[Update:] Beliefnet Re-Re-Titles My Piece on President Bush

_{William Dembski

August 5, 2005

Intelligent Design}

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

At my prompting, Beliefnet has now reverted to the original title (go here).

[Earlier I had written:] After President Bush’s recently stated public support for teaching intelligent design, an editor at Beliefnet asked me to respond to it. Moreover, she asked me to clarify where I stand on creationism. I responded with a brief essay that appears on my designinference.com website (go here). I titled that essay “Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design.” That essay has now appeared on Beliefnet, where it was re-titled — without my knowledge or permission — “Intelligent Design, Yes; Creationism, No” (go here). This new title is contentious and misleading. My target in this essay is Darwinian materialism. I discuss creationism in this essay to clarify how my understanding of intelligent design differs from it.

Comments

Gumpngreen I don't think he understands that he's setting up his own personal definition of "algorithm" which I don't agree with. He then goes on to show how the genetic code doesn't qualify as an algorithm under his definition. It's a classic straw man argument. I'll keep playing as long as it doesn't waste much of my time. Sartre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm "The concept of an algorithm is often illustrated by the example of a recipe, although many algorithms are much more complex; algorithms often have steps that repeat (iterate) or require decisions (such as logic or comparison) until the task is completed." A gene is a recipe for a protein. The recipe is written in codons thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code The algorithm begins when a copy of the recipe (in the form of mRNA) is fed into a ribosome. The ribosome begins by looking for the "start" code. When it encounters a start code it starts interatively stepping along the codon chain adding an amino acid for each codon it encounters until it encounters a stop code at which time it kicks out the completed protein. This is the very definition of "algorithm" given by wiki in the "recipe" format. I can put together a flow chart of the iterative process steps used to translate genes into proteins. Flow charts are how algorithms such as these are formally described. The experiments behind what we know about the functioning of the genetic code in protein synthesis are legion and adequate examples are given in the wiki article on the genetic code. "Marshall W. Nirenberg and Heinrich J. Matthaei at the National Institutes of Health performed the experiments which first elucidated the correspondence between the codons and the amino acids for which they code. Har Gobind Khorana expanded on Nirenberg's work and found the codes for the amino acids that Nirenberg's methods could not. Khorana and Nirenberg won a share of the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this work." If you didn't know of these or the definition of an algorithm and how the two fit perfectly you are really so far out of my league that I can't really have a discussion with you. When you offered up a goofy punk rock porn lord's obscure papers and sought to equate that with an honest-to-God accomplished biochemist from the Scripps Research institute it just went over the top. I can continue goading you and making you look like a fool as long as it entertains me, or Dembski bans one or both of us, or you can act like a grownup and concede the point. Your choice.DaveScot_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Sartre, can you please explain to me what anything you have said in this post means? Dont cite polysylabicnonsequiter.org or DR. Braincrack et. al., just put it in your own words. What is the point you are trying to make, if any? When ATHIEST FLAKES know NOTHING they think they know EVERYTHING.MGD_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

So in short, your argument that the usage of "algorithm" and "code" is invalid is based upon presupposed origins. Gotcha.Gumpngreen_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Dave, Your entire posts began with ad hominems. Instead of attacking the material you are worried about the person's background. You are even unable to know the fallacies of logic. Anyway, I have a degree in philosophy (I just graduated) and attending UNCONN in the spring for ecological psychology (which deals with a synthesis of physics, biology, and psychology). During this past semester I did publish a paper and I gave the paper at two conferences (granted, they were undergrad conferences and a journal, I was confused for a grad student and was almost rejected because of that). It is a little hard for me to make something of myself more than that since I am only 25. I have 3 papers in the making for publication within the next few months. Also, four patents do not constitute knowledge in biology. But I still find it hard to believe since I have pointed out your poor logic. So good job, you made something of yourself in COMPUTERS. You proved to me that you work in computers. Great. Still, you have continually made ridiculous accusations, misunderstood too many points, been unable to critique arguments with any adequacy to be taken seriously. NONE of those patents have any to do with what we are talking about. Why do CREATIONSISTS think that, if they have knowledge in ONE AREA, they have knowledge in ALL AREAS? Go figure.sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Dave, Since you have failed to look at the many other authors above, I will continually pushing this. To consider the genes as codes and algorithms (which I showed with Maturana and Varela) is misleading due to the fact that the world is not symbolic or pre-given. Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) ask "Which came first, the world (ultraviolet reflectance) or the image (ultraviolet senesitve vision)?" The genes for trichromatic vision of bees is not coded in the genes because "the colors of flowers appear to have COEVLOVED with the ultraviolet sensitve, trichromatic vision of bees" ("The Embodied Mind: Cognitve Science and Human Experience"; pg. 201). Thus, the "image" (they disregard the idea of representation does not exist AFTER the perceptual object, but rather the object and the "image" coexist. Algorithms and codes are symbols that exist independently of what they represent; that is, algorithms and codes are representations that act on a pre-given world. There is nothing to compute since the genes specify. As Varela et. al. state, "...[Living] beings and their environments stand relation to each other through MUTUAL SPECIFICATION OR CODETERMINATION. Thus what we describe as environmental regularities are not external features that have been internalized, as representationalism and adaptionism both assume. Environmental regularities are the result of a conjoint hisotry, a congruence that unflods from a long hisoty of codetermination" (198-99). Hence, genes are not codes of the outside world since there is no outside. The dualism of internal and external are inadequate; that is, summarizing Susan Oyama "...[There] is no intelligible distinction between inherited (biological, genetically based) and acquired (environmentally mediated) characteristics. What is required for evolutionary change is not genetically ENCODED as opposed to acquired traits, but functioning developmental systems: ecologically embedded genomes" (emphasis added (199-200). Also, Varela et. al. show that "the fossil record does not look imcomplete; intermediate forms often simply cannot be imagined. Transitions must be a matter of global rearrangements involving cooperative effects and genetic exchanges. Such effects can be shown to appear in simple cases even in the absence of any selection" (188). Also, varela et. al. suggest that evolutionary processes should be analyzed as SATISFICING (taking a suboptimal solution that is satisfactory) rather than optimizing: here selection operates as a broad survival filter that admits any structure that has sufficient is no longer on traits but rather or organismic patterns via their life history. Another metaphor recently suggested for this post-Darwinian conception of the evolutionary process is ecolution as BRICOLAGE, the putting together of parts and items in complicated arrays, not because they fullfil some IDEAL DESIGN (emphasis added) but simply because they are possible" (196). Thus, Behe's IC does not work since, the fine-tuning is not because of some designer. Varela et. al. suggest the type of logic that I have suggested along with Swenson, "The first step is to switch from a prescriptive logic to a proscriptive logic one, that is, from the idea that what is not allowed is forbidden to the idea that what is not forbidded is allowed. In the context of evolution this shift means that we remove selection as a prescriptive process that guides and INSTRUCTS in the task of improving fitness. In contrast, in a proscriptive context natural selection can been to operate, but in a modified sense: selection discards what is not compatible with survival and reproduction. This proscriptive orientation shifts our attention to the temendous diveristy of biological structures at all levels. ...[They] highlight the way in which the enormous deversity constantly generated at all levels in the genetic and evolutionary process both shapes and is shaped by the coupling with the environment. We have already seen repeatedly that such emergent properties provide one of the main lessons from research in neuroscience and the study of sel-organizing systems an nonlinear networks" (195-96). Varela et. al. also show the "importance of emergent properties in a complex network (whether neural, genetic, or cellular)" (190). Thus, if emergence occurs without algorithms, then it does not matter what level we are discussing, the same methodology of neural systems can be used for genetics, as I mentioned.sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Wow. What's your major, Sartre, ad hominem? HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHA Here's a bit of my work. Where may I see a bit of yours? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=springer&FIELD1=INZZ&co1=AND&TERM2=dell&FIELD2=ASNM&d=ptxt I understand if you have done nothing of merit in your entire life. In fact I predict it.DaveScot_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Dave, As for those citations, most of the citations come from either ID proponents, Christian journals, online comments (good choice there), or people are either trying to get ID in schools or keep it out of schools. Suffice it to say, Dembski's work has been cited on not-so-high-standard scale. I saw one paper ("Photosynthetic models with maximum entropy production in irreversible charge transfer steps") by Juretic D, Zupanovic P. who are Faculty of Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Education in Computational Biology and Chemistry. That sounds more reputable than all of Dembski's papers. Anyway, here are the results for Swenson (although not all are the Swenson we are talking about, the one's that do cite the Swenson we are speaking about are from higher order journals, not Christian, on-line forums, etc. like Dembski's). http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=%22rod+swenson%22 Also, as was seen with Kauffman, Swenson's ideas are consistent with Kauffman's and Prigogine (who you THOUGHT INCORRECTLY was supporting ID and was so happy, but instead is in-line with Swenson). I love when people cite others who they think support their ideas, but in fact support mine. It shows how unintelligent you are since you don't even understand the ideas being presented and are unable to critically evaluate anything.sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

Dave, "DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get me started on that lying incompetent sack of excrement Wesley Elsberry." Ahh, saying someone is a liar where you have been lying on here for the past few weeks. Such hostility. As far as I know, you are not intelligent, you support a theory where you admitted that you have not read most of the writings, you clearly pick-and-choose certain ideas and think they support your claim (i.e. Prigogine), you fail to see that Swenson's ideas have been published before they appeared on his website, you fail to see that most of Dembski's work is self-published, you fail to see that other people in the field of science say that Swenson is credible whereas people outside of ID think that every ID theorist is a pseudo-scientist, etc. You are right. You are very smart. You proved to me in a formal manner that you are an idiot. Good job.sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

Dave, I did not see this post of yours. "Asking for an experiment that confirms the genetic code is algorithmic is like asking for an experiment that confirms water is wet." Nice side-stepping. So you admit that there is no experiment that verifies that the genetic code is algorithmic. Thank you for stating my point. For some reason ID proponents analogies are so out of wack. Water and wetness are verified through experience. I can see water and I can feel the wetness. Algorithms are non-sensory. Not very bright are you? "Calculators execute algorithms. Duh! I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t claim the nervous system did the same thing. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a straw man. I claimed the genetic code is algorithmic. In case you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t realize it the genetic code is not the nervous system. Is english your first language because you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem to know it very well?" Calculators do not "compute". Computation is a living creatures activity. I never met a calculator that was a live. But due to your insanity, I wouldn't doubt that you have spent many lonely nights with one. Also, I never said that the nervous system and the genes were identical. What I was saying is that theorists have described the nervous system as algorithmic and that is being replaced. Also, the same people who have shown this to be wrong are using the SAME methods to disprove it. Try to keep up pal. "Swenson is publishing his own crank crap on his own crank websites. WHOIS doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t lie. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt." You are truly one stupid individual. That database only shows that Swenson owns that website. But if you looked on the articles themselves, they show where they were published at. How freaking stupid are you really. I am now saying for a fact that there is no way you are a computer programmer. You are too unbelievably stupid to have graduated from college, much less high school. Take the time to look at the article and see where they were published. It was after they were published he put them on that site. Mostly every author has done that, as has Dembski. You idiot. "Oh really. What are they then? Aside from a 1969 Yale master of fine arts degree and punk rock porn pimp of course." Again, people in the field who are credible say that he is. He has published papers in journals and attended conferences. What have you done? Nothing. "Getting invited to present a paper at an obscure conference isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a credential." Umm, as far as I know those conferences are not obscure. I love how you make judements not based on any evidence, just like how you thought what Dembski's work is. "All kinds of crap gets published in obscure journals. I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see Nature on the list. Comparing Swenson to Dembski is just plain ignorant. Dembski is a double PhD, practicing professor, and his name is just about a household word." Obscure journals huh. How did you come to this conclusion. Once again, no evidence. Hmm, peer-reviewed journals are not obscure fool. Again, ask any main theorist in biology and Dembski is seen as a pseudo-scientist. No one takes him seriously. As far as I know, Dembski never published an article in "Nature." I do see, however, that someone critiqued Dembski and Dembski's response was not even in "Nature" which shows alot about his response (I know, its a conspiracy, not his work). As a matter of fact, most of his articles are self-pubslished, including his newest paper "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence" and another entitled "Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller." Sorry, these papers have NO journal title at the top because they are not published outside of his website. You are truly stupid. The "Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design" is not a real journal. It isn't even obscure, but non-existent. I've never heard of "Science Insights." What conference was at the Ian Ramsey Centre? Oh, lets not forget about the Christian journals, but you guys aren't Creationists huh. Give me a break. And what about favorable reviews to other IDists. Yeah, real objective there. You are insane. Also, Dembski was removed from his duties at Baylor (I am unsure if he even taught there). He is now teaching, I am unsure about this so correct me if I am wrong, at some religous school. Yes, he has a background in math and philosophy. However, Swenson has a background in philosophy as well (I studied philosophy and Swenson's ideas on the history of philosopy is correct). Also, Dembski has been shown to be wrong about his No Free Lunch Theorems by the authors who invented them. In addition, you do not even know Dembski's work since you admitted that you haven't even read most of his work. Absolutely amazing. So lets see, you say Swenson self-publishes his work even though you can clearly see that they were published in journals (and then you quickly say they are obscure journals, so nice back-tracking by the way). However, Dembski's articles are mostly self-published. They are not referenced to an independent journal. Secondly, you say that Swenson's conferences are obscure, but you provide no evidence (another CREATIONIST tactic). However, I see no conference that Demsbki attended that is outside of the ID vs. Evolution debate, which shows that his ideas taken for themselves have no merit. And finally, you guys say you are not creationists, but your articles are in Christian journals. Hmmm, very fishy here. I rather talk a punk rocker porn star instead of a religous zealot.sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Dave, Ã¢â‚¬Å“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.Ã¢â‚¬Â Does this say anything about a designer. For some reason you make inference leaps that are unimaginable. Prigogine's idea stems from the fact that thermodynamics (see the connection with Swenson) with ideas in self-organization (See Freeman's article "Consciousness, Intentionality, and Causality online at the website I provided earlier). The idea of self-organization with Prigogine is also summarized in Kauffman's book "The Orgin of Order" where Nicolis and Prigogine book "Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems" shows how chemical systems are "open to the flow of matter and energy, and because they use energy continuously, they are called DISSIPATIVE SYSTEMS. Such seystems can exhibit the "spontaneous" onset of spatially ordered patterns" (Kauffman 567). Also, it is shown that "in the absence of precipitation patterns no pattern can emerge at such an equilibrium [which the concentration of X and that of Y woul deach be constant unchanging in time. Therefore, we must imagine that the chemical system is displaced away from thermodynmaic equilibrium. Persistent displacement of such a system from thermodynamic equilibrium implies both that the system is open to matter, energy, or both and that ordered chemical patterns can arise" (Kaufmann 566-67). Thus, we see many points here. One, Prigogine does not mean "accident" to be an designer, but rather following physical LAWS. This point is in agreement with Swenson as I have mentioned. Two, Prigogine belongs to the theory of self-organization. Didn't you write: "Eric SchneiderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intothecool.com which also rejects algorithmic processes in nature, rejects both the mainstream evolution narrative and intelligent design, and posits that some spooky necessity requires self-organization of life. Both Schneider and Swenson are obsessed with thermodynamics." Hmmm, your Nobel Prize winner wrote an article titled ""Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems". Interesting. Three, ID proponents seem to always obscure the facts. Again, Prigogine is not an ID theorist nor would he even support it. He belongs to the theory that ID has trouble unraveling and even understanding.sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Dave, You are still stuck on this Swenson thing. You are an idiot. I provided other authors that say basically the same thing and you have yet to touch upon them. If you are so confident why don't you attack them as well?sartre_{August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

Don't get me started on that lying incompetent sack of excrement Wesley Elsberry.DaveScot_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Sartre "None of them are respected outside of DI." You are brutally ignorant. Phillip Skell, for instance, is an NAS member. Here's another supporters not on DI's list. Make that at least 401 scientists including the winner of two Nobel prizes. "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero." - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28DaveScot_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Satre - an interesting bit of history, a question, and a quote. In 1982 Rod Swenson's punk rock work was on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine. In that same year my computer work was on the cover of Popular Science Magazine (April 1982 PS cover story was portable computers and mine was pictured along with Adam Osborne's and the Kaypro). How about that for a contrast! :-) So why is it called computer science if it isn't science? You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" -George Bernard ShawDaveScot_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Dave, I know all about that list. None of them are respected outside of DI. The scientists that I cite have been referenced outside of their click. Scientists outside of ID have already spoken out against them. To your 400, there are more than 400 scientists against them. Also, 400 scientists is a limited amount considering how many scienists there are altogether. In my school alone, there are about 50 scientists at my school, and my school is not all that big. I am sure Dembski is annoyed with you for getting his work WRONG. You still can't accept the fact that he wrote me and saying that I wa right. Also, here is what Elsberry said about you (a scientist): "David Scott Springer was banned from PT for making threatening posts and for impersonating another person at PT, both of which are sufficient to warrant banning. He seems like a loose cannon; Dembski is welcome to him." I am sure more scientists would agree if they got a chance to talk to you. Why are you against the scientific process of change? Pathetic. I will read that little piece later.sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Sartre At least 400 scientists support me. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443 I hope Bill doesn't get too annoyed with me for yanking your chain. Here's your next reading assignement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_scienceDaveScot_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Gump, Thank you for the response. I don't have time right now to look at all of the articles, but here is a response to some of the articles. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html And Dave, You guys complain that scientists don't look at Dembski and immediately discard his ideas instead of looking at the actual material and dismissing them through critique. Why do you do the same? Once again, people in the scientific community come up with some of the same conclusions through actual experimentation and say that Swenson is credible. Who should I believe? People in the field or you, who has self-taught himself which is questionable in itself since you couldn't even realize that those articles on his site were from publications. You were kicked off of PandasThumb for a reason. You are an idiot (I hate calling people that, but your responses on here show that to be true). Nobody takes you seriously. You think that engineering is science to make yourself feel good about yourself. You think that you have a "great mind," but you have been shown to be wrong more than "0.3%" of the time. I have shown you to be wrong about the sources of Swenson's articles. I have shown you to be wrong that Swenson has been published in reputable journals and invited to conferences (all you had to do is look at his reference page and see this, but you are too dumb to do this). I have shown you to be wrong about Dembski's work where he even replied to me saying that I am right, which makes YOU WRONG. I am sure that Dembski would not appreciate you associating your intelligence with his when, even though you support him, you don't even know his work. I have shown that scientists in the field support Swenson, whereas you have no credentials in science, so you have no place to say anything. I have shown that Schneider has been published in real journals and books along with other prominent authors. I have shown other authors who are against the idea that organisms compute algorithmically, instead of realizing that algorithms are godd MODELS of organisms. That is alot of wrongs with not too many rights. A great mind. I think not. So I will say again, you should gather all the facts before you criticize. Maybe he is self-taught as well. According to you, that is enough for credibility. However, I don't think actual scientists think that, so I am guessing he has more. Anyway, if he does not, many others share his views who are trained in the sciences, as shown above, so I am still in the right. Give it up old man. You do not know how science works. You have continually failed to show a hint of intelligence, where you have been shown to be false about many things as listed above. You can make-fun all you want, but we both know (well I do, since I am sure you are unlikely to recognize your own ignorance and stupidity) that you have no idea what you are talking about. As seen from PandsThumb, a scientist booted you off for been over the top ignorant and, I am guessing, harassing. Grow up.sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Dave, I will wait for Carello to send me his crendentials. Why would Robert Shaw and Michael Turvey (both from UCONN, where I know Shaw has a degree in physics) put their future on the line? Why would Stoffregen, who is clearly credible, say that Swenson is credible? I would believe those scientists over a hack on the internet. Above, I gave more people who are against the idea of algorithms. Why aren't you attacking them? Interesting. Also, here is what Andy Clark says, "Gentic algorithms SIMULATE [a search in the the space of structural options]" ("Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again"; pg. 90). Also, he summarizes Beer and Gallagher (1992) as saying, "A genetic algorithm was USED to discover a set of features that would enable this kind of architecture to generate stable and robust locomotion" (pg. 91). Here is another quote from Freeman and Nunez: As a result, the mind as com puter met a phor pro vided not only a redefinition of fundamental concepts such as reasoning, thought, perception, knowledge, and learning, but also what later became an entire conceptual apparatus for how to under stand peo ple, neu rons, languages, brains, and experiences in class - rooms, in terms of information-processing: algorithms, subroutines, for mallogic modules, content-addressable memories for storage, pattern completion by retrieval, and so on" (pg. xiii). Even though they are talking about the mind, both are related in the fact that the organism and the mind are non-distinguishable. Here, we can see that the algorithms are used to simulate evolution, but the organisms themselves do not act algorithmically. Also, when you say that Schneider is crazy, you state, "Both Schneider and Swenson are obsessed with thermodynamics." However, Kauffman says, "It is now time to consider whether physically realizable autocatalytic sets will form when account is taken of the thermodynamic and kinetic properties of real polymer systems. The fundamental point is that, under appropriate--and apparently realistic--condition, the answer is "yes" ("The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution"; pg. 318). Let me guess, you think Kauffman isn't credible either, huh. Again, Dembski has no credentials in science, engineering, etc. Only in math, philosophy, psychology, and theology. Nothing in biology or physics. Are you going to criticize him for his lack of training in those fields. And for the last time, Swenson has been published in articles and been INVITED to speak at conferences. These people would not publish him or invite him to these conferences. You are not providining the complete picture. Just as you think that design can be detected by measuring the effects, I am measuring Swenson by his effects of publishing articles and his appearances at conferences. I think it is hilarious that you are unable to apply your own logic (poor as it may be) to other areas. So, I have now shown other thinkers besides Swenson. Are they also part of this massive conspiracy you paranoid old man. Again, I will believe real scientists over an internet lurker who has no background in the sciences at all (and for the last time engineering is NOT science, get over it). They say that Swenson has credentials. His ideas are throughout the scientific literature.sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Well...I'm not about to get into the middle of this argument but I thought I'd point out an article that clears the misconception that ID proponents do not publish peer-reviewed publications. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC That's a partial list and only has to do with publications directly related to ID. You'd have to search elsewhere for non-ID publications published by those authors.Gumpngreen_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Swenson's credentials... http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?week=2002-11-17 NAKED TRUTH: If you've run across the name of Yale alumnus Rod Swenson lately, it's probably in conjunction with the Yale Divest from Israel Campaign (YDIC), one of the latest entries in a movement that has sprung up on campuses across the country urging universities to divest from companies that conduct business in Israel. Swenson, who received an MFA from Yale in 1969 and now lectures at the University of Connecticut, serves as the "alumni spokesperson" for YDIC, which launched earlier this month. But unlike many on the anti-Israel left, Swenson doesn't limit his complaints to the current Sharon regime: In an October letter he wrote to the Yale Daily News protesting an upcoming lecture by Ehud Barak, Swenson described the former prime minister as a "war criminal." "It is an ominous day for human rights," Swenson wrote, "when such a person is given a platform to speak at Yale, and doubly so when the subject, of all things, is ethics." Some might say the same of Swenson who, before creating the punk band the Plasmatics in 1978, was a porn impresario in New York. Under the sobriquet "Captain Kink," Swenson was the proprietor of Captain Kink's Sex Theater, a live sex show in Times Square. Evidently he has since lost some of his early enthusiasm for the importance of free speech. --------------- Swenson has a 36 year-old master's degree in fine arts. There's his credentials. No science. No engineering. No nothing aside from punk rock porn pimp of course. Good one, Sartre. You sure know how to pick your cranks... ROFLMAO!DaveScot_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Sartre "I only said that no ID theorist has never had an article published in a peer-reviewed journal that mentioned ID" Wrong again. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22intelligent+design%22+%22Rivista+di+Biologia%22+&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en Asking for an experiment that confirms the genetic code is algorithmic is like asking for an experiment that confirms water is wet. Calculators execute algorithms. Duh! I didn't claim the nervous system did the same thing. That's a straw man. I claimed the genetic code is algorithmic. In case you didn't realize it the genetic code is not the nervous system. Is english your first language because you don't seem to know it very well? Swenson is publishing his own crank crap on his own crank websites. WHOIS doesn't lie. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt. "Swenson has plenty of credentials" Oh really. What are they then? Aside from a 1969 Yale master of fine arts degree and punk rock porn pimp of course. Getting invited to present a paper at an obscure conference isn't a credential. All kinds of crap gets published in obscure journals. I didn't see Nature on the list. Comparing Swenson to Dembski is just plain ignorant. Dembski is a double PhD, practicing professor, and his name is just about a household word. Look at all these citations: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=wa+dembski&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&lr= Who has cited Swenson? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? HAHAHAHADaveScot_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Dave, I love how you think that people who do not agree with you are fruitloops. I have not heard of Eric D. Schneider, but I know that you are unqualified to say who are real scientists because you ahve not even been trained in the field. But from the book description on amazon.com , they claim that Schneider is an authority in thermodynmics. Again, you have not shown me any intelligence whatsoever for me to take your critiques seriously. You just say someone is a crank but have not given any intellectual comments whatsoever. Also, Dembski is not trained in evolution. So why don't you attack him as well? EVERYBODY in the scientific community thinks that IDists are cranks. The funny thing is, these are the one's who are in the groups that you call real scientists. And, yes, I do bet that you love the internet because it is the only place that you can spout off mindless ideas and vent your anger at the scientific community for refusing to accept the garbage that you love so much. And no, I am not "island." You seriously need mental help for your paranoia. You think science is out to get IDists, that nobody has credentials if you say they have none. Once again, the people that I cite appear in peer-reviewed articles, ID has yet to appear in ONE. You decide who are the real scientists. The scientific community has by accepting the people who I cite in their journals, whileas IDists continually get rejected.sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Dave, I did a little research myself. I contacted Thomas A. Stoffregen from: Director, Human Factors Research Laboratory School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota Web: www.hfrl.umn.edu This is what he had to say: "For hard details contact Claudia Carello at CESPA; her email is on their web site. Swenson has plenty of credentials, but he also has a colorful background. He was (I've been told) a member of a somewhat notorious punk band back in the 80s or thereabouts. I know nothing about any of the other things you mention." So yes, his background that you mention, as far as Stoffregen knows, has some credibility. However, just because of the background does not diminish what training he has had. I will email Carello (I also met her at UNCONN) and let you know what I find out. Again, since Swenson has been published in peer-review articles and asked to participate in academic conferences, his affiliation in those groups are irrelevant. You are playing politics. You think if you mention unethical behavior it diminishes his work that he has done afterwards. You should run for office. By the way, since you do have trouble readining a little bit, let me provide something for you. "ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, vol. 901, pp. 311-319, 2000", "ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 3(4), 317-348", Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 6, 1997, pp. 1-47", "ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 9(l),47-96", "Conference on Closure, Emergent Organizations, and Their Dynamics, Ghent, Belgium, May 3-5, 1999", "Evolutionary Systems, 155-180, 1998.", "International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS)", originally "International Society for General Systems Research (ISGSR)". Those are just a few journals and conferences that he wrote for and attended. So you think that all of these are porn rings or part of his punk rock band. You are a freaking joke (not not too intelligent if you couldn't see where those articles were orginally published since they were RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE). Also, you are way too paranoid about the workings of science if you think that real journals would accept articles with someone with no credentials. But, I will email Carello to show you, as Stoffregen has said, "has plenty of credentials."sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Dave, The third post that you made shows poor readership. Yes, those are his websites, but no, those articles are not self-published. I also think it is funny that you talk about self-publication on a site that is of the same nature as Swenson's. If you had the capability to synthesize ideas, you would have seen that rodswenson.com is the main site and from there there are links to papers that are on the other sites that you listed above. For example, spontaneousorder.net is a link for the paper "Autocatakinetics, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production: A Principled Foundation Towards the Study of Human Ecology", which is listed on rodswenson.com . The site, ecologicalpsychology.com , is for the paper "Thermodynamics Reasons for Perception-Action Cyles" (co-authored by Michael T. Turvey from UCONN and who I met up there). The site, philosophyofscience.net , has the paper "Spontaneous Order, Autocatakinetic Closure, and the Development of Space-Time". Also, if you were able to read a little bit more, you would have seen at the top of each paper where the paper was originally published. It is commonplace to have authors papers, after publication, to put it on-line. This is the same thing that Dembski has done. So if you think that Swenson's articles are self-published, then, following the same logic (which I know is hard for you to do), so does Dembski (a claim that I do not endorse).sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Dave, Calculators do not COMPUTE mathematics. As shown with Von Neumann's quote, what machines do and what we do are NOT equivalent. Calculators manipulate symbols that are, yes, programmed. But this is not active computation. Humans do not worked by manipulating symbols ((see Freeman's and Nunez's article [I forgot to list it above] ( http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/reclaim_Intro.PDF )). Also, many theorists who support algorithmic activities state that they are emergent properties. These are from the same people who you call qualified scientists, so your question is already answered from their point of view.sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Dave, There are so many things wrong with your comments I do not know where to begin. First, I never questioned crendentials (I only said that no ID theorist has never had an article published in a peer-reviewed journal that mentioned ID). I told you that I am looking for the historical root of the idea to see where an experiment confirmed the idea about algorithms. Also, the last links that I provided (with Freeman, Maturana and Varela, Gibson, and now Cisek [ http://www.cisek.org/pavel/Pubs/Cis1999.pdf ]). Also, in "Reclaiming Cognition", Freeman and Nunez (1999) quote Von Neumann saying, "Thus the outward forms of OUR mathematics are not absolutely relevant from the point of view of evaluating what the mathematical or logical language TRUYLY used by the central nervous system is.... It is characterized by less logical and arithmetical depth than what we are normally used to.... What ever the system is, it cannot fail to differ considerably from what we CONSCIOUSLY and explicitly consider as mathematics" (xii). Thus, even though Von Neumann suggests that the nervous system does compute somewhat, he wrote this in 1958 and theorists are now showing that there is no computation whatsoever (given by the people listed above). So Swenson is not the only one. He was only one example.sartre_{August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

While I'm playing detective... The last crank to show up here posting links to nutty fringe science was "island". Interestingly, "sartre" showed up within a week or two of "island" getting the axe. Island was enamored of Eric Schneider's intothecool.com which also rejects algorithmic processes in nature, rejects both the mainstream evolution narrative and intelligent design, and posits that some spooky necessity requires self-organization of life. Both Schneider and Swenson are obsessed with thermodynamics. Moreover, Swenson and Schneider are quite intertwined in the fruitloop literature so anyone reading either one of the obscure obfuscated piles of BS would be led to the other - here's the connections (or at least some of them using common buzzwords in the crank theories) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=swenson+schneider+thermodynamic+gradient+evolution Sartre - I'm going to float the hypothesis that you are the crank formerly known as "island". I'm right 99.7% of the time so there is an outside chance you're not the same person.DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Just for a lark I dug a little deeper into who Rod Swenson is. For one thing, he's the owner, adminstrative, and technical contact for all the following websites (obtained through public records in WHOIS database) spontaneousorder.net ecologicalpsychology.com philosophyofscience.net rodswenson.com entropylaw.com The registering organization is Worldwide, Advanced Propaedeutics and the email addy for rswenson@aya.yale.edu AYA is the the Yale Alumni association so we may assumed that Roddy is a Yalie. Roddy is published, alrighty. He's his own publisher at all the above websites which he owns and on which he promotes his "work". Roddy appears to be not just a crank but a crank on steroids. An UBER-crank if you will. Now, I had assumed that google hits I saw previously referring to a "Rod Swenson" were for another Swenson as that Roddy was the founder of the punk rock group Plasmatics and also Captain Kink's live sex show theater in Time's Square. OH HO! Not so fast. That Rod Swenson is also a Yale alumni. What're the odds? The following is from the Wall Street Journal online at http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002640 Who Is Rod Swenson? At Yale, as at several other Ivy League colleges, there's a fringe movement to divest the university from Israel. The Yale Daily News reports that the "alumni spokesman" for the divestment campaign is one "Rod Swenson MFA '69." According to the Web site of the defunct punk-rock band the Plasmatics: With credentials that included an MFA from Yale, and creation of the legendary Captain Kink's live sex show theatre in Times Square, the Plasmatics was put together in 1978 by radical anti-artist Rod Swenson around lead singer Wendy O. Williams. Williams, who died in 1998, "was a shock-rock queen who rose from the ranks of the porn industry where Rod Swenson, her companion of over 20 years, featured her in the live sex shows he promoted," according to this biography. ---------------------- Lovely. Here I am linking to molecular biology researchers from Scripps and Stanford GSB graduates that own genetic engineering companies and Sartre is linking to a punk rock porn lord. ROFLMAO! Ain't the internet great!DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Sartre I can't resist this: "to say that unconscious entities are able to compute math is absolutely ridiculous" I've seen a lot of electronic calculators able to compute math... why don't you give us a case in point of ridiculousness by trying to make a case for consciousness in a calculator. The salient question isn't whether inanimate objects can execute algorithmic processes (they clearly can) but rather whether objects that can execute algorithmic processes must be of intelligent design. Thanks again for playing.DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Sartre You were the one that started questioning credentials so I found a PhD in molecular biology at the Scripps Research Institute explicitely stating that the genetic code is an algorithm. It's a self-evident truth AFAIC and only a crank would claim it isn't. Then to back it up I found an alumni of the Stanford Graduate School of Business who is the CEO of a bioinformatics company explicitely saying the genetic code is an algorithm. I'm afraid the ball is in your court to find equally qualified persons explicitely backing up your claim that the genetic code is not an algorithm. Fetch!DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply