Behe-McWhorter Back Online

_{William Dembski

August 31, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

[Update 8.31.09: The McWhorter-Behe interview is back online at Bloggingheads; Robert Wright, who heads Bloggingheads, was incommunicado during the interview’s removal and on his return to wired reality decided to put the dialogue back up. For his explanation of what happened, go here: bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075]

[Update 8.28.09: Michael Behe has just posted his take on the bloggingheads matter — behe.uncommondescent.com]

Isn’t the Internet wonderful. Bloggingheads takes down the Behe-McWhorter discussion one day. A few hours later it’s back up:

View on ExposureRoom

Comments

Lets review again one of the so-called freethinkers are in "science" today. Richard Dawkins... demanded Ben Stein not speak at Vermont University. "But according to a widely read scientific web site, UVM President Daniel Mark Fogel wrote Sunday that, “Mr. Stein will be unable to receive the honorary degree here or to serve as Commencement speaker.” Not only did Dawkins get Stein's speech canceled, but his honorary degree pulled as well. "Fogel wrote that in a letter to Richard Dawkins (pictured above), the well-known evolutionary biologist Fascist Selfish Gene who was the most prominent of several scientists other fascist selfish genes protesting the choice of Stein, an outspoken advocate of “Intelligent Design,” scientific dissent." As to holing up in your cave Yakky, you should really learn about the second amendment, freedom and liberty as our Founding Fathers intended this nation to be. Don't live in fear. Speak up and fight for what you believe in. Understand that the government answers to We the People, that includes scientific grants awarded by tax payor moneys. We the People determine what is useful and good for our tax dollars. Time to stop the wasteful spending of tax dollars by hacks who tell fictional stories about a past they never observed or could possibly pretend to know. Better we look forward with the new scientific paradigm of Design. The country that first shifts its focus and money toward a design paradigm and away from antiquated theories will be first in line technically for the race in new business, new research, new medicine, new cures. This is only the beginning of things to come. Darwinisn is a failed and dying paradigm. The sooner you stop your denial and come out of the dark into the light the faster the healing begins. Don't retreat into a Darwinian cave. The exposure of sunlight is a good disinfectant to cronyism, corruption, fascism, Owellian thought police and old-beard Darwinians.DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Yakky D, "I’m perfectly open to lots of possibilities." I doubt it seriously. I've seen your post here. And please try to recognize satire and humor. I see that you recognized at least some of it earlier. Satire is a tool to tear down the establishment. In this case, it is the Darwinist. Maybe my sarcasm is to hyperbolic for most taste. It is obvious that the criticism from the commenters is just one part of the issue. I had no idea far left, New York Sulzberger Slimeballs were involved, that explains another "possibility" I think Behe's comments are on target. Bloggingheads reacted in shocking horror to the attention they received and pulled the video. I know. Here's a good suggestion for the Darwinist. Have the Bloggingheads setup Dawkins vs Behe. Hows that for true fireworks? Would that be more "representative" of Bloggingheads video? Dawkins couldn't handle Behe. He'd eventually end up salivating with drivel running down his mouth, mumbling, mumble, mumble about aliens seeding earth. Bloggingheads are not as advertised. They are politically correct leftist, or shaking and afraid of the Darwinist. "Of course it’s possible that McWhorter was contacted by Darwinian shock troops a scientist Thought Police who critiqued threatened his interview career, and on that basis, he decided to withdraw it. Lots of things could have happened. Abiogensis is true. I’d just like to hear McWhorter’s version mia culpa and genuflection before Darwinian gods, before I lock myself in the basement and prepare for an attack by Darwin cult zombies. smoke a joint with my dead head friends" I'd like to hear his version as well, but I suspect he'll be subdued and afraid to say anything that publically supports Behe after this episode, or admit that he was slammed down by anyone he'll name. I'm curious YakkyD, what do you think of the fascist at NCSE and Smithsonian that attacked Dr. Sternberg? What do you think of PZ Meyers bigotry against a possible tenure candidate that supports possible ID positions? Those are known cases of prejudice, bigotry and one-sided, double-standard hypocrites. What do you think about Richard Dawkins writing to a universty to cancel Ben Stein's honorary degree? The evidence shows Dawkins, Meyers, NCSE, even unfortunately the Smithsonian act like fascist when their religion is found unbelievable. They censor and admit it.DATCG_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.
BINGO absolutely right...the same dark, bloodthirsty god...tsmith_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Great response Professor Behe. And I concur with your observation. Gutless.IRQ Conflict_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

I think this about sums it up. bjkeefe from BHTV Wrote: "And finally, I think it's better to search for explanations that work for the time being, and not worry overmuch about whether they are actually The Truth." "If you've got a theory that explains the data and lets you make useful predictions, fine! Let's go with that!" http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=127146&postcount=236 So this is progress is it? God help the next generation of Scientists.IRQ Conflict_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Rude @62, Wow! That needs it's own thread! Really didn't know that. @yakky @67, I wish it were. And so does Guillermo Gonzalez et al I'd wager. The beheading thing was not rhetorical, but proverbial.IRQ Conflict_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict,
Quite like Muslims, “Taqqyia”, Darwinists are more than ready to lie and behead those who insult Darwin. No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.
An abundance of over-the-top rhetoric ITT.yakky d_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Vivid,
yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable?
I didn't find it objectionable. Watching the video was not the most productive 44 minutes I've ever spent, because there wasn't much information there that was new to me. My best guess as to where the word "objectionable" came from was the criticism that appeared on the bloggingheads forum after the interview was posted. McWhorter was getting panned for asking softball questions, and people were posting links to critical reviews of Behe's work. There's nothing wrong with that of course---the purpose of the interview is to generate discussion. Again, it would be most useful if McWhorter were to come forward and tell us what happened. I hope idnet can get in contact with him.yakky d_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Cabal 54 supports the Darwinist cabal by denying it exists. What he doesn’t see is that no website be it Darwinist or Idist owes anyone a right to speak. It bothers me not a whit if Darwinist sites rage with Darwinist hysteria, and I do like alternative ID sites that shut them up. It’s only in the public square as supported by our tax dollars that the materialist cabal must be ousted.Rude_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

idnet,
Yakka “This site is not affiliated with John McWhorter. It is a fan site and part of the Epik.com direct navigation network. To contribute content to this site, please contact us “
Oops, sorry about that. Did you get the email address from Columbia?yakky d_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

The following from Bloggingheads might be of interest. How ironic.
Bloggingheads is in some ways a classic expression of the Internet: the ever-dropping cost of information-processing allows people to interact in new ways, and a whole new tribe-the Bloggingheads tribe-is formed. But we hope to be in one sense an unusual expression of the Internet. Almost all blogs have a dominant ideology and a fairly homogeneous comments section to match. We pride ourselves on having a diversity of views in our diavlogs and an accordingly diverse comments section, where thoughtful disagreement is expressed in civil terms. (OK, usually thoughtful, and usually civil.) We thank our commenters-and for that matter our less-vocal viewers, and of course all the bloggingheads-for making this website a place where great minds don't think alike.
GilDodgen_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Even paranoids sometimes have enemies. A psychiatrist to his patient: I have good news and bad news. You are not paranoid. People really are out to get you.GilDodgen_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Well, so that’s John McWhorter the linguist! Linguistics should have been in the forefront of the war on materialism. Nevertheless the linguistics of the 30s and 40s was dominated by Leonard Bloomfield’s subservience to B F Skinner, a sad situation not finally overcome until Noam Chomsky’s 1957 A Review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Virtually nothing of interest can be said of human language within a purely materialist, stimulus-response model. Chomsky liberated linguistics from the constraints of materialism by granting that human language issues from a creative source for which we haven’t the foggiest of a materialist theory. Chomsky’s project was to open the field to the study of syntax—the code—universal grammar—something that had been denied modern linguists. Yet though Chomsky never cozied up to the Darwinists he placed himself and his linguistics on the far, far radical left. And whereas his early Transformational Grammar provided a great model for discovery and description, he was forced to abandon it because of his insistence that syntax have no inherent meaning or function. Chomsky was proposing an innate linguistic mechanism separate from general cognitive function and any higher level of semantics. Such has never been found. And so there was rebellion in the ranks and in the 70s a split between formalist and functionalist camps. And so alas! Chomsky’s linguistics, as Paul M. Postal and Robert D. Levine point out, came to resemble his politics with “a deep contempt for the truth, descents into incoherence, and verbal abuse of those who disagree with him.” A Corrupted Linguistics, in The Anti-Chomsky Reader, edited by Peter Collier & David Horowitz (Encounter Books, 2004). So, I would say, it remains for a future generation of linguists sympathetic to Intelligent Design to rescue the field from the radical left and an encroaching postmodernism. Here, let me suggest two areas that may be of interest to young Turks in ID. 1. Language reflects the soul This was Chomsky’s original contribution—it needs to be expanded. Language is not a restricted code such as, say, the dance of the bees. Rather the average sentence is a novel creation. ID identifies design, language offers us an opportunity to peer into a source of design. 2. Language codes information Language is a code in constant flux, i.e., languages are constantly changing over time (which helps to explain why there are so many languages). But this change is within bounds. The semantic and functional categories that underlie all human languages appear to be rather static, such as you might savor at WALS. The future tense, for example, always appears to derive from a verb of motion (‘go’ or ‘come’) or volition (‘will’ or ‘take/hold’)---English has innovated both: “It is going to rain” and “It will rain”. If you are a mathematical Platonist you will immediately sense the possibility that many of these categories are “out there” and not hard-wired in neural networks by any Darwinian process. Little children tune in to this Platonic realm as they construct language from the data at hand. This is not to say, of course, that our physical structure and environment are not reflected in our language—just that these alone are not sufficient to explain universal grammar and the ease with which children learn the same. If the creativity of language reflects the soul, let me suggest that semantic and functional categories reflect the spirit. For those who like ancient quotes, how about this mysterious biblical reference that I cannot say I understand: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit ..."Rude_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

What happened to Guillermo Gonzalez. (See what we mean about thought police tactics?)kairosfocus_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

More likely than the scenario of the Manahattan Institute telling McWhorter that its donors want him to pull the video is the scenario that some collection of McWhorter's friends, colleagues, and book agent emailed him saying, "What on earth are you doing? You don't want to be associated with the ID movement. You'll be labeled as a kook, you'll always be looked on with suspicion (remember what happened to Guillermo Gonzalez), and you'll never get a good book review in the New York Times again."Zed_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Yakka "This site is not affiliated with John McWhorter. It is a fan site and part of the Epik.com direct navigation network. To contribute content to this site, please contact us "idnet.com.au_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

"Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth." Quite like Muslims, "Taqqyia", Darwinists are more than ready to lie and behead those who insult Darwin. No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.IRQ Conflict_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, here is Richard von Sternberg's summary of what happened to him (go to the above link for the documentation and details, shocking details): ____________________ >> In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth. >> ______________________kairosfocus_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Cabal: Even paranoids sometimes have enemies. And, there is a longstanding pattern of evidence that makes it clear -- morally certain in fact -- that especially the NCSE and ACLU have served as shock/ storm troopers that deploy at once to drive any ID supportive bridgeheads back into the sea. Using rather ruthless tactics, as can be seen for instance here. And remember, that was not for a SUPPORTER of ID, it was for someone willing to allow a place in the forum. For shame! Denial of such is enabling behaviour for thought police tactics and institutions, Cabal. Thanks for letting us know what you are, and what you are willing to turn a blind eye to. Do you see where such totalitarian, thought control censorship tactics lead, on far too many historical exemplars? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

First, McWhorter has commented and has thoroughly explained his position on the matter: listen to the interview. He spoke several times that he beleived that Behe's book was important, needed to be discussed and that Behe's views and arguments need a fair hearing, and he expressed both incredulity and disappointment that Darwinian evolutionists react the way they do to Behe. What is unclear about McWhorter's opinion or position? Was he lying when he said that he's felt this way for years? Was he lying throughout the discussion with Behe? I guess it shouldn't shock me that Darwinians can ignore the obvious and cling to thin, imagined explanations that contradict the facts as long as such inventions allow them to keep their faith. Can someone answer the question? What was it about the interview that can possibly, to any reasonable person (that isn't zealously defending the religious faith of Darwinism to the point of blatant, coercive censorship of ideas) be remotely considered "offensive"?William J. Murray_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

Since wild speculation seems to be well within what's acceptable here, may I voice my 2¢: Do I sense a tendency towards paranoia? I may be biased, but I sincerely believe claims about Darwinist censorship are more than a little exaggerated. Isn't it a fact that we see more censorship on ID or creationist sites than on Darwinist sites? An example from: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-richard-dawkins-a-stage-magician/#more-8303 Sibley wrote:
Let’s be frank, Dawkins is in reality more dangerous than a harmless travelling charlatan
When Skew Jones posted an almost exact 'qoute' of Sibley's words except 'Dawkins' had been replaced with 'Dembski', it didn't take long before his entry disappeared, and Skew has not been visible here since. So adhom against Dawkins is ok, but Dembski is protected? Or take a look at what the poster Daniel Smith got away with at AtBC. Id'ists like BA77 and others have been invited to post at AtBC, and I think they know there would be no risk of banning unless they threatened hacking the site. What conclusion may we draw from that? Or from my habit of saving copies of what I post here?Cabal_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Just to plug the updated video Post #24. In case someone missed it. Please let me know that is works for you. Cheers!IRQ Conflict_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

oops "objectionable" Vividvividbleau_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

"I’m perfectly open to lots of possibilities." yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable? "Lots of things could have happened." Yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable? "I’d just like to hear McWhorter’s version" Unfortunately it is very likely that we will never know. Mcwhorter ran into a shit storm he is not likely to want to go through that storm again. "...before I lock myself in the basement and prepare for an attack by Darwin cult zombies." yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable? Vividvividbleau_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

yakky d, It's not Darwinist cult zombies, it's Darwinist thought police, get it right.Clive Hayden_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

idnet, Here's a link on his website: http://www.johnmcwhorter.com/contact His wikipedia page also has a link to his directory page at Columbia with another email address.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

We have searched for an email address or phone number for McWhorter. We would like to ask him what happenned. Can anyone supply an email address?idnet.com.au_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

DATCG, I'm perfectly open to lots of possibilities. Of course it's possible that McWhorter was contacted by ~~Darwinian shock troops~~ a scientist who critiqued his interview, and on that basis, he decided to withdraw it. Lots of things could have happened. I'd just like to hear McWhorter's version before I lock myself in the basement and prepare for an attack by Darwin cult zombies.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Bevets, thx.DATCG_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

Vivid, Yep... that is typical politico speak easy.DATCG_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply