Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

StephenB, But he's right about the links. I gave you a link to Wikipedia and you said it was to the pandas thumb. Therefore you already knew you were right even before clicking on the link, and knew that nothing would change your mind. I'd probably not bother checking sources If I had your confidence. Probably the same about ghosts, right? Do you? Do you believe in ghosts StephenB?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Oops. I had better rephrase that as "your interpretation of Philip Johnson's [remarks"] otherwise David will labor endlessly over my syntactical misfire and use it as a distraction to avoid presenting a substantive argument.StephenB_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Learned Hand, to engage in dialogue with StephenB, you must do two things:" Oh, that's right, I forgot. When you are getting killed in an argument, you revert back to personal attacks. You presented an allegedly incriminating quote by Behe, and I explained it line by line. You responded with nothing. You told vivid that you will explain your intrepretaion of Philip Johnson, when you get time. Yet, you neglected to follow up. Given your everpresent status on this site, it would appear that you have plenty of time for childish remarks and personal attacks, but no time for analysis.StephenB_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, to engage in dialogue with StephenB, you must do two things: 1) treat passages StephenB puts in quotation marks as paraphrases or summaries; 2) treat passages where Judge Jones summarizes or paraphrases Behe as quotations. This minor adjustment will help. Also, don't provide links because he will just say they are to anti-ID sites without clicking.David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

----Learned Hand to Clive: "Please be careful about telling people how the law works. It’s a highly technical field in many ways, especially once you get into the procedural rules." I think that you should excercise caution. You have yet to demonstrate that you understand the difference between [A] the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, [B] what the law does and what it is supposed to do, [C] the standard for a just law or an unjust law. To do proper legal analysis, it is importnat to understand the nature of these distinctions and the reasons why they are important. Further, you seen to elevate symbolism over substance. Nothing Michael Behe said, inside or outside court, incrimininated him. You cannot present to me a quote of his in its original form [untwisted by Barbara Forrest, the ACLU, or Judge Jones] that suggests that ID is "intertwined" (your word) with religion. That fact alone destroys your entire argument.StephenB_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Lamarck, I don't think I have anything to say. Your opinions are all rooted in what you think the court said, but you haven't read the opinion. You should do that first, and then decide what it means. You can get a non-PDF by googling "Dover opinion" and clicking on the "View as HTML' link on the first result. To relieve your concerns, Kitzmiller is not binding precedent. Other courts may, apparently have, and probably will in the future cite it as persuasive on the applicable fact questions, such as whether ID is religious. But those other courts will follow their own circuit courts of appeal and the supreme court on the question of what the law is. No court outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania will ever be forced to follow Kitzmiller if it doesn't want to.Learned Hand_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, I don't like cornering someone beyond proving my point. Unless you bring up something new, I'll let you have the last word. Every quote is a paraphrase here because there's many parts to our debate, but only a few key parts and this is easier to make the ideas concise. First the smaller points: That you need religion to believe in ID is me referencing the earlier debates which I wasn't a part of. I assumed this was in the judge's ruling because it was talked about so much. Luckily for me it's not, that would make my case much harder. And this falls in line with part of my thesis that the judge couldn't rule on such matters and whether that pertains to the science itself. I understand your point on Jones' precedent not binding in California, I argue though that it lends weight to California, otherwise it wouldn't be cited. California case is on skepticwiki I think, but they also mention "Jones has been used in several cases" You and I don't disagree on Jefferson per what you wrote. We disagree on the nature of ID. I was looking for a text file of the case, can't use adobe or whatever I see there on wiki. Also I don't need to refer to it. Somehow I correctly surmised what the judge's opinion was and what it entailed, and what he could not have stated in his summary "he couldn't rule on the quality or quantity of science itself, it's too easily overruled on appeal" Lemon isn't necessarily binding in lower courts nowadays according to wiki, they could rule on the first amendment alone. And now the main points: You state the judge ruled on ID being religion as regards IDer's intent and history and connection to creationism. I cited these exact points as to the judge's ruling on ID not being science. I think what you meant to say was the judge thinks ID isn't SCIENCE because of connections to creationism, intent of IDers, and it's history with creationism. What the judge has to say about religion is irrelevant, because it would only bolster my case that ID could NEVER be taught in schools no matter it's scientific quantity or quality, because it infers a designer. So it narrows to this. "ID is not science because of it's connection to creationism in history, and the present day, and th intent of IDers." This is the centerpiece of the Judge's conclusions and it isn't a significant precedent. You argue that ID could one day be taught in schools because they could extricate themselves from these points with sound science. You also argue, unstated but by default, that the intent of IDers could be separated, and so be allowed in schools I argue that you are wrong. ID could never extricate itself from it's historical ties to creationism FROM A LAW PERSPECTIVE - HOW CAN IT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN? (obviously, unless we have a time machine), and That it can never separate from creationism in the present day, FROM A LAW PERSPECTIVE - HOW CAN IT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN? Keep in mind the science quality itself wasn't at stake per me and this judge's decision. ID could never extricate itself most of all from IDers INTENTIONS. Again, from a law perspective - and this one most of all - HOW CAN IT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN? So my point stands. The Judge made a sweeping new precedent, which violated Jefferson's intentions: No matter the quality of the science of ID, even if every scientist in the world is in agreement that ID is sound, it cannot be taught in schools because of it's inextricable ties to INTENT, HISTORY and present day CREATIONISM. Hence, religion no matter how soundly grounded in science, even if it was to the point where it's the only viable theory, cannot be taught to kids. This was not Jefferson's intention towards the Church and State separation. It was an important bulwark against IGNORANCE and excessive GOVERNMENT and religious- not SCIENTIFIC - intrusion.lamarck_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

jerry, here's a post from an American Scientific Affiliation discussion board on this quote. It explains why people like KF who use this quote as a chestnut are quotemining:
I think the ID people got a lot of mileage on a statement that was easy to misinterpret if you don't read a lot of L[ewtontin]'s work. There are a lot of ways to interpret what he meant. First recognize that this in a certain sense a highly negative review. He is not saying don't read the book but he is saying that he thinks Carl Sagan is wrong to popularize science using the angle he does. In that sense what you have here is a somewhat sarcastic articulation of Sagan's view. If you read the preface to _It Ain't Necessarily So_ you will see L does this very same thing over I can't remember the subject, maybe genomania. So I think he's making fun of materialists a little bit here. I don't think he's setting out a research methodology, as has been portrayed by the ID'rs. Here is another clue: look at the paragraph immediately following, the divine foot paragraph, where he notes "The mutual exclusion of the material and the demonic has not been true of all cultures and all times." Remember, he is a Marxist. He here and in other writings has noted that the rules of science are situated in a social context, and he's describing here the way it's played these days. I don't think he's passing a normative judgement here, in the sense that I think he would say ALL science is socially situated, in fact I am pretty sure he has stated (the comment, racists do racist science in the review of Mismeasure of Man comes to mind). And the juxtaposition of Newton and LaPlace is interesting, not least because Newton was highly religious albeit Arian and LaPlace also a devout Catholic. Whether intentional or not, he shows here Newton put God in the Gap and LaPlace took Him out. Then back to the class thing. And that is what I think this essay is really about. He is saying it is wrong to take superstition - the "demon-haunted world" or maybe Dr Nelson would say folk religion - and replace it with a superstitious trust in science. It's wrong because it doesn't change the situation for those who are not in the elite, it just changes the master. The final paragraph articulates that, how do we teach lay people how to evaluate claims? And that is really quite an important question that got lost in the hype over this quote.
David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

jerry, have you read the whole essay that kairosfocus cites? It's a critical review of his friend Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World, devoted mainly to illustrating Sagan's rather naive (in Lewontin's view) position on science and rationality. It's certainly not about science education at the secondary school level, the focus of the Dover decision. It has zero relevance to the topic at hand.David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Clive, A "hostile witness" is either your opponent's witness, or a witness you call who gives testimony hostile to your case. Behe was the former. The rules are slightly different for hostile witnesses. For example, you can lead them on direct examination. David Kellogg made a good catch in correcting you on Rule 610. I'll add only that the comment he cites, although written by the Advisory Committee, has a more than merely advisory effect. The commentary exists to tell practitioners what the rule was intended to do, and how it should be applied, without complicating the text of the rule itself. It's written by the same people who write the rules. I have never known a court to disregard the commentary to the rules of procedure or evidence. Also, in the portions of the trial discussed above, Behe was asked about whether ID was religious, not about whether he was. I don't recall whether that question was ever posed to him, but it would have been kosher under 610. Please be careful about telling people how the law works. It's a highly technical field in many ways, especially once you get into the procedural rules. There's no reason you should have known to read the commentary on Rule 610, but by not doing so, you misled at least KF and probably others.Learned Hand_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

"Perhaps you, jerry, could explain its relevance to the Dover decision. " Perhaps you could say, "While I agree that the Lewontin quote is evidence of anti religious worry by atheists and represents their readiness to take action against religious activity, I do not think it has relevance to the Dover decision." Or wait a minute, should anti religious activity be just as much of an issue when pro religious behavior tries to counter act anti religious activity. Maybe we should think about that. Maybe the judge should have thought about it. I know it was only science he was interested in.jerry_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

jerry, I know you're taking a break from this topic, but you're the first to raise it. I find the distinction nonsensical. Can you give an example of how common ancestry does not imply common descent? I mean, aside from I'm My Own Grandpaw?David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

"There is plenty of evidence for common descent" What I read in the links provided was evidence for common ancestry not common descent. There is a hard break at the Cambrian Explosion and while there is much speculation, there is nothing to suggest single celled organisms led to the phyla seen in the Cambrian. I will say nothing more here as this thread is already too long and this topic is peripheral. There also may have been some other hard breaks. The future will decide just how hard any of these breaks were and how the transitions could have taken place. So far I see mostly speculation.jerry_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Onlookers, the longer I follow this thread the more I get the impression that we have lost Cornelius Hunter long before the 100th comment.sparc_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

And given that The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories has been cited 90 times according to google scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=12554146548073733391 How is that an example of darwinst supression? Somebody better tell google they forgot to "supress the evidence"! Tagged, demonised and dismissed? More like ignored, given that the majority of citations are by the usual suspects, J Sarfati and Meyer and so on. And other citations are hardly supportive, e.g. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/suppl_1/8669 So, it seems that ID supportes can, if they want to, have access to the "normal" scientific procedures of peer review, citations etc, but their work is just not generating much interest or just outright hostility. Whose fault is that exactly?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

KariosFocus
and geologists like Olsen who make detailed, technically correct practical and theoretical investigations are to be tagged, demonised and dismissed because there is the possibility of “a Divine Foot in the door.”
Do you mean Roger L. Olsen? I found this
Roger L. Olsen received his Bachelor in Science degree in Chemistry in 1972 and his Ph.D. degree in Geochemistry in 1979. Both degrees were from the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Olsen has worked at the Colorado School of Mines as an Instructor in Chemistry/Geochemistry, at Rockwell International as a Research Chemist, and at D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers/International Technology Corporation as a Project Geochemist. Dr. Olsen has made over 40 presentations at conferences and seminars and has published over 30 papers. He is a member of the American Chemical Society, Sigma Xi and the Hazardous Materials Research Institute. Dr. Olsen is a recognized expert in the fields of geochemistry and environmental chemistry and has been an expert witness in 12 cases. He is currently a vice president in the Denver, Colorado office of Camp Dresser McKee, Inc., Consulting Engineers.
He's achieved all that despite the darwinists. They must like him! I thought the darwinists (a la Steinberg) went out of their way to destroy the careers of those who disagree? Why not in this case? Hardly tagged, demonised and dismissed is it, given the bio above? Can you tell me, specifically, who has demonised him? Who has dismissed his work simply because of the views he holds and not because of the work itself? Given that The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories was written over 20 years ago do you think it's worth referencing as "Current" anymore? Things have moved on since 1984! And yet this book seems to be your sole reference point! I suppose a reference this decade would be too much to ask for?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Jerry, There is plenty of evidence for common descent, much of it accessable to the lay person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/CommonDescent.htm http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.full When you've had time to digest all that perhaps we could discuss?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

"It should be repeated for the 100th time, common descent is not the same as common ancestry." True. Just because my grandparents are my ancestors doesn't mean I descended from them.David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

"If kairosfocus repeats it a hundred times, does it make it any less relevant." Perhaps you, jerry, could explain its relevance to the Dover decision. I find KF's recourse to such tried and tr-- well, tried -- tactics hard to follow.David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

It should be repeated for the 100th time, common descent is not the same as common ancestry. Nearly all the evidence I have seen is for common ancestry. The only evidence I know of for common descent is the use of DNA in all life forms. If sometime in future on another thread someone has a different point of view, maybe it could be debated there where it doesn't take 600 comments or more to refresh.jerry_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

"I believe kairosfocus has quoted Lewontin’s “Divine foot” paragraph (which KF inexplicably calls “notorious” — in your mind, KF) seven times so far in this thread alone." If kairosfocus repeats it a hundred times, does it make it any less relevant. It seems a tactic is when something is embarrassing, to say "Oh, you brought that up again. You must be obsessive."jerry_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Clive, did you happen to read the advisory note on Rule 610:
While the rule forecloses inquiry into the religious beliefs or opinions of a witness for the purpose of showing that his character for truthfulness is affected by their nature, an inquiry for the purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the prohibition. Thus disclosure of affiliation with a church which is a party to the litigation would be allowable under the rule. Cf. Tucker v. Reil, 51 Ariz. 357, 77 P.2d 203 (1938). To the same effect, though less specifically worded, is California Evidence Code § 789. See 3 Wigmore § 936.
Emphasis added.David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

I believe kairosfocus has quoted Lewontin's "Divine foot" paragraph (which KF inexplicably calls "notorious" -- in your mind, KF) seven times so far in this thread alone. On leading questions: Rule 611c:
Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
Learned Hand can better explain your misunderstanding of Rule 610. If you're right, the Dover team must have had pretty crappy lawyers not to object on those grounds.David Kellogg_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

KariosFocus, On a different thread Clive said
Nor do you understand the distinction between natural and supernatural, for no one really does.
Above you say
ATTEMPT TO INJECT MATERIALISM INTO SCIENCE AS A DEFINING CONSTRAINT.
If we take "natural" = MATERIALISM then could you perhaps tell me, and Clive, how you differentiate between MATERIALISM and NON-MATERIALISM?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

KariosFocus
common descent is an inherently provisional explanatory hypothesis requiring positive evidence to support and sustain it,
Given that Behe has said
"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent."
And Dembski has said
Intelligent design therefore throws common descent into question but at the same time leaves open as a very live possibility that common descent is the case, albeit for reasons other than the Darwinian mechanism
Do you have a better explanatory hypothesis? Do you have any counter evidence aginst common descent? Yes, it's "provisional" insofar as everything in science is "provisional". Yet it will reman the de facto explaination until you provide a better explanatory hypothesis and provide positive evidence to support it. So why not just work on the assumption that it's true for now and if you come up with some counter evidence or a explanatory hypothesis that better explains the observed data then you can write your paper and win a Nobel!
miracles on a theistic view must be rare if they are to stand out against the backdrop of the normal order of the world.
Yet you have previosly said that miracle cures happen all the time, cancer, brain tumors etc. Are these miracle cures somehow "rare" and "common" at the same time? And when asked why limbs never seem to regrow you had no answer except to point to a single example provided to you that happened hundreds of years ago as "evidence" that in fact limb regrowth does occour as a miracle cure. I wonder what you would tell amputees when telling a group of people miracle cures happen? "No, not you, the miracle box is empty for you, you should have been born 500 years ago when it happened all the time". Do miracle cures happen Kariosfocus, and if so are they "rare" or "common"?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Re DK, 541: On : "Johnson's equivocation." This is of course yet another turnabout accusation reflecting closed minded objectionist selective hyperskepticism. 1 --> In Darwin on Trial and elsewhere, Mr Johnson has shown that in fact it is terms like "evolution" and "natural selection" that are replete with multiple meanings that are too often used by shading off from what has empirical merit [minor population variations] to what has not: the grand, metaphysically tinged claimed "scientific" account of the origin and macro-level diversification of life from pond slime to us. 2 --> In particular, he has ably shown that "natural selection" is often turned into an empty tautology that begs the key questions at stake. 3 --> A typical turnabout rhetorical attempt is this one, from Hofmann:
On page 5 of Icons of Evolution, Wells writes as follows: "Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is utterly uncontroversial. But Darwinian evolution claims much more. In particular, it claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. The only way anyone can determine whether this claim is true is by comparing it with observations or experiments. Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually compared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned - otherwise it is not science, but myth." The equivocations on the term "darwinian" in this passage are similar to those of Phillip Johnson. Both Johnson and Wells try to turn objections to extreme reliance upon natural selection as a mechanism for common descent into a refutation of common descent.
4 --> Similarly, PvM, a leading participant at the notorious Panda's Thumb speaks, ex cathedra as follows:
. . . Too bad that ID is still using equivocation of naturalism and methodological naturalism, which started with Philip Johnson, to confuse and mislead their followers. ID is scientifically vacuous, theologically risky and philosophically misleading.
5 --> But in fact, first, as TMLO shows, design theory is not about common descent as such [it is for instance compatible with front loading and use of CV + NS as a mechanism of design, etc]; bu tis a theory on the quesiton of the fundamental sourceof bio-informaiton, insofar as it impinges on biology. It shows on inferene to best explanation, that certain sgins of intelligence are reliable, and that such signs are embeddedin teh coreof the cella nd are associated with body plan level biodiversity. So, on the known source of such functionally specific complex information and structures exhibiting irreducibly complex dependence on a cluster of finely co-adapted core parts, the best current, empirically anchored explanation for these features of the biological world is intelligence, not chance and mechanical necessity. 6 --> Moreover, there IS an equivocation in modern Darwinian evolutionary thought, the one that gallops from observed modest and minor population variations in beak sizes of finches in the Galapagos to the grand story of origins and diversification along the claimed tree of life [note how postulated common ancestral forms are persistently missing in the teeth of the "almost unmanageably rich" fossil record in excess of 1/4 million species and a sample size of many millions across the geological eras] by Darwinian mechanisms of chance variation and natural selection. 7 --> And, contrary to what Mr Hofmann et al may imagine, common descent is an inherently provisional explanatory hypothesis requiring positive evidence to support and sustain it, not an established fact on the level of the observed facts of planetary orbits around the sun. (A common claimed comparison.) 8 --> For, operations science observations are in a very different epistemological category from inferred explanatory constructs on the remote past, which is not directly observable. And, the ONLY direct evidence on that remote past, the fossil record, is notoriously dominated by sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance and/or continuation into the current world, especially once we look at major-level life forms. So much so that in recent memory, punctuated equilibria was proposed as yet another epicycle on the darwinian construct to "explain" the absence of hitherto expected evidence. 9 --> When we turn to Mr van Meirs of PT {sp?], we can easily point to the rather explicit statements of Mr Lewontin of the US NAS, in that notroious NYRB 1997 article that is so important to understanding what is really going on:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
10 --> In fact, here we see that first Mr Lewontin sees "science" as he defines it as "the only begetter of truth," then proceeds to define that science in terms of first methodological naturalism: "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations . . ." 11 --> Lewontin then immediately connects that to METAPHYSICAL materialism and more broadly metaphysical naturalism: "that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Of course he here reveals his sophomoric ignorance of the founding vision of modern science, that God is the foundation of the order of the universe through his natural LAW that he uses to govern it; and that miracles on a theistic view must be rare if they are to stand out against the backdrop of the normal order of the world. [This was discussed above already, and is easily accessible for those interested in a true and fair view.]) 12 --> And, as we can for instance see from the Kansas education board case, this is not just personal opinion but is being enforced on science by both the NAS and the national science teacher's association of the US. indeed, in that case, the students of the state were held hostage under threat of being deemed uneducated to go to college or find good jobs, if they were not to accept the materialism loaded tendentious re-definition by this de facto Magisterium that “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations [NB, = Lewontin's "material explanations"] of the world around us.” ______________ So, yet again, it is plain that Mr Kellogg and his evolutionary materialist ilk have indulged in the rhetoric of distraction, distortion and -- frankly -- defamation, then dismissal. (All of this all too plainly echoes the notorious evolutionary materialist attitude and dictum that those who reject that worldview are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.) Mr Kellogg owes an apology to Mr Johnson, for falsely accusing him of abusing his knowledge base as a professor of law, to mislead others on the issues of evolutionary materialism and the credibility of design theory. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

PS: Oops, I forgot to give Orgel's epochal 1973 remarks:
"[L]iving organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." [[Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall, 1973). (Emphases added.)]
kairosfocus_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Clive @ 558:
See Federal Rule of Evidence 610 “Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced.” 610 is the crux of the matter, and Behe’s religious belief, or lack thereof, was not admissible, though it was admitted.
More evidence on the sad kangaroo court games that were going on in Dover in 2005. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

PREFACE [to TMLO] (excerpt, p. ix): The Mystery ofLife’s Origin is a book that had to be written. There is a critical necessity in any developing scientific discipline to subject its ideas to test and to rigorously analyze its experimental proce-dures. It is an ill-fated science that doesn’t do so. Yet, surprisingly, prebiotic or chemical evolution has never before been thoroughly evaluated. This book not only provides a comprehensive critique using established principles of physics and chemistry, it introduces some new analytical tools, particularly in chapters six and eight. We do not want to suggest that scholars have offered no criticisms helpful to other workers in the field of origin-of-life studies. They have, of course, and scattered here and there in the chemical, evolu- tion literature these criticisms can be found. There is no comprehen-sive marshalling of these, however, no carefully ordered statement that brings them together in one volume to assess their combined import. That is a need that has existed now for several yeara, a need which, hopefully, this book helps remedy. It should not be thought that the authors cited as sources of specific criticisme would be in agreement with the overall reassessment presented here. In most cases they would not. The fact that chemical evolution has not received thorough evalua- tion to date does not mean it is false, only that it is unwise to build on it or extend it until we are satisfied it is sound. It is crucial to have a thorough critique of chemical evolution, expecially since much of the optimism about finding life in space and the search for extratems- tria1 intelligence (SETI) is based on it . . . .
10 --> And, having made the basic case on thermodynamics grounds, and on having also shown that the prebiotic environment on multiple grounds [chemical equilibrium balances, oxygen poisoning/disruption vs UV disruption on absence of enough oxygen, interfering cross-reactions etc] they then discussed proto-life models, also exposing that such models are more of hopeful speculation than empirically credible hypothesis. having done the technical work, they then in an epilogue raise the alternatives of intelligent designers, discussing Hoyle-Wickramasinghe's suggestions on designers within the cosmos, and also raising the possibility of designers beyond the cosmos; which they lean towards. As is their hard-earned right. 11 --> In this context,the key scientific contribution of Dembski was to identify a quantitative metric for specified complexity (which has now been extended by Abel, Trevors, Chiu, Durston et al), building on the conception that was first raised by noted OOL investigator Orgel in 1973:
12 --> And, Behe has raised the very relevant consideration that once systems have an irreducible core of components contributing necessary factors to performance, then the core cannot arrive incrementally; it has to come together all at once or there will be no function for natural selection to select. So, even in teh face of co-optation, we must have mutual adjustments of parts to a common operating point, and in a case where required multiple mutations are cvery hard to justify empirically. tha tis, irreducible complexity makes direct evolution of such entities highly improbable, and the requirement for co-matching of parts [= fine-tuning] makes INDIRECT paths most implausible. So, since 1996,he has called for moving beyond just-so stories to proper technical discussions with empirical evidence. 13 --> But, as the above discussion of the sadly tainted ACLU/Jones decision shows, he has been kangaroo-courted, dismissed by tendentious redefinitions of science, and strawmannised through twisting his remarks [and even by putting words in his mouth that do not belong there], instead of meeting with a sound response. 14 --> And, when it comes to the issue of wheter bias can distort ability to recognise the force of a case on the merits, LH needs to attend to my several times repeated remarks [from 293 on] on the logic involved:
if one at first accepts P and sees that P => Q, but is committed to F where F => NOT-Q, then one will be inclined to reject P by inferring F => NOT-Q, NOT-Q so NOT-P. But if NOT-P then implies absurdities, F is in deep trouble. I hold — and I believe I can justify — that Evolutionary Materialism and the imposition of its handmaiden, methodological naturalism, on science, censors science from being an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed. [Note, I do not say "the certificated" and/or "the credentialled."]
___________________ So, onlookers, we can now see why Mr Kellogg stepped over the limits of basic common courtesy in his insistent intemperate personal attacks on not just mere blog commenters, but now also Mr Johnson, and his mischaracterisation of the words and works of Messrs Kenyon, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen; for these men have given the lie to the Lewontinian attempt to kidnap science and impose materialistic fetters on it. In so doing, he has exposed the fact that he and his ilk have launched a war on our civilisation, through trying to kidnap a key institution -- science -- to serve their destructive evolutionary materialist atheistical agenda. So, it is time for us to rise up, recognise that "the Philistines are upon us" and defend ourselves with manful vigour, as in olden time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It is plain that the best way to get away from the clouds of obfuscation and polarisation caused by red herrings led away from the track of the truth to burning ad hominem laced strawmen above and in the tainted ACLU/Joned Dover decision is to actually address the substance of TMLO, the 1984 technical monograph that underlies the birth of modern design theory on the merits. This, DK, LH et al have prov ed they are unable to do, and instead they have focussed much verbiage on the tainted ACLU/Jones decision of 2005. During which they have proved unable to address the twisting of words and works by Mr Behe, and the twisting of relevant facts of history and even editing of the text they focussed on. Moreover, in the process, Mr Kellogg has managed to try to tag the words and works of Messrs Kenyon, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen with the dismissive smear that they are "creationists" so can apparently be dismissed without serious examination. In so acting, we see precisely the sort of bias and oppressive conduct that -- on many historical exemplars -- blinds arrogant, agenda-driven elites to the implications of their conduct and leads them, lemming like, towards and over cliffs of hubris, thence ultimate collapse. We should draw some pretty strong conclusions from that. And, let us also sum up the achievement of TBO in TMLO against the backdrop of the hubris at work, which will give us a definitive answer to allegations about inextricable entanglement of ID with alleged creationist "roots" and the like: 1 --> "Creationist" -- as Mr Lewontin's notorious "divine foot in the Door" remark shows -- has now morphed into anything that hints of believing in the POSSIBILITY of God as an agent in our world. (And of course, "creationists" cannot practice "science" not even when they write serious technical monographs that cogently address the evidence and draw up significant contributions to onward work in the field. For, according to these hubris-driven elitists, de facto atheism is now to be regarded as a defining criterion of science.) 2 --> Thus, in Mr Lewontin's world -- evidently that of the majority of the elites who are involved with the US NAS:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
3 --> But in the real world, science should strive -- even through its inevitable imperfections -- to be an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on empirical evidence and reasoned analysis and discussion among the informed. 4 --> When we accept such objective goals and values for science, we will immediately see that issues of motives and real or imagined roots fall away as largely irelevant. And, by that criterion, design theory, right from its outset in TMLO is plainly a legitimately scientific endeavour. 5 --> What is more, it is clear on abundant evidence from known cases and from the sort of analysis of the impotence of blind natural forces of chance circumstances and mechanical necessity, that the two main signs of intelligence discussed by design theorists are valid per inference to best explanation on empirical evidence and related analysis. 6 --> That is, we know from direct observation and analysis of the impotence of C + N, that he best explanation for observed cases of specified complexity and irreducibly complex entities is intelligent action. THIS IS ONLY CONTROVERSIAL ON MATTERS OF ORIGINS BECAUSE IT THERE CUTS ACROSS THE ONGOING ATTEMPT TO INJECT MATERIALISM INTO SCIENCE AS A DEFINING CONSTRAINT. (For Lewontin et asl would -- presuming that materialism = THE truth about our world -- impose that presumption upon our work in science, thus utterly biasing their thinking and closing their minds to the possibility of being corrected in fundamental worldview level error. THIS IS PRECISELY THE PATTERN BEHE PICKED UP IN OBSERVING THAT THOSE COMMITTED TO MATERIALISM FIND EVIDENCE THAT CUTS ACROSS IT UNPERSUASIVE.) 7 --> So, all we need to do is to break the imposed, enslaving materialist fetter and insist on intellectually and ethically responsible conduct in empirical and analytical investigations and discussion. [For, if imposed religious constraints are unacceptable, so must be imposed philosophical constraints; and materialism is a worldview assumption not a proven fact; indeed, it is a most controversial and seriously arguably a self referentially incoherent worldview postulate.] 8 --> Once that is done, the Lewontinian agenda collapses. 9 --> Turning to the work of TBO in TMLO, we can "easily" see by reading the work [providing we are willing to do a bit of work on the underlying thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and information theory concepts and related mathematics -- cf here; it is after all a technical monograph], that they do make their case: [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply