Ed Brayton – Hypocrite Extraordinaire

_{Dave S.
January 13, 2006

Darwinism, Education

1}_{Categories
Darwinism
Education}

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

Ed Brayton posts this seemingly virtuous opinion that anonymous ID proponents should not have their real names exposed.

Yet among my first experiences with Ed Brayton was him exposing my real name in a public comment on Panda’s Thumb. Ed lifted my real name from a private email I sent to him. I don’t particularly try to hide my real name, which is why Ed got it in a private correspondence, but I don’t advertise it either.

Now I ask you, when you catch a guy redhanded in such duplicity how far can you trust him in other matters?

About as far as I can throw the Oskaloosa High School Football Team…

Comments

Well, I can't say I never learned anything at Panda's Thumb. I learned about this cute little plugin they use called a Disemvoweler that strips all the vowels from a troll's comments. :-)DaveScot_{January 18, 2006
January
01
Jan
18
18
2006
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

[troll] A Friend's Loss and an Adversary's Viciousness Wes Elsberry has already posted about this on his blog, but our friend and fellow Panda's Thumb contributor Mark Perakh has suffered a terrible tragedy: his house has burned down, taking with it virtually everything. The good news is that...Dispatches from the Culture Wars_{January 18, 2006
January
01
Jan
18
18
2006
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

bradcliffe Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars. My favorite example was when I questioned his credentials and his response was essentially "the communists took my papers". Evidently Mark doesn't know the classic American excuse "my dog ate my homework". I had a field day with that one. In this case, it would again appear that Mark's proof disappeared in an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. A mysterious software glitch in Amazon Canada magically and momentarily revealed the name "William Dembski" behind an anonymous reviewer's handle. Wow! What're the odds? At any rate Mark's "the Canadian software ate my proof" is par for the course for this guy. The short answer is Perakh, like a million other lunatics, doesn't deserve a response to his paranoid accusations. DaveScot_{January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Thunar's comment links to an article which contains serious accusations against Dr. Dembski. Has he answered these charges? If so, could someone post a link to his response to the accusations?bradcliffe1_{January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

"Now, with our understanding of genetics we are pretty confident that [inheritance of acquired characters] doesn't happen." Guess what. The most tested theory in science was wrong. Twice. Darwin hisself said in Origin that inheritance of acquired characters was the primary mechanism of evolution in domesticated animals and, he presumed, lacking evidence to the contrary, was also the operative mechanism in the wild. Then along comes NeoDarwinian theory (the modern synthesis) which (30 years after Mendel published his work in genetics, better late than never to admit he was right) combined Darwin's theory with genetic inheritance and officially falsified Lamarck at the same time. It was once a fact as solid as gravity that Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters was falsified. But lo and behold, it's now common knowledge that Lamarck was right at least about bacteria which are known to modify DNA on the fly in response to the environment and pass along the changes. This is where I come in with a perfectly reasonable question. If prokaryotes are capable of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters, and eukaryotes are descendents of prokaryotes, isn't it possible and reasonable to assume that eukaryotes are capable of Lamarckian inheritance too and evolutionary biologists screwed the pooch on that conclusion as well? This is what happens when falsified theories, which Darwinian evolution most assuredly is, are, instead of being discarded when their predictions don't pan out (hahahaha - pan out - that's a pun played on the sifting of rocks for bits of fossilized bone and teeth which is the major prediction that didn't "pan out" for the Darwinian narrative) are propped up time after time after time with ad hoc modifications to explain the failed predictions. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave! But that's okay. You know our motto here Freud, Marx, and Darwin. The three pillars of modernism. Two down and one to go! It's just a matter of time. Evolution is a theory in crisis don't you know. :-)DaveScot_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

"Darwinism is a worldview that states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only." Well, that depends on what the definition of is is. If is implies the future tense, possibly explainable in terms of material causes only, then I agree. However, if is implies the present tense, assuredly explainable in terms of material causes only, then I disagree. So is there any room for doubt? There certainly is! Is that clear enough now?DaveScot_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Damn hilarious. Glad I came. Needed a laugh. Thanx.CommonSense_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

It's not a reaction from my limited knowledge. It's a numbers game. Lots of mistakes and one get's lucky and passes on that gene. If I remember right Lamarck hypothesised that traits aquired basically after birth could be heritable. Now, with our understanding of genetics we are pretty confident that doesn't happen. But let's say, you're a fish. You're out there fishing around and your species is doing great. THe ones that stick to the basic plan work pretty good. the ones that don't basically die out. Unless of course one is born with the ability to better exploit the niche the species is exploiting. But that's not really evolution. It is in a very limited way, but all you get is a fish that is better at being a fish. Not much difference really. It's like michael Jordan is a good basketball player and his kids might be too. But lets say your shallow sea begins to dry out. Your species just drew its unlucky number. But, one of your offspring just happens to have a mutation which allows it to exploit a gene which grows a small lung. Not very useful in a nice ocean but pretty useful for burrowing down in the mud and waiting for the rain. He has maybe 50,000 babies because he is one of the last survivors of his species, the fishyfishyichthyes, so he gets to fertilize a lot of eggs. maybe 20 or so of his offspring share the trait of having a small lung. Now the water goes away for a while every year and he and his 20 offspring have no real predetors left and a new niche that they are a little suited for. At least they dont die. Now, the rains come in the next year and the next and so on and one day the great to the 10th power grandson is born with pretty big flippers. He figures out how to hobble over to the next pond where there is a bunch more food. His kids now have an advantage and fishyfishyicthes is now fishyfrogyicthes. Not the same critter at all. Still like a fish but suited for a different environment and probably not able to mate with his ancient relative fishyfishyichthyes. But if no fish was born with a small lung that made it so they could live buried in the mud for a while way back in fishyfishyichthyes time, fishyfroggyichthyes never would have happened and they would have gone extinct. In fact that is probably what would have happened to most of fishyfishyichthyes' neigbors in the old sea and, in fact, it is what did happen to all the fishyfishyichthyes who didn't get on the bandwagon with the lung thing. So, that's not Lamarckism if I am indeed correct about what lamarckism is. And it makes a pretty plausible story too. So, what I am saying is that to tell the darwinists (whose world view is that everything boils down to matter and physics and that spirit and wonder are just simple byproducts of physics) that spirit and wonder are real and observably separate from the physical world, to tell them that nature shows even the most obstinant person evidence for design, to say things like this requires proof. We need to demonstrate for them by showing them the flaws in their science. Debate those flaws. It is possible that we might see a flaw where none exists simply because we are so exaspirated at their obstinance. It is better to concede where we might be wrong so that we have all the credibility when we are right. Like the flagellum thing. Ok, bubonic plague has the same protien structure and uses it to inject cells with toxin. But just because it appears to be an intermediary stage, doesn't mean it is. Isn't there one peer-reviewed, scientific, published paper that casts light on this? That, I believe, the smug folks over at Panda's thumb would listen to.Bling Bling_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Bling Bling "Holes in evolutionary theory abound but the theory in it's totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc." You seem to be confused on how standard evolution works. Species don't react with beneficial heritable modifications in the NeoDarwinian world. That's Lamarckism and in eukaryotes its falsification is considered settled science. It was once considered settled in prokaryotes too but that's changed recently. I suspect Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters is going to be resurrected in eukaryotes too but that's a different argument. In the NeoDarwinian narrative, random undirected mutations are the only source of heritable modification. Random and undirected means that if a mutation happens to be beneficial it's pure luck. Species don't react with heritable changes to external pressure. They can only get lucky. Or so the narrative goes.DaveScot_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Bing If Ed sounded at all remorseful about outing me I'd say you have a good point. But he ain't and you don't.DaveScot_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Charlie I don't think it'll take another George Bush, but Jeb Bush is primed and ready to go. He's done as governor of Florida due to term limits. I think it's about time we had a governor from Florida for president. Anyhow, I'm thinking Sam Alito replacing Sandra O'Connor is what it'll take. The exclusionary NeoDarwinian stranglehold on evolutionary hypotheses is being kept up by judicial fiat and nothing more. It's been a theory in crisis for decades. Alito should be confirmed soon. The democrat attempt to derail his nomination was pathetic and impotent.DaveScot_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Bling Bling. Ã¢â‚¬Å“but the theory in it's totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc.Ã¢â‚¬Â I said "No it doesn't do this at all" and you said "??", I presume in response. Take the lungfish for example. What external pressures caused this Lamarckian adaptation toward frogginess? While the theory is predicting what will happen given external pressures, what pressures would be required to turn the lungfish back into a fishier fish? As methane in our atmosphere increases what will the theory predict will happen to, say, the tiger salamander? What would an increase in average temperature do?Charlie_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Usurper: "I have read your blog, it's just like religionÃ¢â‚¬â€œit's ridiculous." Warning: If you're going to attack someone at least make it constructive criticism and state the reasons why you see Bling Bling's blog as being ridiculous.Patrick_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

bling:
And confusing Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â the science with Ã¢â‚¬Å“DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬Â the worldview that Ã¢â‚¬Å“states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes onlyÃ¢â‚¬Â only muddies the waters. Holes in evolutionary theory abound but the theory in it's totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc.
No it doesn't muddy the water, it clarifies what the real issue is: science as a construct of philosophical materialism, or science as search for truth about the physical world. Evolutionary theory doesn't really predict anything except in some vague sense that species will change over time. It doesn't tell us what changes to expect or what external pressures will bring about which changes.DonaldM_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

I have read your blog, it's just like religion--it's ridiculous.Usurper_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Have you ever wondered about milfoil, kudzu, rabbits in australia, the dandilion, starlings, Japanese tiger mussels, etc.? Biologists deal with these thing by understanding how natural selection works. And the lungfish is still a fish? It can walk on land, crawl from pond to pond, hibernate in mud for at least a year, breath underwater and babies are more fishlike than adults. Seems pretty close to a frog if you ask me. But that's the problem. So what? So there's a weird, in-between thing called a lungfish. So has anyone ever seen one grow legs and start hopping? Ever seen a cat turn into a dog? If we're just talking religion here, then I'm hopping off the wagon because there is no evidence for any religion. ANd religion is mostly a bad thing in my book. But if we're talking wonder at the absolutely, utterly unknowable cosmic reality then I'm right here with you. Design is obvious, religion is ridiculous so are we or are we not mixing the two? Read my blog for more info on my religious views.Bling Bling_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

??Bling Bling_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

"but the theory in it's totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc." No, it doesn't do this at all.Charlie_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Archaeopterix? I don't need to do better because I don't care. But they can do better. I'm saying that almost all the people who get advanced degrees get brainwashed by the same info. THey will trot out their answers faster than we can ask questions. And they will be good answers. If you want them to open their eyes and admit that all of creation is evidence for design, you have to show them. Pointing out that their science isn't rigorous is foolish. It is. That is what the scientific method does. And confusing "evolution" the science with "Darwinism" the worldview that "states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only" only muddies the waters. Holes in evolutionary theory abound but the theory in it's totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc. So where those holes exist, not in the geologic column by the way, look at a map of the world's tectonic plates and put the inconstistent places over it, they end up at the folding and creasing parts, where those holes exist, press for answers. Let's show them our peer-reviewed science. I know there must be some. Design is as obvious as gravity. Look, call it magic if you want but the whole shebang wasn't random because we fit too perfectly. Look at how species share so many similar traits. Doesn't that show evidence of design?Bling Bling_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

For that matter, what defines "speciation"? Reproductive isolation? But what does that demonstrate in terms of the Grand Evolutionary Extrapolation (the big GEE of evolution, as in "Golly GEE whiz look at all the wonders evolution has wrought!")?DonaldM_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

The commonality of the flood narritive throughout multiple cultures is actually an evidence that it really happened, bling. But, this really isn't an appopriate topic for this blog. My point was in reference to Ed Brayton. And lungfish. Still a fish. You'll need to do better than that.Bombadill_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

"I'm interested in seeing the research and evidence of Darwinian Evolution producing novel species." lungfish? Anyway, you miss my point. What motivation would someone have to deny god? If god were obvious, wouldn't people want to know? I think that it actually looks to them like ID is wrong. Like I said, one peer-reviewed paper would do it. I think that, even though a blind man can see evidence of design, they are educated out of looking at it that way. They place a pretty high premium on testable data. I think they could be educated back into seeing it that way. Catastrophism? As in Gilgamesh's flood? Where did that come from? C'mon, if we're serious here, none of this kind of thing helps. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htmBling Bling_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

I spoke with Ed on the Panda's Thumb, in my only post there (on that hotbed of loving encouragement and grace ;)). I found him to be fairly respectful, though perhaps it was because it was my first time actually posting. Anyway, he challenged me regarding the Geologic Column and it's (alleged) Uniformitarianism. I decided to take a look at the issue and realized that there truly is evidence for catastrophism; strata layers that "should" be on bottom - on top, fossils that "should" be on bottom - on top (including mass fish bones on mountain tops), animals in the throes of birth and conflict, fossilized instantly in all manner of locations. Fossils going thru multiple strata layers. It was all a bit much to simply explain away with "folding" and mud-slides, and the like. Anyway, back on topic.Bombadill_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

additionally, evidence on the biochemical level would suggest that there is absolutely no viable Darwinian pathway from one species to a novel one.Bombadill_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

clbell, the fossil record would, for instance, demonstrate the sudden appearance of hominids and canines (2 random examples) without evidence of any mammalian antecedents. So, I ask for the research and evidence of unguided evolution producing these species.Bombadill_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Bombadill: What would you consider to be a novel species?clbell_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

"Evolution as a mechanism for speciation is on pretty firm footing with lots and lots of research and evidence to back it up." I'm interested in seeing the research and evidence of Darwinian Evolution producing novel species.Bombadill_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Bling2 writes:
But Darwinism isn't a world view. It isn't even an ism. I post over there at Panda's Thumb occasionally under a different pseudonym and I agree with you about the level of pushing ideas that are only slightly related to the point and the level of intolerance and smugness with their world view but really they don't know they are doing it.
I beg to differ. Darwinism is a worldview that states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only. Put differently, Darwinism says that the properties of the cosmos are such that there can be no actual design as the cause of any biological system or life form, even in principle. There is, of course, NO science to back that up...it is the "ism" part of DarwinISM, in other words, a worldview rooted in philosophical naturalism, or something like it. If it were otherwise, there would be no substantive objection to considering actual ID as a live possibility in the causal history of life. Contrary to what you state here, I think the PT crowd knows exactly what they are doing. They are staunch defenders of their worldview and will brook no criticism or questioning of it. If it were just a matter of science or scientific evidence, then there would be no problem in considering the possibility that an IC system might be evidence of actual design in a natural system. But to those of the ilk of the PT crowd, science is defined in such a way that ID is excluded a priori. Further evidence of the gamesplaying at PT is seen when they invoke fallacious reasoning that even a first year logic student could spot to make their case but refuse to admit error in reasoning when those fallacies are pointed out. In other words, they will never admit errors of fact or reasoning, no matter how wrong they are about anything...especially if it means conceding a point to an IDP or, worse, a dreaded Creationist. Straw man arguments (that is to say misrepresentations of what IDPs actually say), red herrings, ad hominems, question begging and violations of the law of non-contradiction are regular fare at PT and other sites like it. They know exactly what they are doing...protecting their dogma!!!DonaldM_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

DaveScot's Reading Comprehension Problems There's something particularly amusing when ignorant jerks get their dander up and decide to attack someone else. Our old pal DaveScot has taken a brave leap in the dark, accusing me of being a "hypocrite extraordinaire", and predictably landed with... Ed, you've taken prevarication to an impressive level. Next you'll be replying with things like "Well, that depends on what the definition of is is". Now don't go busting an aneurism on me. I hate it when my toys break prematurely. Dispatches from the Culture Wars_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

There will be more. He was wrong to attempt to out you a year ago. He also confessed that he "participated in the outing of a prominent creationist, John Woodmorappe ..." He now says doing such is wrong and that he regrets such action. Mea culpa? If there's a right-side/wrong side to all this, it appears that Ed has come over to the right side. A year's sober reflection can sometimes cause this. I still think it's unreasonable to call a person a hypocrite when their views on this behaviour have changed and that they now agree with you?Bing_{January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next