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

I can not believe that the typical view among scientists is such that they're not as fascinated by that question and this possible boundary to our knowledge as you are. It's so utterly fascinating. And yet I remember when Darwin's Black Box came out I grabbed it. I was fascinated by this. It opened my eyes. And I had a scientist friend, eminent one, I will not name them or even give their gender, but I had that scientist over to dinner and when I gave that scientist your book and said 'Have you read this one?' That scientists literally, and they, yes singular 'they' were being kind of theatrical but they, literally, threw it across the room. They just could not entertain that this book, and it was gaining a reputation, could possibly be making any sense. But of course that wasn't a discussion -- I could not get this person to discuss what was so wrong with the ideas. ~ John McWhorter yakky d @ 38 I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. ~ PZ Myersbevets_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Yakky D, LOL... well, steaming pile of selfish gene bacteria arose from a steaming vent, pond scum or what have ya. No one really knows, but the stories are good. Millions are spent yearly on TV about steaming piles of selfish genes. Its late, my poorly designed genes need rest so I may go forth and conquer other steaming piles of selfish genes tomorrow. ;) Whatever McWhorter says from here on out, if its not like his initial video with excitement about the book, then he is under diress. It is obvious a total 180 degree turnaround has been manufactured by the outrage of the Darwinist. One would have to be a blind, unguided, steaming pile of selfish genes not to see this. I listened to that entire video. McWhorter was excited the entire time about the discussion and the challenges that remain unanswered by Darwinist. Intelligent and informed experience from past episodes and in life leans towars his turnaround is not due to some moment of Dawinian nirvana. ps. PZ Meyers is own record on his own blog about ID professors and granting tenure. Its probably discussed on here as well. I'll check tomorrow.DATCG_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Here is the key sentence that says it all. "He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.” Obviously there were those who found the airng objectionable thus the reason for pulling it. Now who would that be that found it so objectionable? Vividvividbleau_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Some words from McWhorter at the beginning of the video. Read this introduction carefully and ask yourself reader, does it match his total opposite response and withdrawal after the Darwinian cultist uprising?
"Well, Michael Behe, I am so glad to meet you and thank you for agreeing to do this. This is one of the rare times that I have actually initiated a bloggingheads pairing and its because I just read your book; Edge of Evolution, from 2007 and I found it absolutely shattering. I mean this is a very important book. And yet I sense from the reputation or reception of your book from 10 plus years ago; Darwins Black Box, that it may be hard to get people to understand why it is so important. So I just wanted to go back and forth with you a little while to get a sense of what your intent with this book was and ask you a few questions and just allow this book the wide airing it deserves.
Most readers will read the above and with common sense interpret McWhorters words as a very open dialogue who wants to encourage people to read Dr. Behe's book. Just in these few paragraphs... "Shattering" "wide airing it deservs" "so glad to meet you" "rare for me to initiate blogginheads pairing" McWhorter is excited to speak with Behe, considers his work "shattering" and deems it worthy of "wide airing it deserves" as in he thinks it has not been given the daylight in media and science publications in a fair debate. He takes it upon himself to now air the books "shattering" information to the public. Now compare the above words to his words after the Darwinist cultist attack him... "John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable." posted by an Administrator... hmmm. Boy that reeks of totalitarian control of opinion. How often has Putin, Fidel, Chavez recently, or any other tyrannical leaders from the past invoked the forced obligatory confession by the "guilty" party without them actually appearing in public? This reeks of Smithsonian style fascist tactics against a fellow academic who open-mindedly discusses a difficult topic or allows the dissenter to speak freely about his ideas about evolution. As a result of such bold fresh open talk, what happens? McWhorter suddenly repents and states that his excitement was wrong, his thoughts about the book being "shattering" truly do not represent him. Bada Bing, Bada Boom, welcome NCSE mind police. Darwinian shock troops. What a shame for science. What a shame for America and Americans in general. And how embarrasing to any scientist who dare to say this type of treatment is justified. In condemning others to silence, they condemn themselves to similar treatment. McWhorter asked many normal and refreshing questions. At one point he tells the story of an unidentified colleague and Darwin's Black Box. The colleague's reaction was to "literally throw the book across the room." So much for "liberals" "freethinkers" "brites" and the "open-minded" scientist and professors. This shows that their beliefs have been "shattered" and in a gut, knee-jerk pavlovian response indoctrinated since elementary training classes, they are repulsed and revolted by any new information which may challenge their Darwinian religion. The video does not represent..."bloggingheads... usefully." huh??? Doh! It did not compute to the selfish gene clan? What kind of loons post such words about an open discussion on a book? I'm surprised they're not burning the books. Does not "represent" "usefully" whom? Michael Behe? Truly? LOL... is Michael Behe complaining about the interview? Where is the press release from Behe about not being represented "usefully" in this open discussion about evolution? I've seen no memo that Dr Behe feels shorted or abused in anyway, shape or form. I think since Behe's name is included in such a ruse by the administrator, we need to hear his opinion. Finally, a question. Is McWhortor tenured by chance? If so and if he reads any of this. Mr. McWhorter, do not allow any beat down of your truly open and honest discussion by a rabid bunch of robots who refuse to allow dissent and open discussion of highly complex subjects. The entire idea behind America's Constitution is protection of free speech. It appears the Darwinist do not believe in free speech except for themselves and are now acting like tyrants. Thank you sincerely John McWhorter for trying to cross the bridge, engage in reason, discuss openly the real problems of modern day science. It is refreshing to hear. I can only hope there will be many more of you in the future to be open in their inquiry for the truth. Even if the truth means we do not know everything yet.DATCG_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

DATCG,
...Darwinian Cultist... They’re close-minded bigots. What other group of scientist behave in such irrational and fascist like behavior? These guys are scummy people, without any ethics, dishonest and intentionally misleading to the public. They tremble at the notion that their religion is a fake cult. They’re nothing but a pile of steaming selfish genes fighting to survive.
That last line is actually quite good :D But seriously, I don't agree with Dawkins on everything. He takes a harder line against religion than I do, and I think it's sometimes unproductive. I don't think he would attempt to have the video removed, however.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

DATCG,
Is not PZ on record as stating he would not allow a PhD candidate or professor that gives weight to ID? Outright censorship of professional education?
Allow to do what? Do you have a source?
... Stalinista ...
Nothing about the interview there...
It is obvious that McWhorter was immediately slammed for his reasonable discussion with Behe. Why else would he state the exact opposite several hours afterwards amidst the Darwinist clamour and outrage? Unless he was 1) shamed, 2) coerced, 3) threatened, or 4) intimidated by massive Darwinist uprising. How can anyone with common sense think McWhorter suddenly reversed and had a Simpson Doh! moment? He did it strictly out of fear.
Has anyone here tried to contact McWhorter? I'd like to hear his version of the events, even if it turns out there was a massive Darwinist uprising.
What a sick religious cult many darwinist live in today. ...fascist actions of the NCSE ... ... NCSE’s big brother Orwellian thought police moments ... ...They’re acting like a bunch of scummy commies acted with thought minders... It is sick and disgusting. Scientific Stalinistas ...
Again, nothing there about the Behe interview.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Vivid,
Now I am laughing so hard I m spewing food everywhere!!!
Thanks for sharing. Charlie,
http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/mr-stein-doesnt-go-to-burlington/
The two incidents are quite different, AFAICS. I really doubt that PZ or Dawkins would attempt to erase the McWhorter/Behe interview from the internet after it had occurred. I know PZ at least generally doesn't disappear items from his blog even when he makes a mistake. I can think of a few threads here at UD that are no longer available, however. The University of Vermont episode was about whether a man who claims "science leads you to killing people" is a good choice to receive an honorary degree and deliver a commencement address to a class which must contain a considerable number of students majoring in, erm, the sciences. BTW, UD is a science blog, isn't it?yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Charlie, Thank you for posting that article about Ben Stein. Richard Dawkins voted for censorship of Ben Stein...
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 .” Fogel wrote that in a letter to Richard Dawkins (pictured above), the well-known evolutionary biologist who was the most prominent of several scientists protesting the choice of Stein, an outspoken advocate of “Intelligent Design,”..."
Get that Yakky? Richard Dawkins in favor of censoring Ben Stein. Here's a question. Did Richard Dawkins protest anti-freedom Communist and Terrorist bomber William Ayers university invitations and speeches and tenure? Of course not, because Ayers is a fellow atheist brother in arms against the Christians. The so-called "wicked" people as Dawkins puts it. Censorship by those who claim to be liberal-minded, "freethinkers" and "brites." Ben Stein in exposing the evil of people like Dawkins and other censors around our nation, has now become the target of censorship by the.... yes... Darwinian Cultist. Dawkins is not a freethinker, nor is PZ Meyers, nor any of the zealot cultist Darwinist. They're close-minded bigots. What other group of scientist behave in such irrational and fascist like behavior? Where they work to eliminate all and any dissent from the public sphere? These guys are scummy people, without any ethics, dishonest and intentionally misleading to the public. They purposely spread disinformation and propaganda and constantly attack, with intent to defame character of those who challenge their god-like authority. They have become everything they supposedly hated in the past, due to their own hatred of anything outside of atheism. Their bitterness and anger darkens their blogs like at PZ Meyers or Pandas Thumb and Dawkins. Viscious attacks daily, weekly and in vile, false accusations, mocking, scoffing and ridicule. They refuse to allow decent discussions about facts. Instead they call IDist like Stephen Meyers liars. They fear open discussions like this getting into the public. They fear losing their own religion. They tremble at the notion that their religion is a fake cult. It is that simple. I've seen it one to many times now. It is disgusting actions by supposedly superior intellects. But I guess if you believe so vehemently in Darwinian evolutionary psychology, they cannot help themselves. They're nothing but a pile of steaming selfish genes fighting to survive.DATCG_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

Yakky? Hahaha.... totally out of character for PZ and Dawkins? Is not PZ on record as stating he would not allow a PhD candidate or professor that gives weight to ID? Outright censorship of professional education? And everyone knows Richard Dawkins record of Stalinista tactics to indoctrinate children against parents. He has been at the forefront of censoring ID and all kinds of vile accusations, calling people wicked, dumb, stupid. And he is supposed to be a man teaching public understanding of science? Yet he did not attempt to reach out in kindness. Instead he spits on people verbally with abuse daily. It is obvious that McWhorter was immediately slammed for his reasonable discussion with Behe. Why else would he state the exact opposite several hours afterwards amidst the Darwinist clamour and outrage? Unless he was 1) shamed, 2) coerced, 3) threatened, or 4) intimidated by massive Darwinist uprising. How can anyone with common sense think McWhorter suddenly reversed and had a Simpson Doh! moment? He did it strictly out of fear. What a sick religious cult many darwinist live in today. Yakky, are you familiar with the fascist actions of the NCSE and other Darwinist at Smithsonian against Dr. Sternberg? Are you familiar with the NCSE's big brother Orwellian thought police moments of telling scientist which words are allowed in scientific publications? What do you think about NCSE members telling scientist which words they can and cannot use? I assume you are a "liberal." Where in the definition of liberalism does it say that other liberals, leftist and Darwinist have authority to edit out words of other scientist? They've become Orwell's worst nightmare. They've become big brother. They're acting like a bunch of scummy commies acted with thought minders making sure that anyone gets out of line is reported and forced to get back in line. It is sick and disgusting. Scientific Stalinistas is what this has turned into. Anyone out of line, hammer them. Maybe Yakky you are unfamiliar with the warfare tactics of the Darwinist, but it has gone on now for a long time.DATCG_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

Totally out of character for Dawkins and PZ http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/mr-stein-doesnt-go-to-burlington/Charlie_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

"I think it would be totally out of character for either one of them to be involved in something like this." I alost choked on my sandwich when I read this. PZ and Dawkins trying to shut down Mcwhorter would be totally out of character for them??? Now I am laughing so hard I m spewing food everywhere!!! Vividvividbleau_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

You could be right. I just think it would be wise to wait until McWhorter explains... By now he is surely aware of the conversation going on here at the world's most prominent ID blog. My guess is that he will crawl under a bed and hope that his sins will be forgotten and forgiven by the Darwinian thought police. We'll see. He would certainly be welcome here to explain it all.GilDodgen_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Gil, You could be right. I just think it would be wise to wait until McWhorter explains before using such charged language or referring to mysterious unnamed parties acting on behalf of a Darwinist cabal.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Dr Dembski,
Give it a rest. You started the wild speculation. I made it more realistic. Yes, it’s still speculation, but the scenario I sketched certainly has precedent.
Let me just clarify that I wasn't speculating that PZ or Dawkins actually were responsible in any way; I was trying to be a little facetious there. I think it would be totally out of character for either one of them to be involved in something like this. My sense however was the more visible scientist/bloggers who are active in the ID debate were considered the most likely suspects in the alleged censorship of the video. For example, vjtorley (whom I have a lot of respect for) said this in the other thread on this topic:
This is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is that some influential biologists sensed the damage that an interview like this could do if it became publicly available, and quietly brought pressure to bear on McWhorter to yank it off the air.
yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Enough of this useless talk! Let's start banning darwinists! If they can do it, why can't we? I suggest we ban a few of them. In any case they contribute absolutely NOTHING to UD.skynetx_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

yakky d Give it a rest. You started the wild speculation. I made it more realistic. Yes, it's still speculation, but the scenario I sketched certainly has precedent.William Dembski_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out:
I am aware that all sorts of things can happen at universities. But you've already floated theories involving McWhorter's associates at the Manhattan Institute and Columbia with absolutely no evidence in hand. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the facts come out before speculating like this.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

yakky, Read the quote again. John McWhorter is a guy on his knees begging forgiveness for an unpardonable sin, and promising repentance. How could this not be obvious? Listen to the interview, and then ask yourself, Why would he do this? Here we find a classic case of a design inference. John did not suddenly (in a matter of hours), accidentally come to his senses and realize that ID is a bunch of BS based on pseudo-science, and conclude that everything he said in the interview was wrong. He was obviously coerced -- by what means and by whom I cannot say – but he was obviously coerced. I cannot identify the coercer, but I am confident that he (she, it, they, or whatever) exists, because logic and evidence make it the most reasonable inference.GilDodgen_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Yakky, what do you do when your in a hole? Google it.lamarck_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/baptist-university-pulls-plug-on-evolutionary-informatics-lab-links-to-intelligent-design-fatal/ AND https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/media-coverage-baylor-robert-marks-and-the-evolutionary-informatics-lab/William Dembski_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure why, but my earlier post didn't go through. I was able to split the original video in two parts so I could upload it to windows live. They are 50MB's a piece in case your on dial-up. http://cid-279eee3e1f797824.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Public?uc=2&nl=1&lc=4105IRQ Conflict_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Excuse me, you raised the ridiculous scenario about Dawkins directly approaching McWhorter. I sketched a much more realistic scenario. No, I’m not accusing the Manhattan Institute of anything. I am, however, sketching a much more realistic scenario. More realistic still would be Columbia University putting pressure on him. But please, answer my question: are you a high school student?
No, I am not a high school student. But who at Columbia do you have in mind? Fellow faculty members? His dean? The president?yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

yakky d Excuse me, you raised the ridiculous scenario about Dawkins directly approaching McWhorter. I sketched a much more realistic scenario. No, I'm not accusing the Manhattan Institute of anything. I am, however, sketching a much more realistic scenario. More realistic still would be Columbia University putting pressure on him. But please, answer my question: are you a high school student?William Dembski_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Dr Dembski, I'm sure I could also create lots of dramatic scenarios to explain the removal of the video, but again, they would be based on exactly zero evidence. Is the Manhattan Institute a likely culprit in your view? I gather it's a conservative think tank which has or had some overlap with the Discovery Institute. It would certainly be ironic if they were responsible for the video's removal.yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

yakky d: Are you a high school student perchance? Let me tell you how the real world works. McWhorther gets a call from his boss at the Manhattan Institute: "Say, John, several of our biggest donors are threatening to withdraw funding because of your recent stunt at Bloggingheads. Knock it off and get that video pulled." Of course, I'm not saying that this is what happened. But something like this could easily have happened. I've witnessed this sort of stuff first-hand.William Dembski_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

All this talk of guns held to people's heads and censorship, threats, and intimidation is exciting, to be sure, but what actually is being suggested here? Do y'all really think PZ or Dawk called up McWhorter and told him to get Bloggingheads to withdraw the video or else?yakky d_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Gil, "Are only non-objectionable ideas allowed to be heard? According to the frothing-at-the-mouth Darwinists in the comments section, I guess that’s what they think, and want to enforce through threats and intimidation." It's because ID is a "pseudo-science." They're used to dealing with pseudo-sciences that don't make any sense, or that have no backup data. It's easy to dismiss them. What they are not used to dealing with is a "pseudo-science" like ID, that does make sense, and which does have backup data. Therefore, since they can't easily dismiss ID, their only ammunitions are censorship, threats and intimidation.CannuckianYankee_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Check out the Bloggingheads comments here: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=126767#poststop This comment John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable. reeks of a confession made with a gun held to one's head. Furthermore, it makes no sense. McWhorter said what he said and obviously meant it, and Behe did the same, as he always does. What in the hell does "not represent usefully" mean? Are only non-objectionable ideas allowed to be heard? According to the frothing-at-the-mouth Darwinists in the comments section, I guess that's what they think, and want to enforce through threats and intimidation.GilDodgen_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

I'm glad I could listen to the interview, so thanks to all involved. I remain skeptical about ID, but I agree with others here that the decision to pull it was bizarre and smacks of contemptible censorship. Whoever was behind it will probably soon learn something about the Streisand effect.Hu_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

The video was available for free and open download from bloggingheads.tv up until it was pulled.idnet.com.au_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply