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

Learned Hand, I do have to ask you one thing. How is it that you are scandalized that I left out the word "root," in recalling Judge Jones' decision, which made no substance difference in the meaning, yet you are perfectly at peace when Judge Jones added the words, "depend upon," to Michael Behe's words changing his life and the life of many others for the worse.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

---Learned Hand: OK, sorry, I see that you provided the disctintion“ You say, Judge Jones wrote, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its roots in creationism and its religious antecedetns," while I wrote the same thing except that I left out the word "roots." OK, duly noted.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Well, this is worth discussing. So, let’s put it to the test. Provide me with your version of exactly what he said. Let’s see if your denial or my affirmation makes sense? Fair enougn? It does not matter if you think your version of its words was similar or substantively identical to the original, because your readers have the right to decide that for themselves. They cannot do that if they don't know that your quotation is actually your own original phrasing. If you want to quote the court, use its exact words. If you want to paraphrase the court, don't use quotation marks.Learned Hand_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "How much are you willing to pay me for every challenge I can find that you didn’t respond to? And what percentage of your disputes end with the matter being settled?: I can't catch them all, because so many keep me busy with distractions in order to avoid my arguments.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

----Learned Hand: "You said, for example, Judge Jones declared that ID “cannot uncouple itself with creationism and its religious antecedents.” The court didn’t say that. You might think that your words are functionally identical the court’s, which was your explanation when your earlier quotations turned out to be inaccurate, but the two statements are logically distinct. The words in your quotation marks aren’t quotes. You’re subtly rephrasing the court’s actual comment in a way that bolsters your point, but is not accurate. It’s fine to paraphrase, but when you use quotation marks, you’re telling the reader that you’re not paraphrasing. It’s extremely confusing and inappropriate, especially in a conversation that has turned so often on parsing the court’s phrasing." Well, this is worth discussing. So, let's put it to the test. Provide me with your version of exactly what he said. Let's see if your denial or my affirmation makes sense? Fair enougn?StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Apologies both for omitting some paragraph breaks and misspelling (again) Mr. Kellogg's name. Also, I neglected to look at the WP article on the Lemon test before I recommended it. It's fairly crappy. It looks accurate, but it's surprisingly short. A good summary should discuss the subsequent cases, such as Lynch, that modified Lemon. (That's party because it's been modified by its progeny, and the circuit courts apply the later cases instead of Lemon, even though Lemon has never technically been overruled. The WP summary accurately points out that the result is that Lemon is sometimes unevenly applied.) Google might lead you to some better, more involved summaries. The Dover opinion has a good summary of the applicable law and precedent starting around page ten or eleven, and gets into Third Circuit precedent on pages thirteen and fourteen. Both Supreme Court and circuit precedent were binding on Jones as a district judge; he was obligated to apply those cases.Learned Hand_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

-----David Kelloggg: StephenB, I don’t mean to postpone your vacation. I was referring to this [108]: "As it is, here is what I have. At the critical point, Michael Behe was asked if he belived that ID would be “more plausible for those who believe in God than those who do not. He answered, “Yes.” Never. Happened. The words were not the same, but the event definitely happened: I have already explained the event I was talking about. “Nonetheless, simply because the Big Bang is compatible with Christianity, and because it makes some theistic views seem more plausible, that does not mean that the Big Bang itself is not a scientific theory. And in the same sense, just because intelligent design is compatible with Christian views, or because it makes such views or other theistic views seem more plausible does not mean that intelligent design itself is not a scientific theory.” Dr. Behe Mr. Rothschhild of the plaintiff’s Counsel was cross examining Dr. Behe on his views of religion and sceince, citing some articles (From Christianity Today and others). Mr. Rothschild’s intent was to show that Dr. Behe had religious motivations, which were not singularly scientific. ----"You repeated your claim in 114. By this point it should have been been clear from the deicision alone that “plausibility” did not refer to testimony." I have just made it clear that the word “plausibility” was, indeed in the testimony. Judge Jones was referring both to the written and oral testimony, as I have made clear. ----But they aren’t supposed to match, as I pointed out, because Judge Jones wasn’t referring to the testimony at that point. Why did you keep insisting that he was? He was referring to both testimony and the written record, and he clearly put words in Michael Behe’s mouth. He was referring to both the written article and testimony such as the aforementioned. Judge Jones referred to Behe’s testimony both directly and indirectly. He clearly misrepresented Behe’s views in his final decision. He used the words, “depend on.” You tried to cover that up. As I have said repeatedly, Judge Jones was referring to both written and oral testimony, and it was on that basis the had made his decision. He used two critical words to change the substance of Behe’s comments in his article, and those two words, were “depends upon.” ----I don’t think he put words in Behe’s mouth at all: I’d say Judge Jones summarized him fairly. But let’s leave that aside.” Why would I want to leave it aside since it was my main point and the one that you continued to avoid by hearkening back to other matters? Michael Behe never used the words, “depend on.” ----“In fact, that is not what Behe said at trial, as Learned Hand and I pointed out. He said ID makes faith more plausible, not that faith makes ID more plausible. These are not the same thing. Besides — and I apologize to alert readers for repeating this point, but it seems not to have gotten through to Stephen B– plausibility in the decision referred to the article, not the trial, as is obvious to anyone who has read the decision.” It did not get past me. In fact, Judge Jones used all the information available from either perspective to tied ID to creationism. He found ALL quotes useful that would serve that end. That is why the ACLU wrote more than 90% of his final decision on the subject matter under discussion. The article was used to form the strategy, and the decision had already been made. ----As to Phillip Johnson, I provided a link to an article by Johnson and summarized how he equivocated on his use of “naturalism.” You provided nothing. That link was an INTERPRETATION of the quotes, not the quotes themselves. ----“Since my explanations of what Judge Jones was referring to seem to be beyond you, I don’t think I’ll waste my time parsing Johnson.” Oh, go ahead, humor me. Don't slink away for the sixth time. If I can take the heat for everything I write, surely you can take the heat for just one thing that you wrote, which in this case, is in urgent need of being defended. If you have days and days to scrutinize what I write in order to cause distractions and avoid my arguments, you can surely find time to justify your slanderous remarks of Philip Johnson with a couple of examples of his presumably deceitful approach to the ID/evolution debate. If you have time to e-mail you Darwinist friends in your futile attempts to answer my arguments, and if you have access to all their references, you can surely provide the deceptive quotes, because I can’t find them. As you would say, why should I do your homework for you? Why should I read the article and search out deceitful passages that are not there? It is your accusation and your responsibility. In fact, Philip Johnson is one of the most honest men around. It is ironic that so many of slanderers couldn’t get over his honesty when he proposed the “Wedge strategy,” but when he started tugging away at their materialist fantasies, suddenly they found dishonesty everywhere. As it is with you, though, they don’t back up what they say. On the other hand, few of them are imprudent enough to come on to a UD website with those lies and expect to get away with it. Well, you are not getting away with it. Don’t tell me to read the article. You read the article, and tell me where any deception exists. Provide the quote and explain in your own words why this honorable man is a deceiver. On the one hand, you question, lampoon, and ridicule everyone else’s arguments, but you have never presented one of your own. Indeed, the only argument I ever remember you making was the one I am now asking you to defend. You who accuse me of “making things up” really did make something up, but you don’t seem to have the courage of your convictions when you are called on it. Well, you are being called.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Sorry to have let so many comments slide past without a response; I have less time than I’d like for these conversations. StephenB, I was getting ready to go on vacation, hoping to get away from your childish antics, but you don’t get to end a thread with a slimy lie. I made nothing up. It’s inappropriate for you to accuse someone of a “slimy lie.” Looking back, it appears that the quotations in your comments presently numbered 95, 108, 136, 328, 331, and 335 are “made up.” You said, for example, Judge Jones declared that ID “cannot uncouple itself with creationism and its religious antecedents.” The court didn’t say that. You might think that your words are functionally identical the court’s, which was your explanation when your earlier quotations turned out to be inaccurate, but the two statements are logically distinct. The words in your quotation marks aren’t quotes. You’re subtly rephrasing the court’s actual comment in a way that bolsters your point, but is not accurate. It’s fine to paraphrase, but when you use quotation marks, you’re telling the reader that you’re not paraphrasing. It’s extremely confusing and inappropriate, especially in a conversation that has turned so often on parsing the court’s phrasing. Quotation marks mean that you’re quoting the source, not that you’re paraphrasing. There’s an exception, of course, when it’s clear from the context that you’re proposing a hypothetical, facetious, or paraphrased comment. But not when you say Judge Jones declared that ID “cannot uncouple itself with creationism and its religious antecedents,” when the court actually said (to paraphrase), “ID cannot uncouple itself from its roots in creationism….” You might think that the two comments are equivalent, but the reader might disagree, and he should be able to tell from your comment whether he’s getting the words from the horse’s mouth or from yours. See, for example, the court’s paraphrase of Behe’s comments. It didn’t use quotation marks, because it wasn’t quoting, which is a signal to the reader that the original words are different, even if the court thinks they’re functionally identical. When you put your words in quotation marks, the reader thinks you’re supporting your argument using the original words, so you avoid having to defend your paraphrase by deceiving the reader. I don’t mean to accuse you of intentionally deceiving anyone, as it appears you think your rephrasing is fair. But the effect is that an uncareful reader will be deceived. In addition to DK’s writing class, I guarantee you’d fail a law school exam if you tried that. If you tried it in court, you’d get sanctioned. Blogs are more forgiving, of course, so nothing happens. (Although I suspect that if you were an ID critic, Clive would have deleted your comments and/or banned you, as he appears to have done with JayM.) The only consequence is that your credibility is diminished; if a reader thinks you’re quoting a source, but discovers that you were rephrasing it in a way that suited your arguments, it makes those arguments look much weaker. Please take more care in the future. KF, You say that the guardians of the old order are so biased that they dismiss the design inference in the teeth of its substance on the merits. The court cannot determine the merits of a complex scientific question on its own; it can only choose between experts. One expert told it that IC was a valid hypothesis, but admitted that he had not engaged the scientific literature on the subject or attempted to validate his theory experimentally. Another expert told the court that IC is universally rejected by the empirically-based scientific community, and that a mountain of scientific literature had refuted its core premises. The court decided the second expert was more credible, which is all it can really do. It also observed that, in any event, IC is not evidence for ID. This tied into some of the prior creationism cases, as discussed in the opinion. On the authorities cited, Mr Padian is a leader of the NCSE, and Mr Miller a well known design theory opponent. (I am not sure on Fuller’s identity.) These are not going to be sources of balanced objective opinion. Their biases were known to the court. So were the biases of defendants’ experts. Behe is, after all, “a well known design theory” proponent. one step in their case was to twist the writings and testimony of Mr Behe, a leading ID researcher. Good heavens – is this a retraction of your claim that the court’s remark was a “keystone plank” of the opinion? As for your later comments, in the day I was gone you produced so much material that I simply don’t know where to begin. So I won’t; Mr. Kellog appears to have responded to all your salient points. In the future, please consider writing shorter, more focused comments. Lamarck, This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation. I disagree with you, which doesn’t matter. So does the Supreme Court, which does matter. It has set the precedent, which Jones, sitting two levels down, is bound by law and oath to administer. He cannot ignore it. Failing to apply the binding precedent correctly is reversible error, and he would be overturned on appeal like that. (I just snapped my fingers.) Ironically, as a conservative Republican, Jones probably does agree with you on this point. But our system does not allow lower federal courts to break from the Supreme Court. This ruling in effect states that in the future were ID to have an even better case for a designer, it still wouldn’t be allowed in schools, because science class cannot infer a designer even if it becomes apparent through science that there is one. No, it states that you can only make the case for a designer with scientific arguments, and only if the purpose and effect of the lesson plan doesn’t violate the Lemon test. You could, in fact, teach ID so long as it didn’t violate the Lemon test. (Or tests; it’s complicated.) Even if Kitzmiller held otherwise, which it doesn’t, it wouldn’t matter, because Kitzmiller isn’t binding anywhere. If this issue is important to you, you should read up on Lemon for two reasons. First, it’s at the core of the Dover case, and I think you can’t really understand what the court was doing there without knowing what the test is and where it comes from. Second, and more importantly, the next ID case will be decided by Lemon (or whatever Supreme Court case replaces it), not by Kitzmiller. Wikipedia probably has a good enough summary of Lemon, and a link to the opinion. I don’t know if it’s worth reading the original opinion, as the test has been modified by other decisions since then. As for current developments in the law, I highly recommend www.volokh.com. It’s a blog run by conservative/libertarian law professors. Eugene Volokh, the professor who runs the site, is a 1st Amendment specialist, and often highlights and comments on new cases and controversies. The commentary can be interesting as well, although it varies.Learned Hand_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
When I say something that others challenge, I continue the correspondence until the matter is settled one way or the other.
It's interesting that you see yourself that way, but let's not kid ourselves. How much are you willing to pay me for every challenge I can find that you didn't respond to? And what percentage of your disputes end with the matter being settled? Maybe you think that declaring one's position to be self-evident to all rational people settles matters.R0b_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't mean to postpone your vacation. I was referring to this [108]:
As it is, here is what I have. At the critical point, Michael Behe was asked if he belived that ID would be “more plausible for those who believe in God than those who do not. He answered, “Yes.”
Never. Happened.
When Judge Jones recalled that testimony [not a citation from somewhere else] he indicated that Behe said that ID explicitly stated that the “plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.” That is a lie. Further, I don’t believe that Behe would be stupid enough to say that in court or out of court. If you have any information to the contrary [not a reference to a number of some kind or a rumor of some kind] in the form of an exact quote, please provide it for me and indicate its source. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe you. Do you have the goods or don’t you?
This was, of course, after you had been told that the opinion did not refer to Judge Jones's testimony. And again, the incident you report never happened. That was where I started intervening, first [113] reproducing the appropriate part of the decision and pointing out that Jones unambiguously was referring to a text outside of testimony. You repeated your claim in 114. By this point it should have been been clear from the deicision alone that "plausibility" did not refer to testimony. Again,
At the critical point, Michael Behe was asked if he belived that ID would be “more plausible for those who believe in God than those who do not. He answered, “Yes.”
This never happened. Learned Hand wrote [116]:
Your summary isn’t just confusing, StephenB, it’s baffling and utterly wrong. Please review David Kellog[g]’s comment immediately preceding your own (which I realize you may not have seen before posting your latest comment). The court did not say that Behe made that comment during his trial testimony; it said his testimony was contradicted by that statement, and then cited precisely the source of that statement. I honestly don’t understand why you keep misrepresenting the ruling.
Aside from misspelling my name, Learned Hand has been exemplary throughout. Anyway, in 121 you walk back a bit:
I only read the transcript one time, and I only read the Judge’s decision once. So, I may have missed something. One the other hand, I remember how everyone supposedly gasped during this section of Behe’s testimony and characterized it as an on-the-spot confession about ID being religion dependent.
You "may have missed something." I'll say! Even after that admission you "remember" something that never happened. He made no such confession. If there was a moment when people gasped during Behe's testimony, it was probably when he admitted that astrology would be a science by his definition. In 124 you get more civil:
I am simply trying to get more information. I remember how everyone supposedly gasped during this section of Behe’s testimony and characterized it as an on-the-spot confession about ID being religion dependent. Something is not making sense here.
What's not making sense is your memory, since that moment never happened. In the same comment you write:
All I have is Behe’s testimony and Judge John Jones decision. They don’t match as I have made clear.
But they aren't supposed to match, as I pointed out, because Judge Jones wasn't referring to the testimony at that point. Why did you keep insisting that he was? Then in 127:
I have no sources, I am just going from memory. Ostensbly, everyone was shocked that Behe would unload such a bomb and incriminate himself. Then, when I checked, Behe’s comment was not at all of that texture, but Judge Jones’ characterization of it was. That’s all I have.
What you have and don't have is very unclear by this point. But earlier in the thread I made clear that "Judge Jones’ characterization of it" is wrong because he wasn't talking about the testimony. In 128 you wrote:
I provided both quotes and they don’t match.
Actually, I provided the quote from the decision and explained that it wasn't referring to the testimony at that point. You provided an incorrect summary of the testimony, not a quote, but it doesn't matter because Judge Jones wasn't referring to the testimony. In 129 I pointed out that you could access both the testimony and decision freely, since you have access to a computer. In about five minutes you could have figured out how wrong you were. In 132, after I provided the quotes (again doing your homework), you wrote:
Thanks for the quotes. That is exactly what Behe said at the trial. I now feel no hesitancy. Judge John Jones clearly put words in Micheal [sic] Behe’s mouth. grossly misrepresnting what was said and rewriting it to fit his own agenda. In no way did Behe ever say that ID or “irrreducible complexity” DEPENDS on belief in God. He simply said that people who already believe in God will find it more compelling, and that a person’s judgment will color their interpretation.
I don't think he put words in Behe's mouth at all: I'd say Judge Jones summarized him fairly. But let's leave that aside. In fact, that is not what Behe said at trial, as Learned Hand and I pointed out. He said ID makes faith more plausible, not that faith makes ID more plausible. These are not the same thing. Besides -- and I apologize to alert readers for repeating this point, but it seems not to have gotten through to Stephen B-- plausibility in the decision referred to the article, not the trial, as is obvious to anyone who has read the decision. As to Phillip Johnson, I provided a link to an article by Johnson and summarized how he equivocated on his use of "naturalism." You accused me of linking to an anti-ID site, which was flat-out wrong: ARN is a pro-ID site. You haven't even acknowledged that rather simple error. Since my explanations of what Judge Jones was referring to seem to be beyond you, I don't think I'll waste my time parsing Johnson. You can read the article for yourself and see how it slips quickly among various forms of naturalism. I have no need to apologize to him. I do apologize to to anybody whose time may have been wasted by my repeated yet apparently futile corrections of StephenB's errors.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "In my view, a great deal of time could have been saved if StephenB had not (about 400 comments ago) referred to conversations in the trial that never happened. When people bloviate without support they’re likely to get corrected. I was getting ready to go on vacation, hoping to get away from your childish antics, but you don't get to end a thread with a slimy lie. I made nothing up. I referred to a real event that really happened, and I acknowledged a factual error in that context. At the same time, you have sought every opportunity to distract from my the subject under discussion, which I developed and supported. That same theme that you never refuted and didn't even approach, was the obvious fact that Judge Jones put words in Michael Behe's mouth. When I say something that others challenge, I continue the correspondence until the matter is settled one way or the other. You, the other hand, lied about Philip Johnson, and when I demanded that you provide the necessary documentation, you slinked away, refusing to support defamatory claims which cannaot be supported. Even after I repeatedly asked you to justify your claims, you merely sent me to other websites promoting similar lies. None of those websites provided quotes, only lying interpretations of quotes. In fact, when your personal integrity was on the line, you didn't deliver. You didn't continue to dialogue until the matter was settled. That is the difference between us. So, don't talk to me about making things up.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

jerry, ——”Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here.” That’s a fact.
It should be "drivel." In my view, a great deal of time could have been saved if StephenB had not (about 400 comments ago) referred to conversations in the trial that never happened. When people bloviate without support they're likely to get corrected.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

jerry, ------"Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here." That's a fact.Clive Hayden_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

jerry,
Well, it turns out that kairosfocus was correct and David Kellogg was wrong so I was just pointing out the absurdity of David Kellogg’s comments and the use of “grudgingly” and “obsession.”
Wasn't KF's position that there was no explicit latching, but rather that the parameters in the program were tuned so that the mutant phrases converged rapidly toward the target? If I understand correctly, whether a letter is correct or not has no affect on its likelihood of mutation (according to KF).herb_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

"Letters mutate randomly: a phrase is chosen." But none of the correct letters ever changed. Funny, given that there were a couple hundred opportunities to do so. A fact so conveniently lost on so many. Now I am gone for the day.jerry_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

R0b, In case you missed it, the reference to Weasel was in reference to David Kellogg's comment: "After finally, grudgingly accepting the Meyer quote as correct” And I pointed out the irony of this comment given the Weasel debate. David Kellogg then said: “KF and others combined an obsession with Weasel with a prolonged failure to understand it.” Well, it turns out that kairosfocus was correct and David Kellogg was wrong so I was just pointing out the absurdity of David Kellogg's comments and the use of "grudgingly" and "obsession." And then there is David Kellogg's lack of discussion about just what the term creationist means. No I am not embarrassed. Why should I when I am trying to get at the truth or accurate portrayals or relevance. Anyway there will be no more from me today as I have guests coming. Everybody have the last word. Maybe you all can get to 700 by day's end.jerry_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

This is the last I'll say on weasel (which jerry brought up). From the book:
It now 'breeds from' this random phrase. It duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error - 'mutation' - in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
Emphases added. Letters mutate randomly: a phrase is chosen.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

I love how this:
Notice how Mr Kellogg is attempting yet further distractions, strawman distortions and ad hominems.
Was preceded by this:
Mr Philip Johnson, whose slippers you are plainly not worthy to carry
Lewontin has nothing to do with Dover. You can keep repeating that quote and it won't make it relevant. jerry, I don't really care about Weasel. It's a simple teaching example. The selected samples in the book don't change back, but that's because they're trying to make a point. Dawkins always said the letters mutate randomly and that the phrase was chosen. I kind of wish he had included an example of reversion in 1986, pointed to it, and said "See? A letter can even revert if the phrase is better!" But he's unable to predict the sorry misreadings of the anti-evolution crowd. And as R0b correctly notes, it's that crowd which has spent two decades weasel-hunting.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

jerry:
But again this is trivial like nearly everything the anti ID people generate here. Doesn’t it embarrass you to spend so much time over nonsense or irrelevancies.
I agree. Whoever brought up weasel in this thread should be deeply embarrassed.R0b_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Note how Mr Kellogg again ducks the material issues on the merits as presented, while pretending that he can hide behind a word, used as an improperly loaded label to dismiss a substantial case. He is also eager to get us away from the implications of the admission by NAS member Mr Lewontin, as that citation all too tellingly exposes precisely the cultural war agenda that the evolutionary materialist atheists have for science and our civilisation. (And, as he knows or should know, in 1986, there was no name to identify what Thaxton et al were doing, which was as shown above, substantially different from anything that may be objectionably sectarian in creationism. Similarly, at that time, Mr Meyer was just finding out about the then just emerging school of scientific thought now known as design theory; which is reflected in the difference between the date and that of his PhD, 1991. This, Mr Kellogg fails to address, pretending that he does not know the implications of the timeline. No prizes for guessing why.) In short, we see here the cultural war rhetoric and agenda continuing: distract, distort, demonise, tag and dismiss. but, we know what game is afoot now. Mr Kellogg: no use pretending further. Your disrespect, distortion, abuse and name-calling dismissal of Messrs Kenyon, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen have exposed your agenda for us all to see. If you hope to redeem yourself either SHOW on the meritsd how the case laid out in TMLO constitutes a "creationist" tract rather than a serious, path opening scientific monograph of review and outline of future path on OOL studies, including raising in an EPILOGUE, related philosophical issues. (Which, as Lakatos reminds us, are invariably embedded in the core of research programmes. [And, we have reason to reject the lewontinian a priori materialism-inspired imposition of censorship on origins science through so called methodological naturalism.]) Otherwise, you owe some pretty big apologies -- including an overdue one to Mr Philip Johnson, whose slippers you are plainly not worthy to carry. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, on Weasel and the like, I simply invite you to look here in the always linked, to see exactly what is going on, as this is yet another instance of the rhetorical game that is afoot. Notice how Mr Kellogg is attempting yet further distractions, strawman distortions and ad hominems. It is not only a habit, it is a strategy. We must not fall for it.kairosfocus_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

jerry:
Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here.
Yeah, I wish the anti-IDers would stop bringing up weasel. It's always weasel this, weasel that, weasel weasel weasel.R0b_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

"The letters mutated freely; the closest phrase among the progeny was chosen." Not in the book, The Blind Watchmaker. Once the letter was correct it did not change. I believe the obsession was with those trying to disprove the obvious. Namely, that in the book, the letters became fixed and then denying this. When anyone can show that any of the letters in the book changed, and there were a couple hundred opportunities, then they can make that claim. Otherwise Dawkins changed the algorithm from the book for reasons you should ask him about. "KF and others combined an obsession with Weasel with a prolonged failure to understand it." Obviously, you and many others failed to understand it so I would not be so readily to cast aspersions. But again this is trivial like nearly everything the anti ID people generate here. Doesn't it embarrass you to spend so much time over nonsense or irrelevancies.jerry_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry. Why did I bring up Meyer? Because somebody (I think KF) brought up TMLO as a counter-example to Pandas. Of course, TMLO wasn't the book at issue in Dover, so it's not surprising that it wasn't a major factor in the trial. Like Pandas, creationism was a central issue in the trial. It's not something that I brought up. As for Weasel and kairosfocus, I have lost the ability to tell what KF means by "quasi-latching" and "pseudo-latching." It's clear, though, that anybody who said the correct letters were fixed and unable to mutate further (as Dr. Dembski, KF, Joseph, and many others did) was misunderstanding Weasel. The letters mutated freely; the closest phrase among the progeny was chosen. The analogy is this: Letter mutation = mutation at the level of the gene (random); Phrase preservation = selection at the level of the organism (nonrandom). KF and others combined an obsession with Weasel with a prolonged failure to understand it.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

"After finally, grudgingly accepting the Meyer quote as correct" By the way has David Kellogg or others admitted to kairosfocus that it was shown that Dawkins used a latching mechanism in the book, the Blind Watchmaker, for the Weasel program. If one is going to complain about grudgingly admitting something then maybe people should apologize for that episode. Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here.jerry_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

I have a question and I admit I have read little of the debate on this thread. What relevance does the fact that in 1986, Miller identified the authors of TMLO as creationists. Under some definitions of creationist, about 5/6 of the human population or more can be characterized as creationists. Does the term have any meaning in any debate? If it does then one has an obligation to define the meaning of the term and then show how this identification has relevance. As far as I can see the term is meaningless in terms of science unless it can be shown to be relevant in some way. Also the term special creation is a meaningless term unless a definition is put on it.jerry_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus,
Let us now pause and see if DK et al are willing to step up to the plate, or will again simply resort to dismissive rhetoric.
Um, what? All I did was cite (correctly) a publication from Stephen Meyer that called the authors of TMLO "creationists." This corresponds with the evidence of the very long Epilogue to the book, which clearly identifies the authors as advocates of Special Creation. After finally, grudgingly accepting the Meyer quote as correct (though wrongly saying the citation was incorrect), you have gone apoplectic in response, with multiple fulminations, passages in all caps, declarations of culture war (not by me! really!), etc. I don't get it. The only person who cares about the Lewontin passage is you. (You care about it a lot, obviously, since you keep citing it.) I've only met Lewontin once after hearing him give a lecture (on genetics and ideology, not on creationism). He seemed like a nice guy, and we talked a bit, but the "divine foot" passage didn't come up once. Why is the date of Stephen Meyer's Ph.D. at issue? Did he not know enough in 1986 not to call them creationists?David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

TMLO, step 2: Here, we excerpt briefly from ch 1: _____________________ [pp 2 - 4] In 1953, few if any were troubled by the tension between the new insights of Crick and Watson on the one hand and Miller's results on the other. Crick and Watson were concerned with life's structure and Miller was concerned with life's origin. Most observers had an unshakable confidence that these two investigative approaches would eventually converge. After all, young Miller's announcement of experimental success was just what was anticipated according to the general theory of evolution. Regardless of whether the particular theory of evolution is Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or something else, an evolutionary preamble to the biological phase of evolution is clearly required. Chemical evolution, then, is the pre-biological phase of evolution in which the very earliest living things came into being. This monumental dawning sf life occurred through the varia- tion of natural forces acting on matter over long time spans, perhaps up to a thousand million years, or maybe longer. In the decades since Miller's and Crick and Watson's reports, however, there have been indications that all is not well in the halls of biology. We have gained a far deeper appreciation of the extremely complex macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. The enlarged understanding of these complexities has precipitated new suggestions that the DNA mechanism may be more complex and the molecular organization more intricate and information-filled than was previously thought.3 The impressive complexities of proteins, nucleic acids, and other biological molecules are presently developed in nature only in living things. Unless it is assumed such complexity has always been pres- ent in an infinitely old universe, there must have been a time in the past when life appeared de novo out of lifeless, inert matter. How can the mere interaction of simple chemicals in the primordial ocean have produced life as it is presently understood? That is the question. The signs do not bode well for the standard answers given, and some investigators are suggesting that our two approaches will not converge . . . . By 1966 a major change in scientific thought was underway. In Philadelphia a symposium was held to highlight these changes.4 [Westar, I believe] It was there that signs of an impending crisis first emerged. Sympo-sium participants came together to discuss the neo-Darwinian the- ory of evolution. One conclusion, expressed in the words of Murray By 1966 a major change in scientific thought was underway. In Philadelphia a symposium was held to highlight these changes.4 It was there that signs of an impending crisis first emerged. Sympo- sium participants came together to discuss the neo-Darwinian the- ory of evolution. One conclusion, expressed in the words of Murray Eden of MIT, was the need "to relegate the notion of randomness to a minor and non-crucial role"5 in our theories of origins. This conclu- sion was based on probability theory, which shows mathematically the odds against the chance formation of the highly complex mole- cular structure required for life. With the help of high-speed compu- ters, programs could be run which simulated the billions-of-years' process based on the neo-Darwinian model of evolution. The results showed that the complexity of the biochemical world could not have originated by chance even within a time span of ten billion years.Eden's conclusion was a reasonable if unsettling one. Other symposium participants voiced similar views about chance or randomness. V.F. Weiskopf noted, "There is some suspicion that an essential point [about our theories of origins] is still missing."6 Eden suggested "new laws" as the missing piece in the puzzle of life's origiin. In his opening remarks as chairman, Nobel Prize- winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar said, "There is a pretty wide- spread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory."8 It was Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, however, who intimated the true extent of the developing crisis when he expressed his belief that the problem of origins "cannot be bridged within the current conception of biol-ogy'.9 (Emphasis added). These comments reflect the impotence of chance or randomness as a creative mechanism for life's origin. But there was dissent, too. Some symposium participants, C.H. Waddington for example, balked at this conclusion, saying that faulty programming was the prob-lem, not chance.10 Waddington's objection illustrates a basic dilemma that has always plagued probability calculations. Such calculations must first assume a plausible chemical pathway, or course of events, and then calculate the probability of this series of events, in the hopes that the answer will at least approximate the probability of the actual course of events. Nevertheless, there is great uncertainty about the actual chemical pathway. As a consequence, calculations showing the extreme improbability that life began by chance usu- ally have carried little weight with scientists. Such probability calculations, however, have now been supple- mented by a more definitive type of calculation which does not require a knowledge of the detailed process or exact path of events that led to life. Recent advances in the application of the first and second laws of thermodynamics to living systems provide the basis for these calculations. Through them, accurate probabilities for the spontaneous synthesis of complex chemicals can be calculated without regard to the path that led to their development. All that is needed is information about the initial chemical arrangement and the complex arrangement these chemicals are found to have in living things. These thermodynamic calculations have agreed in order of magnitude with earlier path-dependent probability calcula- tions. For example, some investigators, including Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist, have relied upon calcu-lations based on equilibrium thermodynamics to show the probabil- ity that life occurred spontaneously. Prigogine et al., put it this way:
The probability that at ordinary temperatures in macroscopic number of mole-cules asscmbled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterising living organisms is vanishingly small. Thc idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." . . .
[NB: the only OBSERVED real life -- games on Fox's microspheres adn "definitions" of life are just strawman rhetoric -- depends on complex metabolic pathways and the DNA-RNA-Ribosome-Enzyme protein manufacturing mechanism. So, this is not just about the spontaneous synthesis of E coli or the like, but about the origin of OBSERVED life systems. And, TBO go on to simply analyse the odds of getting to a protein molecule by chance, or to a DNA molecule by chance, so addressing the metabolism and genes first schools of thought that still remain central to OOL down to today.] TBO go on to cite a key point from Polanyi, relating to biochemical predestination: [p.4:] M. Polanyi . . . suggested that if atomic bonding properties accounted for the actual structure of DNA, including the distribution of bases, 'then such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its codelike character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy."I2 So the mystery behind life's origin continues in spite of the undaunted confidence of some that a solu- tion is near. . . . ________________________ Plainly, the focus here is on OOL chamistry and related thermodynamics and inrformation theory, leading to a sustaining of the conclusion that Prigogine -- usually rpesented as showing how OOL can plausibly occur in "open" systems -- has baldly stated. [And if you want to look at the online presentation of that thermodyanamics and information theory, cf here, and my own related discussion here in App 1, my always linked. If you are going to address the merits critically, that -- inter alia -- is what you will have to address. Labelling qualified people undertaking a serious technical analysis "creationists" and dismissing them without consideration is propaganda and injustice. Not science. It must stop now.] +++++++ Let us now pause and see if DK et al are willing to step up to the plate, or will again simply resort to dismissive rhetoric. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Okay, TMLO (1984) Step 1: To the merits, to the merits, to the merits we must go . . . _____________ PREFACE (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 tooIs, 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 . . . . The following chapters were produced by a chemist (CT), a materials scientist (WE), and a geochemist (RO). If there is validity to our reassessment it will mean that sizable re- adjustments in origin-of-life studies are in order. Even if our critique is ~hown to be deficient and the chemical evolution scenario is vindicated, perhaps the present work will have played a role in goading scientific workers into presenting a dearer and stronger defense in its behalf . . . . ___________________ Onlookers, ask yourself; is this the preface to a "creationist tract," or a serious critical monograph of a field that needs to reassess its intellectual foundations, if it is to be a good example of science as “an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth in light of empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed.” One that BTW, WAS taken seriously. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

5 --> That means that a leading OOL researcher like Kenyon who changed his mind on specific technical evidence, and chemists like Thaxton, polymer experts like Bradley, 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." 6 --> Worse, Lewontin's "justification" is sophomoric nonsense: To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. 7 --> For, first, (and as Dan Peterson ably summarised) the POINT of theism as it impinges on science is not that God is a chaotic intrusion on an orderly cosmos, but that he is the foundation of an intelligible natural order. Indeed, "natural LAW" is a term in science because it was introduced by men who saw themselves as discovering God's ordering principles by which he created and sustains the world in a manner that is provident for our good. 8 --> And, the theologians inform us that miracles are necessarily rare relative tot he stream of general events in a theistic world: for a miracle to stand out as a sign that points to God and evokes wonder, it has to stand out as different from the general order of things; most classically the resurrection of Christ as attested by 500+ eyewitnesses. (Similarly, we cannot be morally responsible before God and/or one another -- including in the court room -- unless actions have generally predictable consequences.) 9 --> So the proffered justification for imposing Lewontininan methodological and/or metaphysical materialism on science rests on a strawmanish self-serving, irresponsible caricature of theism as it speaks to science. 10 --> And, this pattern of red herring distractions, led out to strawman distortions soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, choke and polarise the atmosphere are nakedly revealed as a general, deep rooted rhetorical strategy. We must no longer allow such materialists to get away with it. 11 --> Instead, we must insist on recovering science from such untrustworthy and destrucive hands, and insist that science be as it should be: "an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth in light of empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed." 12 --> On the particular matters at stake in this thread, we note that it is clear that ACLU/Jones distorted Behe and others, to make up an unjust and false judgement against ID that is is "religion" not "science." But on the Lewoninian redefinition, all that boils down to is that Behe et al refuse to turn science into the handmaiden of atheism, and have raised the glorified common sense point that irreducibly complex systems are best explained as being due to their ONLY known source, even if they appear in a biological context: intelligence. 13 --> Similarly, TBO's analysis is not a mere creationist tract but instead a sober and clearly scientific assessment of the evidence and alternative views, which became the point of departure for a modern science of design detection. 14 --> And, in turn, as this dates to 1984, the Forrest et al purported timeline and narrative on the origins of ID and its motivations is fundamentally misleading, strawmannish and slanderous: design theory's roots predate the Edwards decision, and are unrelated to repackaging creationism to smuggle "religion" into "science" -- at least, if we retain a historically and philosophically well-warranted understanding of what science is. _____________ So, onlookers, we now know what is afoot at the hands of the evolutionary materialists. And, given how central science is to our civilisation, we have no choice but to stoutly resist them, exposing their agenda and its consequences: corruption of science in service to atheistic evolutionary materialism, enforced by slander and injustice -- including in the courtroom. And,t hat is the key lesson of Judge Jones' unjust decision: justice itself is now in the balance. So, it is time for us to stand, on pain of consequences that are intolerable, at least for free men. GEM of TKI PS: FYI, DK, Meyer's Cambridge PhD in History and Phil of Sci (focus on issues tied to OOL etc) dates to 1991. The dissertation topic was: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies" and was plainly inspired by the themes and issues raised in TMLO. Precisely the sort of impact that we would expect of a new departure, which raises issues on the philosophically tinged core of the predominant research programme on OOL studies. (And the allusion to Lakatos is deliberate.)kairosfocus_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

DK, Re 464: I will say this much, you have a technically correct cite [one that is from a different part of the article and again your previous is incorrectly cited], but one that is highly misleading (as circa 1986, there was no terminology for a design thinker i.e. you have committed a fallacy of equivocation. [And note, at that time, Meyer was not a PhD philosopher and historian of science specialising in OOL and related issues, i.e you cannot simply cite his words as reasonably definitive.] To the merits, to the merits, to the merits, we must go.) So soon as we turn to those merits, we easily see that your dismissal by labelling attempt also reflects the same pattern of distraction, distortion and demonisation, then dismissal we have noted above on Behe: THE ARGUMENT TBO MAKE IN TMLO IS NOT ABOUT GENESIS OR WHETHER DATA CAN BE FOUND TO SUPPORT IT, BUT IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE STATE OF OOL RESEARCH CIRCA 1984: MILLER-UREY TYPE EXPERIMENTS (AND THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATOR INTERFERENCE), CONVENTIONAL GEO-TIMELINE -- NOT YEC! -- EARLY EARTH ATMOSPHERIC CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPLICATIONS FOR PRE-BIOTIC SOUP FORMATION AND BREAKDOWN, DETAILED CLASSICAL AND STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS OF MOLECULE FORMATION IN (GENEROUS) PRE-BIOTIC SOUP CIRCUMSTANCES, RELATED INFORMATION THEORY PER BRILLOUIN, PROPOSED MECHANISMS FOR FORMATION OF EARLY LIFE, PROTOCELLS, etc. (Remember, TMLO is the book that marks a new departure. I happen to have in hand a copy of Morris' Scientific Creationism, of that general era, and I assure you it speaks to nothing like that.) So, once we see that not once do you pause to address the technical merits of the discussion, but jump to labelling and dismissing, we may properly draw a conclusion on prudence in face of evident threat: what your remarks boil down to is agenda-linked prejudice: so soon as you can ind a way to attach the label "Creationist" you dismiss without actual consideration on the merits. For shame! Worse, your remarks also reflect a clear agenda -- and here, I must read from you to the Anti Evo group you represent, and beyond to the Lewontinian a priori materialists and their public policy allies in NCSE, NAS, NSTA, ACLU etc, and now in courtrooms and even halls of government otherwise -- that is utterly destructive: to redefine science (cutting clean across its history and related philosophy) as applied materialism/atheism, and to exclude -- that is: EXPEL -- anyone who has theistic leanings. Sorry, DK, you just declared culture war. And we will not simply surrender to you and your ilk. ________________ Onlookers, let us note carefully, for now we must be VERY clear in the face of mortal danger: 1 --> The Lewontinian materialists typified by Anti -Evo and DK et al as their representatives here at UD, have now tipped their hand: they intend to subvert science into applied evolutionary materialist atheism, and to establish it as the de facto quasi-religion of science education, the courts, law and public policy. 2 --> They do not intend to actually address scientific issues on the technical or general merits, but to distract from facts and logic, self-servingly distort whatever those who object to their claims have to say, demonise and expel qualified scientists who will not toe the matertilist party line [Exhibit A: Gonzalez, and going back earlier, exhibit 0 is Kenyon himself], then to dismiss any objections to their agenda. 3 --> In this pursuit, when such say "science" we must nor confuse ourselves: they do NOT mean "an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth in light of empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed." [Notice, how they cannot gainsay this historically and philosophically well-warranted summary of what science at its best should be, they just ignore it.] 4 --> Instead, let us attend to US NAS member Lewontin's words in that infamous 1997 NYRB article -- which reveals that this is a longstanding agenda -- i.e.:
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 . . .
[ . . . ]kairosfocus_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply