Regular readers at this site will recognize Gil (here, for example), a long time UD fave.
Elizabeth Liddle has invited him to become a contributing author at her blog, The Skeptical Zone, and here is his latest post:
Probabilities And Skepticism
Posted on February 18, 2012 by GilDodgen
I thought about including this in my previous thread, but it has grown so large that I suspect it would be lost in the abyss. If Skeptical Zone readers are interested I’ll write a series of these posts, in which I’ll develop a number of themes concerning why I abandoned evolutionary orthodoxy and became convinced that an inference to design is most reasonable.
As most of you know, I am a classical musician. All great musical compositions have a theme, and the theme of this site is “think it possible that you may be mistaken.” With that theme in mind, might I suggest some skepticism concerning probabilities?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Gil, don’t bother! Even as her guest,Liddle outright insulted you numerous times, cordially of course. Her removal here is quite appropriate, she said all she needed long ago.
In light of your history with the subject this is especially ridiculous.
“Gil is not reasoning to a conclusion from anything resembling an informed analysis, but rather rationalizing a foregone conclusion driven by ideology.”
Princess Leia: “Gil! – it’s a trap, it’s a trap!!!”
Gil: “R2, fire up the Finite Element Analyzers.”
Obi-Wan: “Gil. Don’t give in to hate. That leads to the Dark Side.”
You mean leads to the “Far Side”
Nah. That would imply a wit they demonstrably lack.
Hi butifnot
Gil himself stated:
Why do you say he was insulted?
Cheers
“I’d want to see the actual reasoning, and the actual probability calculations that you think make the chance remote. Not just liquid nasal ejecta :)”
“Gil is not reasoning to a conclusion from anything resembling an informed analysis, but rather rationalizing a foregone conclusion driven by ideology.”
Charles-
You misunderstand- it ain’t their “wit” as it ain’t by design-> they are the far side…
Hi butifnot
This was clearly a joking reference to the “beverage out the nose” test cited by Gil in his original post. It even has a smiley to signal a jocular tone.
This was not by Elizabeth.
In my opinion, it’s not fair to characterise any of Elizabeth’s comments in that post as outright insults.
Cheers
My mistake, didn’t put the nose thing together and read Elizabeth at the top of that post.
Thank you butifnot.
Preaching to the choir is not my objective, and I must give Liz some kudos for inviting me. She has been very cordial and respectful to me in personal correspondence. In fact, when I told Liz about how my mother — who was once a devout atheist who vilified me when she discovered I had become a born-again Christian and had developed an interest in ID — asked me and my Christian friends to pray for her after she was run over by a drunk driver and nearly killed, Liz told me that she was touched.
I had a Damascus Road experience, and want to share it with all who desire to listen.
I think Gil’s argument here is as far as specified complexity will go in science. All you can really do with CSI is make assumptions that you consider to be reasonable and use it to show that others are doing the same (with Avida and Ev, etc.). Then you have created an argument about which assumptions are reasonable and which strain credulity, an argument which is favorable to ID. But as far as “proving” anything (or for instance determining in actuality the difference between designed and undesigned phenomena) I don’t think CSI is going to get there because you must use those assumptions.
“In fact, when I told Liz about how my mother…..”
I remember that post, and yes, she said she was touched. Liz still has remnants of her Christian past lurking. I’m not certain to what extent she actually was a Christian. It sounds like her orthodoxy was way off, but she was genuinely committed to whatever she believed at the time.
CannuckianYankee:
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)
Cheers
“By their fruit you will recognize them.”
Yeah, that’s more than true enough.
I agree with Tragic Mishap. I think visually when you look at something and infer that it is designed, it is because your eyes take in hundreds or even thousands of subtle features into consideration which make it nearly impossible to articulate with speech and would be incomprehensible if it even could be spelled out since the realization is made by apprehending them at the same time.
I think that instead of constantly looking for ways to formalize CSI and FCSI or whatever, more effort should be put towards showing how pursuing research from a design perspective is more rewarding. You can look at proteins and see strategies that make sense to us. This should lead to predictions about what other types of connected processes might exist and things to look for that wouldn’t be assumed from an evolutionary stand point.