Dawkins haunted by the ghost of (ulp!) Ben Stein

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 26, 2017

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Naturalism}

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

Oh, look, everybody’s got a haunt, right? But they are not equally damning. From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:

On the story about evolutionary atheist Richard Dawkins getting disinvited as an event speaker by a progressive Berkeley radio station (see here and here), Discovery Institute chairman of the board Bruce Chapman points out the best irony. While Dawkins protests his “de-platforming” over past comments on Islam, in 2009 he helped get Ben Stein de-platformed as a commencement speaker at the University of Vermont over — you guessed it — Stein’s take on evolution and his role in the film Expelled. More.

Of course. Dawkins thought he would be eaten last on the progressive menu but he was really just an hors d’oeuvres. The progressives’ war is ultimately on reality and Dawkins is no real use to them because, at bottom, he believes that there is some sort of reality, even if our consciousness of it is an illusion.

See also: Evolution News and Views on Dawkins dumped from Berkeley: Did it serve him right?

Mark Steyn on Richard Dawkins getting dumped at Berkeley

Dawkins dumped from Berkeley due to “hurtful words”

and

How naturalism rots science from the head down

Comments

Great, so Seversky chokes causing it to hurl false accusations and bald assertions my way and then runs away. TypicalET_{August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Seversky- You don't get to make bald assertions. You actually have to make your case and you have failed to do so. And now you are equivocating as mere evolution is not even being debated. If what I asked for doesn't exist then why do evolutionists still make the claims? YOU said the people making the claims have to support them. Are you now claiming that no one claims that natural selection and other blind, mindless processes produced bacterial flagella and ATP synthase? Really? What did I ignore, Seversky? Again you just blurt out a false accusation with nothing to support it. What am I rejecting? That is another claim you cannot support. It isn't that you and yours don't know everything. It appears that you don't know anything when it comes to the evolution of protein machines, vision systems and Common Descent. Clearly you are just another clueless troll.ET_{August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

ET @ 42
Let it be known that I did not move any goal posts nor did I raise any bar.
Sure you did. You know the standard evidences for evolution as well as I do. You just dismiss them and demand what you know cannot be done at this time
All I did was ask evolutionists to support their claims.
You didn't ask for any old support. You asked for the kind of support you know doesn't exist yet and ignored everything else.
Seversky said it was up to the people making the claims to support them. All I did was to show that evolutionists do not do so and Seversky has now confirmed that fact. And that has made him? very upset
This is ET's version of the three wise monkeys - in this case the three dumb monkeys - see no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence. You wouldn't be a Donald Trump supporter by any chance, would you?Seversky_{August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

LocalMinimum @ 40
What it appears ET is demanding is proof via experiment and/or a mechanically sound model. Something standard to a science such as, say, physics; where you’d demonstrate/prove something about a phenomenon such as, say, gravity.
That's right, but he's rejecting all the standard evidences for evolution and demanding those which he knows are unobtainable given the current capabilities of science and technology
Your claim appears to be that such a thing is impractical. This would, of course, be in conflict with the “theory” status of evolution.
There's no conflict. As I said, science has only been working on evolution for 150 years or so. There's no reason to think we know now everything that can be known about a process like evolution which may have taken place over billions of years. A thousand years from now biology may well have the capability to run the sort of simulation I suggested. We can't do it now but that doesn't mean we never will, which is what ET is heckling about.Seversky_{August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Seversky @38:
To prove that hypothesis [...] would require simulating that process in real time in the laboratory.
No, that's wrong. All it's required is to present a comprehensive theoretical description of the cellular, molecular, physicochemical steps required to achieve the given results. Obviously in must be precise, coherent and very well documented. This is serious non-fiction. No mortal being alive today can provide such a presentation. But the offer is up. Spread the news. Maybe someone will dare to take the test. Then we'll see. OK?Dionisio_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

rvb8:
What Shubin did is make a prediction, acess a location, and search. What he and his team predicted finding in the early shallow freshwater, ancient environment, they did find.
He was looking where he did because he thought tetrapods did not yet exist. The tracks in Poland say tetrapods existed before Tiktaalik, which means he was looking in the wrong place for what he was looking for.ET_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Let it be known that I did not move any goal posts nor did I raise any bar. All I did was ask evolutionists to support their claims. Seversky said it was up to the people making the claims to support them. All I did was to show that evolutionists do not do so and Seversky has now confirmed that fact. And that has made him? very upsetET_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Seversky is just being a baby because he? knows he cannot support the claims of his position. He? blames everyone else for this failure like all babies do. Thanks, Seversky, for admitting the claims of your position are not scientific. Hiding behind father time is a sure sign that you don't know anything about science.ET_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 38: What it appears ET is demanding is proof via experiment and/or a mechanically sound model. Something standard to a science such as, say, physics; where you'd demonstrate/prove something about a phenomenon such as, say, gravity. Your claim appears to be that such a thing is impractical. This would, of course, be in conflict with the "theory" status of evolution. If any objective model or experiment that supports evolution while standing on its own two legs is impractical, perhaps evolution is impractical as a science?LocalMinimum_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Seversky @38: Did you mean "Axel @27"? :) BTW, did you read the comment @29?Dionisio_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

Axel @ 28
Seversky’s gone all quiet since your #8, ET.
ET's tactic is to employ the informal fallacy of moving the goalposts or raising the bar. He knows all the standard evidences for evolution full well but dismisses them and demands proofs or tests which he knows are impractical. In the case of the bacterial flagellum it's true that science has not yet been able to map out in detail the evolutionary path between that organelle and any specified precursor. However, let's suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that there was a hypothesis of how it might have happened which estimated that the process could have taken around 5,000 years. To prove that hypothesis to ET or his ilk's satisfaction would require simulating that process in real time in the laboratory. Tell me what scientist or research team or institution is going to commit to a 5,000 year experiment whose outcome will not be known until millennia after the original researchers are dead? Especially when you can be damn sure that, even if all that effort produces a working flagellum, ET's descendants will still dismiss it as not being proof of natural processes but rather, because it was run in a laboratory, it was proof of design. It's easy to throw out that sort of challenge when you know it can't be answered in practice but it proves nothing and I've already wasted much more time on it than it deserves.Seversky_{July 29, 2017
July
07
Jul
29
29
2017
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

ET @34, I'm glad you know who they are. Your disrespect for their lifelong passion, and calling, is also notable. I am aware also that tetrapods found in Poland predate Tiktaalik, proving of course that the forces of nature, the environment and selection, are universal. What Shubin did is make a prediction, acess a location, and search. What he and his team predicted finding in the early shallow freshwater, ancient environment, they did find. What does ID discover, through its predictive lens?rvb8_{July 29, 2017
July
07
Jul
29
29
2017
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

To add to what LocalMinimum posted: Dr. Shubin found an organism that was adapted to its environment. Neither he nor any other human knows if any number of genetic change can produce the types of transitional forms required to go from fish to terrestrial walker. And without a mechanism his evolutionary interpretations are nothing more than wishful thinking.ET_{July 29, 2017
July
07
Jul
29
29
2017
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

rvb8: Neil Shubin found a "walking fish", a mosaic that is commonly observed in the wild in myriad forms in the very present. Admittedly, it's the oldest "walking fish" found; well done; but nearly immediately afterwards, evidence of earlier tetrapods (the alleged descendants of this "walking fish") was discovered in Poland. I don't see anything compelling about this beyond the discovery of a new species.LocalMinimum_{July 29, 2017
July
07
Jul
29
29
2017
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

I know who they are. I also know my claim about them is true. Shubin doesn't have a testable mechanism capable of producing fish. So he losesET_{July 29, 2017
July
07
Jul
29
29
2017
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

ET, Jerry Coyne is the Emiratus Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago, and this title kind of diminishes ID's attempts at diminishing him. Neil Shubin,the Robert R. Bensley Professor of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, and Associate Dean of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, and Professor on the Committee of Evolutionary Biology, at the University of Chicago, will also survive the mallings of ET, and ID. Richard Dawkins? Well, where to begin with his resume? Likewise the devastating attacks from ID have left little residue, as he tours the world trying to bring a little light to the benighted.(Read his 'Awards and Recognition' entry at wiki, it's bloody long.) Stephen Hawkings? Again, you have a computer. I'm sure ET and Co, can handle me, Bob, Pindi, etc, but this fragment of academia I have just noted? Not a chance; "chewed up, and removed by a velocitus expulsion of air from the lungs", comes to mind. I don't mind being ridiculed on this site as a mental light weight, I am modest enough to largely agree with that description. But the slandering of truly great living thinkers, and contributors to humanity's store of knowledge is childish, and an increasing concern here at UD. Shubin spent four years looking for one rock that proved the conjecture that fish, over time became land animals; amazing, determined, foot slogging science; What do you have again? Oh yes, another coffee table edition by Wells/Dembski, Dembski/Behe, Wells/Whoever etc. Where is Kairos?rvb8_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

The word “troll” seems to come to mind, doesn’t it?
That title's taken already.Mung_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Did professors Behe and Moran have a friendly chat after this presentation? :) https://www.youtube.com/embed/s6XAXjiyRfMDionisio_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Seversky’s gone all quiet since your #8, ET. I can give him a hand...here is a tip from Mike Behe on how to falsify Darwinian Evolution in the lab...By the same method the Falsifying Intelligent Design is possible... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf26zlgZ0es Unfortunately for unknown reason Darwinists refused to falsify evolution and prove ID wrong...J-Mac_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

ET and Axel: I see you two have noticed that Seversky has taken a long break from what you thought was a serious discussion. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but this is not the first time that the named interlocutor quits a discussion when it turns too difficult for him to handle it. Last July 8th the same happened in another discussion thread. The same interlocutor did not answer a series of questions addressed to him in 5 consecutive comments @64-68 starting here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635316 Evidently you may have serious discussions with other folks, but not with the named interlocutor. Some folks lack what is required in order to engage in serious discussions. They can't stand the heat. The word "troll" seems to come to mind, doesn't it? :)Dionisio_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

It's just a case of "butt-hurt". :)ET_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Seversky's gone all quiet since your #8, ET.Axel_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Hawking had to correct one of his books. When will evolutionist writers start following suit?Mung_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 21:
...it does seem odd that it is the modern evolutionary synthesis which dominates all science departments in all universities worthy of the title.
There are plenty of archaic schools of thought and sciences which once dominated science departments, that are now even mocked by the pop-sci establishment whose attention you so value. Phrenology, for instance. Oh, wait; Darwinians still do that, they just limit it now to subjects in the deep past.LocalMinimum_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Jerry Coyne, Dawkins, Shubin, Hawking et al., cannot say how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum arose by natural selection or any other blind, mindless process. The same goes for any and all protein machines. They can't even say how eukaryotes arose- they can only guess. They cannot say how the genetic code arose. They can only guess. There isn't any evidence that natural selection is the designer mimic Darwin posited. So yes all evolutionists and materialists are a bunch of mouthy losers.ET_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

daveS:
I hope everything’s ok. He has mentioned being very busy lately.
And here I was taking him for granted; now you have me worried. Busy can be good, though; great, even. I hope it is so. rvb8:
He is a great foil, and is passionate about his position.
Assuredly, it is not my place to speak for him; but I'd expect he feels likewise.LocalMinimum_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

rvb8- You don't seem to know anything about science. Jerry Coyne is not a good science writer. Richard Dawkins is a poseur. Neil Shubin doesn't even know what makes a fish a fish and Hawking says that the laws of physics "just are the way they are". The modern synthesis is useless. It doesn't help anyone with any research. Not only that its claims cannot be tested. But then again you know anything about science so you wouldn't understand what that means. As for the KT boundary my claim is correct. If the impactor caused the extinction of dinos then we would find their fossils in and just above it. You couldn't even understand that.ET_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

ET, I have a post grsduate degree in History, and an amateur's interest in science. I like good science writing; Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Neil Shubin, Stephen Hawking,Stephen Gould, etc I also try to refrain from name calling, something the contributors here often forget. As we are just a, "bunch of mouthy losers", it does seem odd that it is the modern evolutionary synthesis which dominates all science departments in all universities worthy of the title. PBS, BBC, All major US broadcasters (minus FOX, Heh:) NASA, WTO,UN, WHO,AAAS, Nature, Sci America, the EU (not sure about quirky little Britain anymore, they have their own ID groups),National Geographic, etc etc etc... Not bad company for, "a bunch of mouthy losers" eh?:)rvb8_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

KF is also educated, something that rvb8 lacks.ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

I too, wish Kairos well, and hope he returns shortly. He is a great foil, and is passionate about his position. He was also exceedingly prolific, something the posts of NEWS, and Mr Barry Arrington lack.rvb8_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply