Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are Some of Our Opponents in the Grip of a “Domineering Parasitical Ideology”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[It] is now obvious that the root is we are dealing with a domineering parasitical ideology in the course of destroying its host; through its inherent undermining of responsible rational freedom, the foundation of a sound life of the mind. Immediately, science, science education, the media and policy are being eaten out from within.

KF

Indeed.  The immediate context of KF’s observation is the seeming inability of the Darwinists to understand plain English over the past few days.  Allow me to establish some context.  In a post over at his Sandwalk blog Larry Moran quoted me when I wrote:

For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.  Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

He then wrote:

But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.

I then provided quotations from two famous Darwinists (Collins and Coyne) using the very word “prediction”:

Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process.  That is exactly what is observed.

 

From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed.

I also linked to Casey Luskin’s excellent article an ENV showing several more such statements.  There cannot be the slightest doubt that many famous Darwinists said the theory predicts junk DNA.

“But those statements cannot possibly be predictions, because they came after junk DNA was discovered,” the Darwinists shout.  One in particular (lutesuite) has started beating a drum calling for a retraction of my claim.  We have two choices here:

  1. Agree with Moran and lutesuite. But this would require us to believe Collins and Coyne are too stupid to understand what the word “prediction” means.
  1. Disagree with Moran and lutesuite. This would require us to believe that Collins and Coyne were using the word “prediction” in a different sense than “to forecast in advance.”

I vote for (2).  Is there a sense of the word “prediction” that means something other than “to forecast in advance”?  It turns out there is.  Collins and Coyne are not stupid.  Instead, they are engaging in the commonplace act of using the term “prediction” in the sense of “retrodiction” or “postdiction”.  What is that?  Wikipedia explains:

Retrodiction (or postdiction . . .) is the act of making a “prediction” about the past.

My dictionary agrees.

There you have it.  The mystery is solved.  Collins and Coyne are not so stupid that they don’t know the meaning of the word “prediction.”  Moran and lutesuite are simply wrong when they suggest they are.  A prediction does not have to be temporally prior to that which is predicted if the word is used in the sense of a retrodiction.

What does all of this have to do with KF’s observation?  Everything.  Sadly, both Moran and lutesuite are hosting a domineering parasitical ideology that is undermining their responsible rational freedom and destroying their capacity to think clearly.

Consider this.  It really is the case that for Moran and lutesuite to be correct, it must also be the case that two of the most famous scientists in the world are so staggeringly stupid that they don’t know what the word “predict” means.  I do not always agree with Collins and Coyne, but it really is a little much for Moran and lutesuite to imply they are imbeciles.

The only rational conclusion is that Moran and lutesuite are wrong, and not only are they wrong, they are wrong about a very simple matter that would take only two seconds of rational thought to sort out.

But two seconds is a long time, and rational thought is hard when one is in the grip of a domineering parasitical ideology.

Comments
mohammadnursyamsu: Yes it was your explanation for subjectivity, because it was in response to my argumentation that there is no room for subjectivity in materialism. You claimed materialism only allows for fact not opinion. That's obviously wrong as we can find all sorts of materialists having opinions, or for that matter, referencing subjective experience. mohammadnursyamsu: And then you needed to group love together with material things, to keep true to materialism. For a materialist, subjectivity obviously has a material basis, including the experience of emotion.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Yes it was your explanation for subjectivity, because it was in response to my argumentation that there is no room for subjectivity in materialism. And your explanation of subjectivity was that it is "experience of". And then you needed to group love together with material things, to keep true to materialism. But then you agreed love is subjective already, so then it is circular reasoning to explain subjectivity with subjectivity. What is the room for subjectivity in materialism? You say; we have experience of what is subjective and objective, and that experience is subjective. Circular reasoning. There is no room for subjectivity in materialism, which is because the existence of all material things is categorically a matter of fact issue, not opinion. Love and hate is regarded as agency, and therefore the existence of them can only be established by choosing if they are there or not, resulting in an opinion. That is how subjectivity actually works.mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: You say deliciousness is subjective, and then you have experience of deliciousness as subjective over what is subjective, like experience of eating ice cream is subjective of eating ice cream. Love is an experience. You can experience love. You can experience the sensation of love. mohammadnursyamsu: You cannot explain subjectivity with subjectivity. We haven't attempted to explain subjectivity, just pointed out that some things are subjective.Zachriel
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
That is the regress aspect of your argument. You say deliciousness is subjective, and then you have experience of deliciousness as subjective over what is subjective, like experience of eating icecream is subjective of eating icecream. There certainly must be a circularity in being subjective over what is subjective, as an explanation of subjectivity. You cannot explain subjectivity with subjectivity.mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: Love itself is already part of experience As is the sensation of deliciousness. mohammadnursyamsu: Eating ice cream is not itself experience already. No. Eating ice cream is an action. Deliciousness is the sensation. mohammadnursyamsu: That the word subjective is added to it means nothing in the light of that eating ice cream can just be objectively verified Eating ice cream can be objectively verified, but deliciousness is a subjective experience. mohammadnursyamsu: therefore it is implied that beauty, goodness and evil can also be objectively verified. That is not our position. You would do best not to presume.Zachriel
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
You are still obfuscating. Love itself is already part of experience, but then you add to that "experience of" love in order for your obfuscation to work. Eating icecream is not itself experience already. And of course the parasitical ideology at work here is original sin, to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to make good and evil into a fact. This is why you have love end up together with material procesess so as that you can pretend, fudge, and make do, as if what is good and evil can be known as fact. Because you will just have the experience of goodness, and the experience of evil, just as you have the experience of beauty and the experience of eating icecream. That the word subjective is added to it means nothing in the light of that eating icecream can just be objectively verified, and therefore it is implied that beauty, goodness and evil can also be objectively verified. It is very clear that if a rule is introduced that the term goodness refers to agency, and that one can only reach the conclusion it is there by choosing it, that then goodness is not objective. To choose the conclusion some person is good, well that is information you create by choosing it.mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Andre: Well you may not have used the word material, but the effect is all the same that you have love and beauty categorized together with all material processes. We categorized the experience of love and beauty with other subjective experiences, without regard to the underlying nature of experience. Perhaps you are referring to the abstraction of love and beauty?Zachriel
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Well you may not have used the word material, but the effect is all the same that you have love and beauty categorized together with all material processes. So you switched experience for agency, and this allowed you to categorize all together, and not acknowledge a seperate domain of agency. A decision can turn out A or B, A is chosen. Then the question what is it that nade the decision turn out A in stead of B? , can only be answered with a decision. Meaning there are at least 2 answers to the question, any of which would be valid when chosen. That is the actual logic used in common discourse using subjective terminology. The painting can be said to be beautiful or ugly in expression of enotion with free will, thus choosing. In case beautiful is chosen then love is referred to as agency, in case ugly is chosen then hate is referred to as agency. It is therefore equally valid to say the love referred to is real, as it is to say the love is not real. So there is the spiritual domain and the existence of all what is in it is a matter of opinion, including the spiritual domain, and there is the material domain which is chosen, and the existence of all in it is fact.mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
We all love how Zachriel thinks it bald assertions are actual arguments. Zachriel is totally unaware of itself.Virgil Cain
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: experience of eating icecream is subjective experience of a material process is subjective experience of beauty is subjective experience of love is subjective therefore you categorize love and beauty as material processes Ah. 1. We haven't used the word material. That's your terminology. 2. The painting is an object. The experience of the beauty of the painting is subjective. 3. He loves ice cream. The ice cream is external. She loves another person. The person is external. The experience is subjective in either case. 4. He loves the memory of ice cream. The memory is subjective. She loves the memory of another person. The memory is subjective.Zachriel
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
@zachriel I can read experience of eating icecream is subjective experience of a material process is subjective experience of beauty is subjective experience of love is subjective therefore you categorize love and beauty as material processes that you argue that the experience of love is subjective, still means that you first classify love as a material process. But that is error because love already is part of subjective experience. You need to classify love together with all material, to keep materialism true, so you do that by grouping them all under, the experience of...mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: Eating ice cream most definitely is a material process. Z @315: Yes. It’s an action, however, the experience of eating ice cream is subjective. A painting is an object. The experience of the painting is subjective. mohammadnursyamsu: So experience of beauty, experience of eating icecream, it means you equivocate beauty with eating icecream, as all material processes. You really need to try to read more carefully. Eating ice cream is an action. The experience of eating ice cream is subjective.Zachriel
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
@zachriel Eating icecream most definitely is a material process. You also talked about experience of beauty. So experience of beauty, experience of eating icecream, it means you equivocate beauty with eating icecream, as all material processes. It's a well known trick to me, in order to avoid having to deal with agency of a decision. Love belongs to agency doing the choosing, eating icecream belongs to what is chosen. Category of creator and creation, spiritual and material, choosing and chosen.mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: …the equivocation is between love and eating ice cream as material processes. We didn't claim either as a material process, but said they were subjective.Zachriel
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
...the equivocation is between love and eating icecream as material processes.mohammadnursyamsu
November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: You are trying to equivocate experience of love, with experience of eating ice cream, so that you can categorize love as a material process like eating ice cream is a material process. Eating ice cream is a material process. The experience of eating ice cream is subjective. We made that distinction several times. You need to show the area of equivocation without mangling our position to do so.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
@Zachriel You are trying to equivocate experience of love, with experience of eating ice cream, so that you can categorize love as a material process like eating icecream is a material process. To regress the issue to experience is a common strategy of atheists, among many other strategies, which strategies all have in common is to ignore freedom. You haven't even mentioned freedom and choosing, so your idea about subjectivity is unrelated to the freedom of opinion and religion as it is in the law of many countries. It is unrelated to subjectivity as it is in common discourse, law and religion, you are only presenting a philosphy game of word-goo about the word subjectivity.mohammadnursyamsu
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Joe:
I call everyone who is rude and twists people’s words rather than have an adult like discussion “Joe”
OK Joe- all evos ever do is act rude- oops it isn't an act- twist the words of their opponents and are always infantile when debating.Virgil Cain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: Love, hate are emotions. Yes, love and hate are subjective experiences. mohammadnursyamsu: Eating ice cream is not an emotion. Yes. It's an action, however, the experience of eating ice cream is subjective. Zachriel @257: Belief in God refers to a claim about something external, while moral indignation is an internal reaction. Even though people might abstract morality, it is an abstraction about an internal state. However, the subjective experience of the Divine would certainly qualify as an experience akin to experience of beauty or moral indignation, indeed, are often experienced together. Love and hate are subjective experiences. The experience of eating ice cream is a subjective experience. The claim that ice cream exists is a claim about something external to the person. The experience of the Divine is a subjective experience. The claim that God exists is a claim about something external to the person.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
What is your experience of eating icecream for the first time? I love it! And then your experience of your love for icecream? It changed my life. And what is your experience of your experience of eating icecream? Some life changes can lead to dental problems. And what is your experience of your experience of your experience of eating icecream? I think you are getting rid of the simple issue of agency of a decision by postponing the question to an endless regress of experience. Love, hate are emotions. Eating icecream is not an emotion. Love and hate do not belong in the same category as eating icecream as things which can be experienced. Love and hate are itself part of experiencing.mohammadnursyamsu
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: One experiences eating icecream, one likes it, the liking is part of the experience of it. mohammadnursyamsu: You cannot put icecream and like and dislike in the same category of what can be experienced. Ice cream is external to the self. The experience of eating ice cream is an internal reaction. Not sure what you are trying to say.Zachriel
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
@Zachriel You are just regressing the problem back from emotion to experience of emotions. It only creates confusion, it presents no functional logic. One experiences eating icecream, one likes it, the liking is part of the experience of it. You cannot put icecream and like and dislike in the same category of what can be experienced. Again, you just got word-goo, and no functional logic that for a decision you have at least 2 options, 1 is chosen, and then the question about what the agency of that decision is can only be answered by choosing the answer. That logic is consistent with common discourse use of subjective terminiology. There is this obvious question about what the agency of a decision is. This agency which makes the decision turn out the way it does is free, as per definition, because it does the job of choosing. Facts use a logic of cause and effect, being forced. In science people make models. The thing that is modelled, in essence it forces the way the model turns out. Science about the moon, it is forced where you are going to say there is a crater on the moon, by where that crater actually is on the moon. So there is a cause and effect relationship between the moon and the science about it, resulting in many facts about the moon. So it is impossible to get any facts about agency, because agency is free. One cannot make a model of love or hate, one can only express emotions with free will about it, thus choosing, what is loving and what is hateful.mohammadnursyamsu
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: The logic works essentially the same way for identifying your own emotions, and identifying somebody else’s emotions (internal / external). One doesn't infer subjective emotions, but experiences them. One does infer emotions in others from their words and actions by analogy to one's own emotions.Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
@Zachriel 257 The logic works essentially the same way for identifying your own emotions, and identifying somebody else's emotions (internal / external). You choose about what it is that chooses, agency of decisions. One time you choose about yourself, the other you choose about someone else. And nothing in this logic says that anything is ever established beyond opinion. One can say a particular decision has a loving agency, then later say the same decision has a hateful agency. Both answers would be logically valid. The obvious next step with this logic is to then categorize all terms of agency together in a category of a spiritual domain. Then next one might consider what is love and hate when they are not engaged as agency in a decision, do they still exist then? And then it is considered what all is in the spiritual domain, and then sentiments would normally point to the lord God Almighty in the spiritual domain.mohammadnursyamsu
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: @Zachriel Let us know when you are ready to engage the argument @257.Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
"You see, You have failed in debate so you fall back on rhetoric. That shows you’re not mature enough to debate here." Thanks Joe. From you, that is the highest of compliments. If you stop being rude and misrepresenting my words, I will start calling you Jack. Until then, you will always be Joe as far as I am concerned.brian douglas
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
@Seversky, Zachriel Not good enough to mouth the words passion and emotion. Only validation of the logic of subjectivity provides solid accommodation for it. You will just use a different definition for the words passion and emotion so that freedom plays no role. Heck most atheists also redefine the word freedom, to make it all use a logic of cause and effect, being forced. Atheism / materialism would not be a thing without this rejection of subjectivity. It would just be small time philosophical gameplaying, and not big time societal movement. And if subjectivity is accepted, then scientists would just naturally make theories in which freedom is regarded as real. Not just for human behaviour, but for phenomena throughout the universe, most obviously that organisms are chosen as a whole, because it just makes sense. So you see, the circumstance that you also reject theories based on freedom like intelligent design, that shows you really do have a fundamental problem with accepting the validity of subjectivity. It is very obvious in common discourse that judgement is essentially free. I could say you have no emotions, that might be considered "mean", but cannot be considered logically invalid. Such a judgement might also be considered justice, considering that you both are obviously oppressing subjectivity intellectually. In any case the judgement shows very clearly the logic applies that what the agency of a decision is, is a matter of opinion, and that an opinion is chosen.mohammadnursyamsu
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
"Sorry Joe. I call everyone who is rude and twists people’s words rather than have an adult like discussion “Joe” in memory of a person who is no longer allowed to post here. " You see, You have failed in debate so you fall back on rhetoric. That shows you're not mature enough to debate here. "Sorry Joe." My name is Jack, If You want to ask me a question then you have to not only use my name but you have to start acting maturely. If not then you will just be ignored as having nothing to contribute to the discussion because you are out of your depth.Jack Jones
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
"Comment under mine and responding to my comment says “Joe” My name is not Joe, My name is Jack. That is two posts you have called me Joe on now, is there something about that name that you have a fetish for?" Sorry Joe. I call everyone who is rude and twists people's words rather than have an adult like discussion "Joe" in memory of a person who is no longer allowed to post here. Again, please point me to where I said the. Chemistry behaved differently in the past than it does now. As I mentioned, I am not a biologist. But I am a chemist, so am interested in your answer.brian douglas
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Zachriel I must protest! If the laws of chemistry are consistent why on earth are you violating those laws by seeking truth? That does not compute....Andre
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 12

Leave a Reply