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

Cunniformist, Ah, perhaps I was too strident in my opposition to Darwinism. When I read the paper, I found their argument to be very persuasive. I'm sorry they resorted to plagiarism, but that shouldn't effect their thesis in any way. I stand behind Han and Warda's theory.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

larrynormanfan: I come in peace, I promise. You wrote, "ID makes a number of specific claims, pretty much none of which I presently accept." Which claims about ID do you not accept and why? Place special emphais on the why. Or, if you like, just pick one. It would help if I could know your rationale.StephenB_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

I cry shenanigans on the editors of Proteomics for retracting the article! They've caved under the pressure of the Darwinist agenda.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Are you aware hat the article has already been retracted? Speak of the efficiency od darwinists...gpuccio_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

jerry, Try this?chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

chuckhumphry, I tried the link on two different browsers and all I got was an error at pubmed. If you have a full text copy of the article, save it because it sounds like it will disappear from the journal.jerry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

jerry, It worked for me when I tried the link; perhaps I made a mistake with the html. If you can, get your hands on a copy of the paper. The middle of it is full of excellent ID propositions. For instance,
Alternatively, instead of sinking in a swamp of endless debates about the evolution of mitochondria, it is better to come up with a unified assumption that all living cells undergo a certain degree of convergence or divergence to or from each other to meet their survival in specific habitats. Proteomics data greatly assist this realistic assumption that connects all kinds of life. More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life.
It's a very interesting paper. The Times Higher Education has some neutral background on it (although the disgusting PZ Meyers is quoted in it, trying to discredit the paper's conclusions).chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

What is the evidence for self-organization when it comes to colonies of single-celled organisms? Bob O'H sez: Dictyostelium discoideum self-organises, so we have actual observations. As to how it arose, this is part of the story, but there is much more (and it’s not an area I follow. Although I have looked after the cat of the girlfriend of one of the people working on it). Umm as far as anyone knows these cells organize because of their design- IOW these single-celled organisms were designed to colonize in certain scenarios. There isn't any data that this organization arose via culled genetic accidents.Joseph_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

chuckhumphry, There are several who will question Darwinian processes but the paper itself is not pro ID in its conclusions. Your link did not point to anything so I cannot comment on the study you mentioned. As you say, reports appear frequently that question Darwinian ideas but a pro ID interpretation if nearly always verboten. Read Dave's comment about Lynn Margulis above. She is anything but pro ID. But you could take this paper (which I have not read) and probably a lot of others and make some conclusions about ID as if you did the research and what would happen is just what I outlined above. In a way Darwinian processes are working in academia. You would not survive in the current environment but maybe in the future the environment will change.jerry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Chuckhumphry, The article in question was withdrawn as much it featured significant examples of plagiarism. I read through a draft, though, and didn't find it to be quite the "powerful argument" at all.Cuneiformist_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

jerry, I disagree on one small point of interest. Every now and then a significant paper is published in a leading scientific journal that directly counters the Darwinist hegemony. For instance, Han and Warda's paper Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence provides a powerful argument against Darwinism.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Oh, my apologies. With a little clarification on your part, I see what you meant. In your case, I agree with you on each of your points, but for me it is a matter of degree. I am convinced that materialism has funamentally scarred our culture in the scientific, philosophical and moral disciplines. Nothing less than its complete failure (through rigorous debate, published papers and the allure of a new paradigm; of course) can possibly redeem America.chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

larrynormanfan, ID has no problem with using whatever tools or methodology that modern science provides and in general assuming that the findings follow natural laws. Or as you express it, the explanation is materialistic. Where it differs is in the interpretation of the results of some studies. Study after study provides explanations that are not supported by the facts. This does not say that all the explanations are unsupported and for the most part most are reasonable. But modern science lets an ideology govern or limit acceptable interpretations in certain areas and this definitely steers what is reported. Whether this is materialistic or not it is bad science. One of the knocks against ID is that it does not do any original science. If a scientist did an identical study to one just reported in the journals but suggested a different interpretation of the findings that would support ID, that researcher would quickly find himself without a lab, funds to do research, denial of tenure if applicable, the inability to find a journal to publish his findings and the opprobrium of all his open minded and fair colleagues.jerry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

larrynormanfan: "Not everything has a material explanation. But when something is explained in scientific terms, how can that explanation be anything but materialist?" Why do you say that? The concept of matter is only one of the many concepts of science. Energy, law, conservatio of quantities other than matter, symmetry, and others are a good example of objects of science. And even the concept of matter is not so well defined in science, we should rather use terms like mass or energy. I don't think that "matter" is a good and precise word. Maybe you can express better the fundamentsl dualism of modern science if you consider absolute determinism vs non absolute determinism. That was the true issue between Einstein and Bohr. And that problem, still, is not solved. But, if progress has been done, it is in the direction of non absolute determinism. I can't understand how many religious people can easily accept a completely deterministic view of reality! How can they account for free will, responsibility, purpose, and similar? Here, I am not speaking of divine interventions at all. But, if you accept a completely deterministic theory of "matter", how can you explain even the simplest human volition? And if you don't accept absolute determinism, where is the difficulty of conceiving divine intervention, not as a miracle, but as a supremely normal fact? Why shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to do the same kind of things that we daily do? For instance, imparting design to matter, whatever it is...gpuccio_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

chuckhumphry: Maybe I don't understand. What exactly do you disagree with? I happen to agree with what you are saying, and although I respect Popper, I prefer Kuhn, and even more Feyerabend. When I say that "science cannot be guided by an ideology, be it materialistic or not", I am not meaning that it is not, but rather that ideal science shouldn't. Even so, I don't believe in the objectivity even of ideal science: the concept of ideal science, for me, is where honest and sincere people do their best to pursue truth with the best methods they can find, acoounting for their own subjectivity and ideologies. In other words, science should not be "guided" by ideologies, but is always influenced by them. A honest and earnest attitude of search for truth and of intellectual confrontation with others is for me the standard of good science. Probably, that standard cannot reasonably prevail in the general community, but it exists, and can be applied by single individuals. Regarding darwinian evolution, just to be clear I will reaffirm that, in my opinion, it is a theory which does not meet the standards of a scientific theory, good or bad, by any definition, and not only in a Popperian sense. But the real problem is not the theory itself, which could as well survive in the minds of its enthusisasts. After all, bad theories are not dangerous in themselves. The problem is the general status that such a non theory has gained, becoming one of the strongest dogmas of modern thought, and the incredible number of lies and deformations of truth that feed that status. ID, on the contrary, is a beautiful, simple theory, which has more importance than one could suspect, not only in biology, but in all fields of science and knowledge. It is, in my opinion, a truly important advancement of thought, a new paradigm which offers the foundations for great future progress. It is not all, and it is not enough. But it is a great start.gpuccio_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

DaveScot,
It’s the dogmatic belief that everything has a material explanation that’s the problem.
I guess I count myself as a "methodological materialist." Not everything has a material explanation. But when something is explained in scientific terms, how can that explanation be anything but materialist?larrynormanfan_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

bFast,
Alas, it would appear that you are in the ID camp.
Not so fast! ID makes a number of specific claims, pretty much none of which I presently accept. By "interventions" I was referring to miraculous interventions in human history such as the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus.larrynormanfan_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I respectfully disagree. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is an excellent book about how science is conducted; even if you were a fan of Popper and believe Kuhn gets the history of sceince worng, the lie of evolution clearly doesn't fit his definition of falsifiability. Regardless of what either you or I may believe, it's clear that Evolutionary Theory isn't falsifiable: As Karl Popper said in Conjectures and Refutations (1962, p.340),
There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. The idea of a law which determines the direction and the character of evolution is a typical nineteenth-century mistake. ..
ID science on the other hand...chuckhumphry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Science cannot be guided by an ideology, be it materialistic or not. Science can only be defined as any functional way of understanding what is empirically true with empirical methods. Ideologies are vast theories about the global nature of reality. Ideologies are not based on empirical evidence, although they can be inspired by it. That's why materialistic ideology is not science, in the same way that religion is not science. Materialistic ideology would not be science, even if it were philosophically true. So, the only correct question is: is darwinian evolution a true scientific theory, or is it a non scientific theory (or if you prefer a bad scientific theory) whose general success and diffusion in the scientific world is warranted by the prevailing materialistic ideology? Of course, you know my answer. By the way, the same question can be made about ID and religious ideologies. Here again, my answer is obvious.gpuccio_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

chuck Whatever you happen to believe about the mechanisms of macro-evolution, whether chance or design, neither belief impairs or improves what science delivers in way of practical things. Macro-evolution, by whatever means, happens too slowly to make any practical difference over the course of mere centuries. As far as practical intervals of time are concerned (tens and hundreds of years) macro-evolution is at a complete standstill. Modern biology is the study of living tissue. Historical biology is the study of ancient imprints in rocks. Practical applications in biology come through the study of living tissues not imprints in rocks. DaveScot_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, If Darwinism and all other naturalist theories are part of the Big Lie of science, I think it is fair to think that only a revolution that fundamentally changes how we as humans - as scientists and philosophers - observe the world can liberate science. Until then, you and I may have our differences on the severity of it being a "road block" or a "dead end", but I believe the Religion of Atheism has impeded our quest for understanding the wonders of the universe.chuckhumphry_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

chuck I think it's premature to say atheistic science has reached a dead end. A road block which may or may not have a way around it is more apt. The only real "dead end" I'm willing to accept without protest lies at the bounds of the observable universe in space and time. That appears to be a dead end for methodological naturalism. There's a whole heck of a lot of time and material between the beginning of life on the earth and the beginning of the observable universe. We've barely scratched the surface of that so far. All one has to do is consider the current popular view in cosmology that only 5% of the "stuff" that makes up the universe is described by current theory. Some 25% is an unknown substance called "dark matter" and another 70%, even more mysterious, is called "dark energy". We don't know what this stuff is. All we know is that it interacts with the universe we know about through the force of gravity acting on very large objects over very great distances. The visible tip of an iceberg is 10% of it. So we can't even say we can see the tip of the iceberg yet. We can only see the tip of the tip. If that doesn't humble people who think they have all the material explanations for the universe well-in-hand then I don't know what could possibly humble them. DaveScot_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, Hear, hear! The problem with ID materialists is that it's a contradiction of terms: atheistic "science" has finally reached a dead end, and the traditional mores of science just won't answer the big questions anymore. Those that have accepted ID science and remain materialists are subject to cognitive dissonance - and nothing more. That doesn't mean that ID scientists must be religious; far from it. Only that scientific naturalism is inherently ineffective, immoral, and absurd.chuckhumphry_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

larry With regard to the term "Darwinist" and who uses it I'd have you read the keynote speaker at the 2005 "Woodstock of Evolution" Lynn Margulis. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E483414B7FFE87&page=9
Michod's talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, "This is the most wonderful conference I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of conferences." She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." But, she quickly added, "I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point."
Protests of "Darwinist" only being used by anti-Darwinians is not true. The most famous among them use the term to describe themselves. DaveScot_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

larry I understand your confusion re; the complaints at the top of the page. It's materialistic ideology that's the problem. Material explanations, where they are warranted, are not the problem. It's the dogmatic belief that everything has a material explanation that's the problem. Science is supposed to be agnostic about things lacking material explanations. There are many practitioners within it who believe it should be positively atheist about everything, even those things which it cannot explain. We simply don't believe that material explanations are adequate to explain the origin and diversification of life at this point and they are being presented as factual to a trusting public when they are not at all factual. That's not to say there is no material explanation. There very well may be one. But maybe there isn't one either. The evidence for and against any theory of life's origin and diversification should be presented without prejudice. Many scientists with vested interests in evolutionary dogma are unwilling to give the negative evidence a fair hearing. I'm quite convinced the reason for that is a lot fewer people would uncritically accept the dogma if they were made aware of how weak it really is and the vested interests, whether it be promotion of atheism, funding, or credibility and esteem, would be harmed as a result. In other words, scientific objectivity is playing second fiddle to political and personal self-interest. DaveScot_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Common descent can have more than one meaning so one should be clear about what one is discussing when using the term. In the Darwinian sense, common descent means that all life flows from an original singular celled prokaryote organism. This led to other prokaryote singular celled organisms and to eukaryote singular celled organism and then to multi-celled organism to the phyla and then to every thing else that has existed. This is usually referred to as universal common descent. Or it could mean that human beings are descended from apes with similar scenarios for other animals and plants but that not all are descended from the same ancestor. In other words there is no universal common descent. None of this says anything about mechanism for descent. It does not imply gradualism as the mechanism though many people equate the two erroneously. Mechanism must be proved independent of whether one thinks common descent has been indicated. I don't think Dembski believes in the Darwinian version of common descent and if anyone has any references on this, please feel to add to it. The last time I saw any reference to it by him was when he discussed Ayala's book. In the Design of Life the authors are skeptical about how some species could arise through natural selection but certainly not all. If that it is the case then they are questioning universal common descent. Personally, I believe the evidence supports some limited form of common descent based on interventions at one or more times by an intelligence after the initial origin of life. If that is the case, then common descent could flow after each intervention but it still begs the question for the mechanism for the origin of some species. Natural selection could explain a lot of it but not all.jerry_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

bFast, I myself feel that ID science is moving towards becoming a fully-formed discipline: it has all of Kuhn’s indicators of what he would call a “pre-science” that exists before a fundamental shift in how science is conducted. At this point scientists that accept the Intelligent Design continue to work out the underlying principles of the theory. While the philosophical and ethical arguments for ID are currently ahead of the science, Dr. Dembski’s recent groundbreaking work in information theory and Michael Behe’s papers on irreducible complexity lead me to believe that in only a few years Intelligent Design will become the dominant paradigm.chuckhumphry_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

I was, apparently, wrong on naturalist versions of ID such as Mike Gene’s
I think the Mike Gene's view of biology is fundimentally, well, telic. One can gather this from the name of what has become his website - telicthoughts.com. Gene (a pseudonym) seems to be adimant that he is not part of the "ID movement". He also repeats that "ID is not science". I don't exactly understand him in this. I think he means that it has not risen to the level of theory. In addition, he holds his theological position very tight to his chest -- as he does his education. Alas, it would appear that you are in the ID camp. Some of us have tried to introduce the title ID Evolutionist, especially for those who hold to common descent. I personally like to see myself as an ID Evolutionist. Though many of the fellows of the Discovery Institute are not clear about there view of common descent, or hold to the "common design" view, I think that this site contains a good number of common descenters.bFast_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I'm happy for a fresh start. I just wanted to clarify my position. bFast, perhaps it was silly of me to mention the age of the earth and universe. I mentioned them just because they seem basic, and to refuse those is to argue with more than evolutionary biology. I'm actually not that interested in cosmological ID, since cosmology of that sort is always more philosophy than science. It's the history of life on earth that's interesting to me -- and how to explore it scientifically. As for common descent, I'm under the impression that, although Behe accepts common descent, most of the others (Wells, Johnson, Nelson, Dembski, etc.) are deliberately silent or skeptical. So I'm not sure it's "evenly split" even on humans. But I may be wrong. (I was, apparently, wrong on naturalist versions of ID such as Mike Gene's. But that makes me confused about the complaints about materialism on the top of this very web page!)larrynormanfan_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Larrynormanfan: In rereading my last two responses, I find that I have been unnecessarily cynical and a little sarcastic. Maybe, we ought to start over again. I don’t think we have gone past the point of no return. I became a little irked when you suggested that I thought that a Christian cannot be an evolutionist, when I said I don’t believe a Christian can be a Darwinist. To me, and most on this blog, an evolutionist is simply someone who accepts macro-evolution. A Darwinist is someone who posits an unguided evolution. My point has always been that the former is compatible with Christianity, while the latter is not. In any case, I will try to tone it down a little bit. Perhaps you were a little irked with me for questioning your faith. I have been through this same kind of dialogue with others who were not being sincere, and the temptation is to place everyone in the same category. I am all for a fresh start. How about you?StephenB_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply