Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Download the Cornell papers free here:



Before anyone stops you.

Gregory: I just read your 54 and 56 above. They fail to respond to my request in 53 above. Are you going to admit that you made a gross factual error in the other thread, or are you going to follow your usual practice of simply dropping discussions where you have been convicted of error, and hoping no one will notice? Gregory, there is a difference between intellectual life and political life. The politician's maxim is "Never publically admit error." The true philosopher's or scholar's maxim is: "Always publically admit error as soon as you are aware of it." It's evident that you follow the way of the politician rather than the way of the philosopher or scholar. I will not respond to you here again, but will look for your admission of error on the Warfare thread, and your response to my other refutations on the Chomsky thread. Timaeus
Explaining Innovation By Ann Gauger - June 13, 2013 Excerpt: It is widely believed that the first cells were much simpler than cells today. Estimates for the size of the smallest possible genome range from 250 to 400 genes. This hypothetical minimal genome would have included the genes necessary for cell division, replication, transcription, and translation, but not the genes necessary for making amino acids, nucleotides, vitamins, and many other metabolites, because it is also widely assumed that at least in the beginning, cells would have acquired these metabolites from the environment. So even if granted the existence of a first minimal cell, the challenge remains to explain how subsequent cells might have evolved the ability to make things like amino acids and vitamins for themselves, as nutrients disappeared. In a recently published open access paper called, “Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism versus Design,” Doug Axe and I reviewed how well neo-Darwinism has met this challenge.,,, ,,,Summary: What’s needed to explain metabolic innovation is foresight, investment, reapplication of old concepts as well as development of new ones, and the purposeful top-down organization of parts to serve the function of the whole. Not the kind of thing an unintelligent process can deliver, is it? http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/52887834874/explaining-innovation bornagain77
Dr. Gauger just highlighted one of the proceedings papers on BI's website: Explaining Innovation By Ann Gauger - June 13, 2013 http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/52887834874/explaining-innovation bornagain77
timaeus, your claim of 'pure scientific discussion' is a joke, it's a fraud. It is laughable because you personally don't even defend IDT as a 'purely scientific theory'. You just spin rhetoric in defense of a theory that is obviously *very personal* to you, though you deny this at any opportunity. I chimed in here (while maintaining my general leave) because of the totally absurd defense you made, which too clearly displayed Expelled Syndrome in action as yet another sad instance of 'big-little-tent IDM reality. #24 is spot-on in the first sentences, even if I might (and probably do) disagree with the author's worldview. That you are so oblivious as to ignore the politics of the attempt to gain academic credibility by the IDM, even though you claimed that you write in the field of politics (!, last published 2006) as a western religious scholar, is frankly astounding. No academically oriented person should follow the lead of your example, as from what I've seen. I'll probably have to repeat it a hundred times: “In voice or on video/TV, you wouldn’t last 5 minutes as an opponent, timaeus; your game would be up as hollow talk.” Expelled Syndrome as of yet, timaeus, does not seem to have inspired in you the courage to face a neutral playing field. Such is behaviour typical of defenders of the ideology that is now know as IDism. Gregory
Gregory at 47: Which of the papers from the Cornell conference have you read? In which of them do you find religious premises, arguments, or conclusions? In which of them do you find anything other than pure scientific discussion? With which of them do you have scientific disagreement? And if you haven't read any of the papers and aren't interested in discussing their contents, why are you participating on a thread about the papers delivered at the Cornell conference? Timaeus
timaeus, like I said there: "In voice or on video/TV, you wouldn’t last 5 minutes as an opponent, timaeus; your game would be up as hollow talk." And you simply won't rise to the challenge because you are scared to speak in public, to defend IDism with your person, not just in black-and-white on an ID-friendly blog. Your rhetoric is see-through, timaeus, but you think you are wearing clothes when you speak amongst nodding ideologues. The reality is, you suffer from IDist Expelled Syndrome. Please seek professional help. You might still recover. Repeat:
Right, and its not like the IDM wouldn’t try to buy academic credibility that it doesn’t have, is it? ;) And of course *nobody* thinks the DI is not actually a PR machine, fitted with lawyers, disguised in ‘scientific’ clothing, do they? :P ;)
One has to repeat such things to timaeus because he doesn't *hear* very well (it might be a physical problem). That kind of story in the blockquote above apparently isn't available in timaeus' (non-IDM) cave-world, hiding from the light of society, untenured, outcast as he is. Gregory
Gregory: So you *are* still watching Uncommon Descent! That means that you must be aware of my exposure of your false statement in #73 of: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-warfare-thesis-lies-this-time-from-cnn/ Yet you haven't issued a retraction. Are you incapable of admitting a factual error? I'll look for your answer in the appropriate place. Timaeus
Of related note: Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Articles and the "Insurrection" Against Journal Impact Factors - Casey Luskin - June 13, 2013 Excerpt: Last month the journal Science published a news article, "In 'Insurrection,' Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal Impact Factors," noting that: "More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual's work. They say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where the studies are published." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/peer-reviewed_p_1073181.html i.e. Such an obvious point should have been needless to say, but truthfulness always trumps prestige in science. Are any Darwinists listening? bornagain77
I guess it's too much to expect that the pollsters actually be educated in the thing they are trying to poll. Joe
Joe: Good point, we need to highlight a lot more like this. I am sick of strawman caricatures. KF kairosfocus
OT- I noticed on Allan McNeill's blog there was another poll conducted pertaining to evolution and creation. Why is it that these polls NEVER ask the right questions? The question should NOT be "do you accept the theory of evolution blah, blah blah. The question should be "do you accept taht accumulations of genetic accidents can produce not only the diversity of life but also the diversity of molecular machinery found in living organisms?" And if you answer "yes" please provide a testable hypothesis for such a claim. Joe
F/N: What I find ever so revealing about the studious avoidance of substance in the thread, multiplied by the sort of poisonous projections that are so obviously not demanded by the facts, is that the problem with design theory is not so much that it is trying to buy credibility but that -- absent the datum lines, marginalisations, career bustings and the like of the reigning evolutionary materialist orthodoxy -- it is seriously credible. Hence the poison, polarise and shut up/down at any cost, scorched earth tactics that are ever so common. KF PS: Worse, there is a certain undeniably distinguished Cornell prof in the conference . . . who happens to be a Young Earth Creationist. kairosfocus
Right, and its not like the IDM wouldn't try to buy academic credibility that it doesn't have, is it? ;) And of course *nobody* thinks the DI is not actually a PR machine, fitted with lawyers, disguised in 'scientific' clothing, do they? :P ;) To me, it's funny that Michael Behe openly admits (even in jest) that his own mother doesn't believe him when it comes to the IDism he is pushing in public, let alone that he is required to give a disclaimer that his local Lehigh Department rejects IDT. So, are they not supposed to refer to it as the "DI Summer Seminars" (which show Lee Strobel's film "The Case for Christ" at its events), but rather as the "Seattle Pacific" gatherings, y'know, that Protestant Liberal Arts University? The pants are too big for what the DI tries to wear. Gregory
Alan Fox: Apples and oranges. "I used to teach at Oxford" -- when stated without qualification -- will be taken to mean, by the average English-speaker, "I used to teach at Oxford University." Therefore, if the person does not explain the context, the person is deliberately misleading. "In a paper read at the Cornell conference" -- when stated without qualification -- will be taken to mean "In a paper read at a conference which took place at Cornell University." It does not automatically mean "In a paper read at a conference *run by* Cornell University." Anyone who knows how universities operate understands that universities often let out their space for conferences of all kinds, conferences organized by people who in many cases have nothing to do with the university. So there is no dishonesty in the phrase itself. Of course, someone could say or imply that a particular conference was sponsored by or initiated by Cornell University when it wasn't, and that would be misleading. But merely to refer to "the Cornell conference" on an ID web site, to inform people who were there (or who missed it) that the papers are now available, is not misleading. It's simply a handy quick reference. Timaeus
An acquaintance of a friend here, a retired ex-pat, is fond of mentioning his former occupation thus:
I used to teach at Oxford
The person in question in fact taught in a preparatory school (a private school for young children to the age of 11) in the Oxford conurbation. Acceptable shorthand? Disingenuous? I leave it to the reader to decide. PS @ Sal. You sound like you are stalking Allen MacNeill. ;) Alan Fox
I stand corrected. Interesting. kairosfocus
Allen MacNeill @ 24: You are being silly. "Cornell conference" is just handy shorthand for "the ID conference that took place at Cornell University." It's no different from referring to the "Pajaro Dunes conference" which got ID started (which doesn't imply that the management of the Pajaro Dunes resort endorses ID, but only that the conference took place there). What would you have ID people employ for a handy historical reference to the conference amongst themselves: "The conference on biological information that took place in 2011 at a conference center that just happened to be on the campus of an Ivy League university in New York State which we don't want to name for fear of seeming to appeal to that university's prestige"? That would be just stupid. You're being oversensitive. What's eating you, Allen? I thought you were more sensible than this. Does it perhaps rankle you that a highly respected Cornell geneticist was involved in the conference? Would you have been equally upset if Carl Sagan had organized a conference in the same room, under the same terms, the theme of which was that everything "from molecules to man" can be explained by blind chance and necessity, and if after the conference was over, the people attending it referred to it as their "Cornell conference"? I suspect you would look the other way. Just as the faculty at Iowa State would look the other way if any of their astronomers wrote popular science books endorsing a meaningless universe in which there was no God, but denied tenure to one of their number who wrote a popular book arguing for cosmic design -- even though that astronomer had a citation record exceeding anyone else's in his department. Darwinists worry about the most trivial things, and have the most ludicrous double standard when it comes to propriety. There's nothing wrong with the label "Cornell conference" as an in-house label for ID people referring back to the event. I think you have bigger things to worry about, Allen. Like the fact that Shapiro, the Altenberg group, etc., are shredding your beloved neo-Darwinism into little pieces. I suggest you concentrate on making some original contributions to evolutionary biology, rather than complaining about the name some ID folks used for their conference. Oh, and by the way, before you suggest that the people at the Cornell conference might be "lying about their work" I would suggest that you *read* their work, which is now available online, and will soon be published in book form. Timaeus
Well please do hold forth Dr. MacNeill and if, in being one who considers himself a 'Child of Light', you are indeed trying to say you are not really an atheist in the strict sense of the PZ Myers breed, then confess freely and openly for all to hear how you believe God, or perhaps a universal spirit, to have created the universe and all life in it. I for one would welcome such a deep confession,,, but alas I'm reserved in believing your sincerity in all this and suspect that this is merely another PR gimmick on your part,,, especially seeing that your 'friends' linked on your website are atheist (many hard core). Go figure. 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. bornagain77
And yes, Cornell was founded by a Quaker from upstate New York (his old homestead is a short drive/long walk from my hometown) and is indeed the only Ivy League university (perhaps the only world-class university, currently rated #14 in the world) to not be originally associated with or funded by a particular religious sect. There are Quaker colleges (Bryn Mawr, Earlham, Guilford, Haverford, Swarthmore, Wilmington, etc.) but Cornell is not one of them. Allen_MacNeill
BornAgain 77 @ 36, please see this: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/answer-now-what-was-question.html Allen_MacNeill
'The information age has begotten turmoil. It seems that the more information we have, the less peace the average person has. To many, an impression has developed that modern science has disproven the existence of the metaphysical realm, and doomed us to a sterile, pointless wandering in the wilderness of minutiae.' ... from the 'book description' on the page advertising the book, What your atheist professor,' etc I found that absolutely hilarious to read, Philip. Especially the second sentence, which seems to characterize the atheist. The metaphysics points in one direction, and they simply don't want to know. Well, an atheist, quite a popular chap, who used to post on here not long ago, loved metaphysics or some strange arcane version of it no-one else was privy to. His posts seemed to consist of concatenations of endless, highly erudite sophistries. I know he drove Philip mad, because characteristically of many of you, he tried to understand his convoluted disquisitions. You would never think of him as an eristic debater - he was too charming about it all - yet he always had an answer, which I'm sure no-one understood, or they'd have been able to nail him on some point. But to revert to that hilarious quote from the book you recommended (which I must buy), there is, in fact, a thoroughly deliberate, 'louche' rationale behind it all, namely, and in a nut-shell, Chomsky's 'manufactured consent'. They need to confuse the public, but not their own atheist myrmidons in white coats, holding test-tubes, with a packed lunch and a thermos of tea on the bench, etc... (Sorry about the 'thermos' business. I can't help myself any more, if I can slip the word in somewhere). They thrive on conflicting nonsense, which they 'sense', they have this 'hunch', this 'intuition', is 'counter-intuitive'. I kid you not. Multiworlds? 'Bring 'em on!' Stuff they can really get their teeth into, you know? I have a 'hunch', call it an 'intuition', if you like, that they're as close to being brain dead, as makes scant difference. Can't put my finger on any actual reason for thinking so, of course.... Axel
Thought your diminutive form of the demotic rendering of 'cornell', in your #33, as a 'SMALL callus on the foot', a refinement that added greatly to the humour, Joe. Axel
Not according to Wiki, KF, though we know it can be wilfully wrong. Yes, he was ejected from the Quakers for marrying outside their church, and, understandably in the circumstances, he ensured that it was to be non-sectarian. But I can see no indication that he renounced or lost his faith, as a result. As regards church attendance, if his wife was a church-goer, he might well have attended her church, at least, from time to time. Although that is speculation, it would not be an unwarranted assumption, it seems to me, in view of the ethos of 'respectability' businessmen of the day sought by adhering to the conventions of polite society; and for a while afterwards, if it comes to that. 'Respectability' has always played a key role in the upper reaches of power. Although New Age, rather than Christian, I believe - unless it's changed in recent decades - the Freemasons are hot on divorce - in the sense of being against it. I noticed recently Machiavelli made mention of the importance of respectability in the upper reaches of power, in one of his 'oeuvres'. But I can't sue him for plagiarism. Axel
Dr. MacNeill, it seems someone wrote a book with you in mind: What Your Atheist Professor Doesn't Know (But Should) [Kindle Edition] - Stephen Joseph Williams http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Professor-Doesnt-Should-ebook/dp/B0084Y3Q14 bornagain77
Axel, Actually Cornell is the exception. KF kairosfocus
LoL! Most people couldn't name any Ivy League schools beyond Hahvahd and Yale. And they think "Cornell" is some type of dishware, cookware, GMO corn or even a small callus on the foot. Joe
Considering they claim association with logic(!) and truth(!), Joe, it seems rather comical that they should suffer a bout of the vapours, in case any lustre from that Ivy league university, founded, of course, as I expect all of them were, by a Christian, and, necessarily, a Creationist, should rub off on the conference! Yes, life is just one damn thing after another, Forrest! And that box of chocolates and its assortment of flavours just keeps on getting bigger 'n bigger. Axel
@Dieb: Usage of the location the conference was held in the official or inofficial title of the conference is pretty common. And no one claimed that Cornell sponsored this event. So what is your problem? JWTruthInLove
Allen! Thanks for visiting every now and then. Many regrets that we're on opposite sides of this discussion. Were it not for the ID debates, I'm sure you and I would have many pleasant exchanges. I hope you and yours are well. sincere regards, Sal scordova
"Cornell" is just an identifier for the conference. Ya see there have been other pro-ID conferences... Joe

Leave a Reply