrologers. Of course, the odd occasion they do make a testable claim (eg the basic components of the blood clotting system are used for that function only), it's not long before the claims get refuted.

validation word: toryness - an omen for the outcome of the next UK elections perhaps?

Rhology said...

Dr F,

Doesn't it bother you to repeatedly commit the same bad argument of thinking you can delve into the motives and mind of a Designer?
Just stick with the facts, please.

And you can cite Dover all you want; I think it's funny that Darwinists like to trumpet it, as if a federal judge is competent to rule on scientific matters. I don't know what Behe was thinking, but since I don't really care, I haven't delved into that topic at all.
Finally, "scientific" is not the same as "true". It's what Ruse is famous for, but if sthg is true, I care not whether it's scientific according to some ad hoc self-serving definition.


torryness - you might think this is funny... the company I work for has introduced word verification for various downloads, and one time we got a screenshot of the word ver as "Earyeann nation". Sound it out. Bizarre, and pretty funny.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Doesn't it bother you to repeatedly commit the same bad argument of thinking you can delve into the motives and mind of a Designer?

Err, where did I do that? I did precisely the opposite (reread what I wrote) - I pointed out the problems of not being able to delve into the mind of a designer. In fact, the only person claiming that they might be able to tell what the designer likes to do is you - all I did was offer alternative, incompatible hypotheses to the ones you offered and asked you to explain how you decide which ones the designer did and didn't do if you don't know anything about its motives?

To make it as simple as possible:

Hypothesis 1: the designer likes to design irreducibly complex structures
Hypothesis 2: the designer doesn't like to design IC structures and so doesn't ever do that and IC structures are the result of some other process (known or unknown)

Hypothesis a. The designer inserts ERVs into living organisms
Hypothesis b. the designer doesn't insert ERVs into living organsims, so ERVS are the result of some other process

Even if we accept the designer actually exists, all these hypotheses are equally well supported in the absence of any further info about its motives etc. However, since they contradict each other they can't all be true.

Now, please show us how, given that you claim the motives of the designer can't be known, that you can rule in or rule out any of the above as the work (or not) of the designer?


Just stick with the facts, please.

Which is precisely what I've done - I've pointed out that ID claims nothing can be known about the designer, yet bases its entire hypothesis on the idea that the designer does certain things (eg designs IC structures or fine tunes the universe), which suggests they somehow can determine at least some of its motives, preferences etc. Therefore, they must have a way to do this - please tell us what this method is.


And you can cite Dover all you want; I think it's funny that Darwinists like to trumpet it, as if a federal judge is competent to rule on scientific matters.

So on the one hand, you as a non-scientist feel qualified to poke holes in the ToE and advocate certain aspects of ID, yet Judge Jones who presumably has as much of a scientific background as you do is not? This is probably not an argument you want to use since it can easily be directed back at you. Furthermore, your complaint would rule out most of the ID crowd as being qualified to talk on biological matters since most of them aren't trained biologists.

Additionally, none of what I referred to came out of the judge's mouth, it came out of Michael Behe's, who was supposed to be an expert witness for ID.

Dr Funkenstein said...

part II

I don't know what Behe was thinking, but since I don't really care, I haven't delved into that topic at all.

This is almost a mirror image of Behe's 'refutation' of the evolution of the immune system - he claimed no papers existed on it, was presented with a stack of about 60 on the subject then claimed they were insufficient to disprove him despite the fact he'd admitted he'd never read them!

If you don't care enough to read up on it (and the point regarding Behe and astrology was quite a well-known part of the trial), how can you be in a position to pass judgment on how the trial was unfair or a bad decision, or that the judge was incompetent and so on if you don't seem to at least know some of the main details that came out of it such as the Behe/astrology admission?

Finally, "scientific" is not the same as "true".

While there's an argument that that might be correct (there has been loads of debate over the years about scientific realism vs instrumentalism), ID claims to be both true and scientific. The thesis of IC is, according to Behe, based on empirical data, so clearly that's the domain of science. Furthermore, the best you would be able to do in arguing against realism is relegating certain claims (including a lot of those of ID) to the realm of being unknowable.

but if sthg is true, I care not whether it's scientific according to some ad hoc self-serving definition.

You'll note that I have actually pointed out some aspects of ID would probably be considered scientific (albeit failed hypotheses), and ID proponents claim that certain of their ideas are based in science/empirical data etc. In fact a large part of the motives of the movement is about getting ID to be accepted as scientific!

torryness - you might think this is funny... the company I work for has introduced word verification for various downloads, and one time we got a screenshot of the word ver as "Earyeann nation". Sound it out. Bizarre, and pretty funny.

yeah, I've seen some weird/amusing ones - would be interesting to know how this sort of software generates the words, sometimes it's just random letters other times it seems to be something resembling real words

Dr Funkenstein said...

part II

I don't know what Behe was thinking, but since I don't really care, I haven't delved into that topic at all.

This is almost a mirror image of Behe's 'refutation' of the evolution of the immune system - he claimed no papers existed on it, was presented with a stack of about 60 on the subject then claimed they were insufficient to disprove him despite the fact he'd admitted he'd never read them!

If you don't care enough to read up on it (and the point regarding Behe and astrology was quite a well-known part of the trial), how can you be in a position to pass judgment on how the trial was unfair or a bad decision, or that the judge was incompetent and so on if you don't seem to at least know some of the main details that came out of it such as the Behe/astrology admission?

Finally, "scientific" is not the same as "true".

While there's an argument that that might be correct (there has been loads of debate over the years about scientific realism vs instrumentalism), ID claims to be both true and scientific. The thesis of IC is, according to Behe, based on empirical data, so clearly that's the domain of science. Furthermore, the best you would be able to do in arguing against realism is relegating certain claims (including a lot of those of ID) to the realm of being unknowable.

but if sthg is true, I care not whether it's scientific according to some ad hoc self-serving definition.

You'll note that I have actually pointed out some aspects of ID would probably be considered scientific (albeit failed hypotheses), and ID proponents claim that certain of their ideas are based in science/empirical data etc. In fact a large part of the motives of the movement is about getting ID to be accepted as scientific!

torryness - you might think this is funny... the company I work for has introduced word verification for various downloads, and one time we got a screenshot of the word ver as "Earyeann nation". Sound it out. Bizarre, and pretty funny.

yeah, I've seen some weird/amusing ones - would be interesting to know how this sort of software generates the words, sometimes it's just random letters other times it seems to be something resembling real words

Rhology said...

given that you claim the motives of the designer can't be known

No, no, I don't think that at all; it's in fact one of my critiques of ID. They damper down the testimony of belief in Jesus Christ as Lord to their own detriment.

This is solely an internal critique of the Darwinist side. And since the argument doesn't work, you should find another one. It amazes me it's so widely employed - like I said, a prof of behavioral ecology threw it at me just Tuesday, and followed it up with a mention of the FSM. Double-whammy of incoherency!


Judge Jones who presumably has as much of a scientific background as you do is not?

He probably has more than I do!
But this again is an internal critique of a Darwinist argument, which yet aNOTHER local Darwinist told me Tuesday night. He said "you don't have a PhD in any relevant field; how can you presume to judge ToE false when so many qualified people say it's true?" I was dumbfounded (but he had a dumber argument still to come, but which had nothing to do with Darwinism). And let's be clear - I don't have anythg close to a PhD, and not in anythg close to a related field.
But what I'm saying is that Darwinists commonly say that - you don't know enough to critique it.
But a federal judge knows enough science to intelligently affirm it and that should matter to someone? I call special pleading.

rhiggs said...

Rhology,

I just happened on this post and am quite amazed at your twisting and turning in response to Dr F's comments...

During his first comment, Dr F alluded to a certain section of Behe's testimony at the Dover trial as it highlights the vague scaffolding which props up ID. Note that Dr F did not mention Judge Jones or the outcome of the trial.


You then replied:

"And you can cite Dover all you want; I think it's funny that Darwinists like to trumpet it, as if a federal judge is competent to rule on scientific matters. I don't know what Behe was thinking, but since I don't really care, I haven't delved into that topic at all."

So you freely admit that you have no idea about what Dr F was alluding to and instead shift onto attacking Judge Jones' lack of scientific credentials.

Note that you, and not Dr F, brought up the 'lack of credentials' argument.


Dr F then pointed out that he/she had been talking about Behe's testimony and not about Judge Jones, but that it was hypocritical of you to attack someone else for lacking creditials when you yourself admittedly also lack credentials, yet regularly comment on similar topics.


To which you responded:

"He probably has more than I do!
But this again is an internal critique of a Darwinist argument, which yet aNOTHER local Darwinist told me Tuesday night. He said "you don't have a PhD in any relevant field; how can you presume to judge ToE false when so many qualified people say it's true?" I was dumbfounded (but he had a dumber argument still to come, but which had nothing to do with Darwinism). And let's be clear - I don't have anythg close to a PhD, and not in anythg close to a related field.
But what I'm saying is that Darwinists commonly say that - you don't know enough to critique it.
But a federal judge knows enough science to intelligently affirm it and that should matter to someone? I call special pleading.
"


Do you not see what you are doing here? You have just made the lack of credentials claim about Judge Jones, and then claim that the very same argument is an internal critique of Darwinists...!

In other words, when you use the 'lack of credentials' argument it's ok but not when subjects of your personal ancedotes do.

Please...

Here, YOU are the one engaging in special pleading.

Rhology said...

instead shift onto attacking Judge Jones' lack of scientific credentials.

B/c Darwinists are the ones who claim the scientific power and uber-knowledge is on their side and they back up the claim with "well duh - look at how many real scientists are Darwinists. Like all of 'em!"
Internal critique.


it was hypocritical of you to attack someone else for lacking creditials when you yourself admittedly also lack credentials, yet regularly comment on similar topics.

B/c I don't think that credentials are all that most Darwinists crack them up to be. I'm interested in the ARGUMENTS.
Internal critique. I'm criticising Jones on Darwinists' terms.

I think you're a little confused.

rhiggs said...

LOL

You are clearly the confused one here...

Your personal ancedotes about Darwinists are great and all but try and concentrate on the discussion at hand. You seem to be in denial about your own hypocritical argument.

You brought up the 'lack of credentials' argument in the discussion with Dr F in order to dismiss Judge Jones' ruling.

Now you are saying that it's a fallacious Darwinist tactic to do so...! So are you admitting that you were wrong about Judge Jones?

You can't have it both ways:

Either you accept that credentials are important, meaning that both you and Judge Jones are not qualified to comment on any biologically-related matters....

Or you dismiss the importance of credentials, meaning that you and Judge Jones are both entitled to a voice on such matters. This of course would mean that the ruling on ID being unscientific is sound.

What's it gonna be?

Rhology said...

Look, I can see how my original comment might lead someone to think other than what I said, but consider this and my previous comment as clarification of what I was trying (apparently badly) to communicate.


And as for:
This of course would mean that the ruling on ID being unscientific is sound.

Not at all. It would if Jones' arguments were sound. They were in fact crap. (I say this just for the sake of argument.)

rhiggs said...

What exactly were you trying to communicate? Your explanation hasn't exactly cleared it up.

Looks to me like you made the 'lack of credentials' claim genuinely and are now back-pedalling furiously to try and make up for an obvious inconsistency.

It's a bit like telling a lie and, when found out, claiming you were simply using a liars tactic to point out the fallacious nature of liars.

Hardly a convincing argument to use after the event I'm sure you'd agree!



"Not at all. It would if Jones' arguments were sound. They were in fact crap."

I disagree, but to avoid confusion I suggest you apply that same critique to your own 'arguments' in the future ;)