What happened to “Colson Praises PETA”?

_{William Dembski

February 14, 2008

Adminstrative}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I deleted this thread because I found the comments offensive. Let’s keep postings and comments germane to ID.

Addendum by DaveScot: For the same reason I deleted the “Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists” thread due to many complaints that it was offensive. I want to extend my apologies for my own vulgar contributions that many found to be offensive. When I find myself among the crude and vulgar I tend to participate at the same level rather than rise above it as I should.

Comments

bFast: There is hardly a move afoot to split Behe from the rest of ID, and to welcome him into the scientific fold because he accepts common descent. What is the precise formal definition of common descent? Would it be correct to say that all modern computers are descended from Babbage's analytical engine and, as a result, can be said to have a common ancestor? If so, common descent would thus assume an evolution of sorts but not necessarily a gradual Darwinian evolution. Why should the religious among us object to this definiton? It's perfectly acceptable to me, as a Christian.Mapou_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

But where ID has a problem - and I think Cuneiformist may share this view - is that it is inconsistent on common descent...Unless the ID movement gets to grips with this issue, and accepts that common descent is the best explanation of the evidence, it risks always being associated with creationism.
1st, let me suggest that we need to get past the idea that ID is a theory. Id is a framework for the development of theories. Irreduceable Complexity is a theory, along with clear and obvious falsification. Specified Complexity is another theory within the ID framework. If someone did come up with a good case against common descent, ID is a framework large enough to accomodate their theory. 2nd. Lets get rid of the fantacy that those that bow to the god of naturalism are going to accept anything that could be interpreted as supernatural. If an intelligent, possibly supernatural, agent is suggested in the chain of explanation for our development, then, according to naturalists, it is creationism. Plain and simple. There is hardly a move afoot to split Behe from the rest of ID, and to welcome him into the scientific fold because he accepts common descent.bFast_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

"Common descent is consistent with creationism or creationism is consistent with common descent. You have to define both terms before you can understand either." Why?Clarence_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Clarence, See my post above at #128 on this topic.jerry_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Clarence, Common descent is consistent with creationism or creationism is consistent with common descent. You have to define both terms before you can understand either.jerry_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

DaveScot wrote (178): "Please don’t get me wrong about common descent. I believe it’s the best explanation based on the weight of the evidence." I think it's fair to say you have been very consistent in your assessment that common descent is the best explanation of the evidence. But where ID has a problem - and I think Cuneiformist may share this view - is that it is inconsistent on common descent. There are those such as yourself who concur that common descent is the best explanation (also Mike Behe), yet there are many others (Dembski, the DI) who don't. But those who don't haven't really said why they doubt common descent. Unless the ID movement gets to grips with this issue, and accepts that common descent is the best explanation of the evidence, it risks always being associated with creationism.Clarence_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

cuneiformist Please don't get me wrong about common descent. I believe it's the best explanation based on the weight of the evidence. That said, it's still a historical reconstruction of past events which weren't observed and, so far, can't be repeated. No one has come even close to observing the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans by any natural or artificial means. One non-Darwinian hypothesis I find intriguing is held out by a biology professor with 50 years experience of comparative physiology labwork under his belt, John Davison, is that speciation is usually, if not always, caused by chromosomal reorganization. One of the more interesting aspects of this is his assertion that, at least in principle, it should be possible to reverse the speciation process and turn some extant organism back into its ancestor by artificially reorganizing its chromosomes. Something like that would really shore up any remaining doubt about common descent. I encourage you to read his papers on organic evolution, many of which can be found at his university webpage before he was "Expelled" in 2000 for his anti-Darwinian heresies. http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/DaveScot_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, this post has a link which compares side-by-side the article in question with other published works. The plagiarism is unequivocal. And indeed, even if the article were just about "atheistic" science, it would have been retracted had such plagiarism occurred. (The difference, to your defense, is that were this some typical science article, scores of bloggers wouldn't have bothered checking!) Indeed, the father of a friend of mine had his career ruined in the pages of the Chronicle of Higher Education when they exposed his rampant plagiarism. This isn't something "atheists" do to keep out radical proponents of new ideas. I honestly don't know what the options are for Warda and Han. Can they edit their article to fix the plagiarism and re-submit it? I have no idea what the policies are. There's of course nothing to stop them from making their work available elsewhere. Still, I find the suggestion that this is nothing but "[f]orced retraction by technical harassment" to betray a misunderstanding of plagiarism in academia. It really is a big deal, and it usually isn't solved by a simple "oops, sorry" sort of reply.Cuneiformist_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Thanks for that explanation, DaveScot, though I don't really consider myself a "victim" of any "disinformation campaign." Any review of the ID material suggests a number of different camps. For instance, over at the DI, there is a featured article where, for instance, common ancestry between humans and chimps is called into doubt. (Of course, later the author is careful to suggest that "intelligent design is not incompatible with common ancestry" but bulk of the article gives one the impression that the question is wide open.) In any case, I'll think more about your comments re random mutation. It's been a pleasure talking with you!Cuneiformist_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, You said it far better than I could.chuckhumphry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Cuneiformist: You can probably judge about plagiarism because you must have the article. I am not so lucky, and so I have to suspend any judgement. Still, I am convinced that the charge of plagiarism would never have been an issue, if the content of the article had been "normal". Anyway, the article could have been re-written, or citations added, if the problem had been only that. Still, and always speaking blindly, not having read the paper, I think that "at least" the "spiritual" or ID perspective had to be original, and an article can very well be a new take at known facts, and still retain its validity. The fact is, I am truly interested in what these authors had to say about mithocondria, and at present I cannot read it. Whatever you say, I am sure I have to thank darwinist censorship for that. The biggest lie in discussions about ID is that "ID does not do any scientific research" and that "darwinists are always doing research". That kind of false arguments is completely pointless. It is obvious that most "research" is done by scientists with a darwinian perspective, because that's the prevailing doctrine in the scientific, and especially biological community, and that's why most, if not all, of the resources are owned by biologists professing darwinian faith. But that's not the point. The point is that ID and darwinism are different models, different ways to explain and interpret known facts. So, in a way, as I have said often, all research is ID research. Or darwinain research, if you prefer. It just depends on who's right. Research gives us facts. Researchers give us, together with the facts, their interpretation of facts, often in a dogmatic, non realistic way. But we are not obliged to accept that. We can take the facts, and interpret them on our own. Facts belong to all. Interpretations are the responsibility of those who express them. So, differently from what many darwinists claim, much work in science consists in reviewing and interpreting facts discovered by others. That's, indeed, "original" work. That's why, plagiarism or not, I would be interested in Warda and Han's point of view: I am sure it is "original", and probably stimulating. Anyway, it deserved to be discussed at the same level at which it was offered: intellectual confrontation in the scientific community. Forced retraction by technical harassment is only a demonstration of fear and cowardice. So, please excuse me if I appeared a little hostile (but, after all, "naif" is not a real offense), but I was just indignant. And I think I will stick to my opinion about this shameful fact.gpuccio_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Cuneiformist, Ahem - while we may part ways regarding, as DaveScot says, the "Darwinist disinformation campaign['s]" forcible retraction of the paper that allegedly plagiarized, I will remian in the same camp as gpuccio and DaveScot: you have given in to atheistic thinking on numerous issues regarding Intelligent Design Science. Dr. William Dembski and DaveScot have written extensively on the scientific bona fides of ID theory, and I trust in their work. You have the right to not believe ID theorists, just as you have the right to believe Darwinist propaganda. But we have the right (as DaveScot has promptly done) to call you on your misconceptions.chuckhumphry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

cuneiformist As an example, endogenous retrovirus (ERV) sequences serve to confirm common descent. I agree and so will lots of other ID proponents here and elsewhere. Michael Behe for instance has no problem with common descent. Obviously you're a victim of the Darwinist disinformation campaign that ID and scientific creationism are synonymous. They aren't. I and many others believe the weight of the evidence for common descent such as anatomical and molecular homology, pseudo-genes and ERV remnants, chronological deposition in the sediments over hundreds of millions of years of increasingly complex forms bearing a likeness to past forms, and the law of biogenesis taken together are quite compelling, one might even say overwhelming evidence of common descent with modification. What serves to confirm that random mutation is the source of variation in all that? If random mutation is somehow confirmed as the mechanism driving all descent with modification then that will falsify the intelligent design hypothesis. DaveScot_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, Are you kidding? Are you so naif, or what? So that's a little hostile, but perhaps expected? Anyhow, there was obviously a backlash against the editors of the journal in asking how such a paper got past peer review. I don't know how they reacted to that backlash and I don't know what they were thinking. But it's impossible to defend the charge of blatant plagiarism-- paragraph after paragraph were lifted verbatim from other articles. It would have been interesting to see if the journal had stood by its reviewers, but given the plagiarism, the editors had no real choice. Having work rejected (and careers ruined) because of plagiarism is not uncommon, and happens to "atheist" researchers within both the sciences and the humanities. If there weren't plagiarism and the article were retracted, we could talk about conspiracies and such. But we'll have to wait and see before that can be tested, I think.Cuneiformist_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

StephenB, sorry to have taken so long. I'm really busy these days. But in answer to what claims, I'll start with the key notions of irreducible complexity and CSI. Both concepts seem to say "here we have a necessary moment of intervention." But I don't see why that's the case. Sorry I can't follow up at more length: I'm getting ready for a business trip and will be out of touch for a couple of days.larrynormanfan_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

chuckhumphry, I'm confused by your comment re plagiarism. The side-by-side pairings of what Warda and Han wrote versus what came from other articles (several pages' worth!) without citation is unequivocal evidence of plagiarism!Cuneiformist_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, You wrote, "If you can’t prove or disprove the design hypothesis then it follows you can’t prove or disprove the non-design hypothesis. Thus ID and MET are equally pseudo-scientific. Objectivity (no double standards) would then compel us to reject both. In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it too." I'm not sure I agree. As an example, endogenous retrovirus (ERV) sequences serve to confirm common descent. Moreover, what we understand about common descent and primate relationships allows for some predictions about ERV sequences. If humans and orangutans shared an ERV sequence not seen in chimps, it would be a blow to modern evolutionary theory. Conversely, I'm still not sure how Dembski's prediction I noted above could be falsified. It may be possible, even if I don't see it. That's why I'm asking.Cuneiformist_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I read the Darwinist "evidence" of plaigarism, and I think I must retract what I said in comment # 158: there is no plagairism, and if there were evidence, the article did not deserve to be removed. As one of the authors of the article (Warda) said,
The problem is that we described in very clear and definite way the disciplined nature that takes part inside our cells. We supported our meaning with define proteomics evidences that cry in front of scientists that the mitochondria is not evolved from other prokaryotes. They want to destroy us because we say the truth; only the truth.
chuckhumphry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Cuneiformist: "Again, there were numerous instances where said authors lifted passages from other articles without citation. Thus, the article was pulled. It’s that simple. There’s no reason to be skeptical of this action and posit some grand, evil Darwinist conspiracy." Are you kidding? Are you so naif, or what? Have you read the general scandal which accompanied the online publication of the article on darwinists' sites? Are you aware of the intimidating e-mails which, for explicit admission of the same sites, were sent to Proteomics? The "conspiracy" is there, for all to check. Those people were not concerned about the "plagiarism", they were concerned, and really furious, because a "creationist" article had found a way through "peer review" (read: organized censorship). It's pretty obvious that the formal charge of "plagiarism", either there is something to it or not (and I will believe not, until I can evaluate by myself), was only an excuse, because it would not have been elegant to write online: "We have onliged the authors to retract the article because it was a creationist article". It's that simple, and that is not my opinion, it is under the eyes of all.gpuccio_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Another way to support ID's basic assumptions is the Behe model of the Edge of Evolution. We do not just have the malaria parasite, bacteria and HIV viruses that do not produce anything, we have several hundred families, thousands of genera and tens of millions of species. If we look at the species which according to Darwin are supposed to be the top of the evolutionary tree and an icon for the modern evolutionary theory and if we do the analysis of them and find no creativity in any, then we have destroyed one of the fundamental axioms of MET. If in this analysis we find essentially narrower gene pools in each species then existed at the family or genera level, we can say that natural selection works but what it does is cull down the gene pool and will eventually lead to extinction as the reduced gene pools will not be able to deal with some new environments. In other words naturalistic evolution works in the complete opposite way of what Darwin predicted. Starting with the Cambrian Explosion we see mostly downward evolution and not upward evolution. There has been obviously upward evolution that took place. Then the question becomes was the total package there from the start or was it added to as time and the environment changed the earth. We can only get science and the general population to come to these questions once they learn that Darwinian processes work but only to refine a gene pool and not expand it in any meaningful way. It doesn't create, it refines and adds no additional complexity or novelty. This is ID research with some very solid predictions to be confirmed by research that has already taken place and to be done in the future. One of the comments I have heard by a geneticist was that they have so much data on genomes that most are not being analyzed because it exceeds the capacity of the people now available to do it. ID could put a framework on this data to confirm its predictions and if the predictions fail in some cases then these present new opportunities for meaningful research.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, That actually makes a lot of sense. I never thought about it that way, but that is a serious argument Darwinists have to deal with. The universe obviously exhibits design; athists keep having to deny the obvious becuase it conflicts with their dogma.chuckhumphry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

cunneiformist I’m not sure how to test for ID at all, actually. I noted above that Dembski’s predictions seem impossible to prove wrong, and that seems to be to be a problem. If you can't prove or disprove the design hypothesis then it follows you can't prove or disprove the non-design hypothesis. Thus ID and MET are equally pseudo-scientific. Objectivity (no double standards) would then compel us to reject both. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.DaveScot_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

jerry, Rejoice! I found part of the paper at a Darwinist site here: Pimm. The full paper gave an interesting history of the mitochondria, and I'm sorry to see it gone.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

chuckhumphry, You read the full text article but did not save it? If so then next time just hit the save button. I am sure many of our curious as to what it actually said.jerry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Cuneiformist, It’s not that the editor’s choice of retraction is proof of an Athistic Conspiracy in science. Simply put, in a larger context of the culture of atheist dogma in science, it confirms what would be observed if there were a grand conspiracy.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Wait, wait-- aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? Again, there were numerous instances where said authors lifted passages from other articles without citation. Thus, the article was pulled. It's that simple. There's no reason to be skeptical of this action and posit some grand, evil Darwinist conspiracy.Cuneiformist_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Excellent point! While charges of plagiarism are a career-breaker in Big Science's inner circle, being labeled an ID sceintist is even worse. I think we as Intelligent Design advocates should not condone any work of plagiarism, but we cannot let Dogmatic Evilutionists besmirch two scientists that happen to advocate ID science. Their conclusions are perfectly justified under ID Theory.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Cuneiformist: Am i too skeptical if I suspect that the supposed plagiarism could have been an excuse, and the content of the article the real motive? After all, the article has immediately been classified as "creationist" by our usual friends (pharyngula or similar, I believe), and I don't think the "creationist" approach was plagiarized (otherwise, the original articles would have alredy been retracted, too). The sad thing is that now I (and a few million other people, probably) will not be able to judge for myself, because the article is no more available (luckily I saved the abstract from Pubmed, while it is still there), unless someone, maybe the authors, make it available somewhere. But perhaps they'll try to save their career... Anyway, if anybody has news about the text, please let me know.gpuccio_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

And Bob, Single-celled organisms coming together and forming colonies is a sign of cellular intelligence.Joseph_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Chuckhumphry, You're right that their arguments aren't minimized because they copied parts of their article. And perhaps they can resubmit their work with the lifted paragraphs properly cited, etc. I don't know how such things work, though. In any case, from what I read of the article, I wasn't all that impressed. And I don't know how we test for the "common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator" at all. I'm not sure how to test for ID at all, actually. I noted above that Dembski's predictions seem impossible to prove wrong, and that seems to be to be a problem.Cuneiformist_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply