Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now.  Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments
Ardeekay, "Are you endorsing the view that time is a concept that is hard to define, or that it simply doesn’t exist? Because that would be silly. Time is a very tangible concept, it can even be ripped and bent. Yes I am endorsing those and I'm correct. Time is undefined and may not exist. Please define time and otherwise elaborate further. For example, how can infinity be reconciled logically? As for creationism and ID. It doesn't matter if they're one and the same ultimately. The only question is, is it productive to investigate using science. And so you can only have a problem with the scientific method. You must think it's an insufficient filter to make forward progress. The difference between ID and creationism, is that creationism has an absolute set in stone, which is god. Whereas ID will allow for matter itself to be the intelligent agent, or for something not yet conceived of, to be the intelligent agent. But there will be intelligence involved. So ID could be atheist (not god and not matter as cause). Do you disagree?lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Gil, maybe we should get off the path of making monstrously large blanket statements about the truthfulness or falseness of intelligent design (or evolution), and actually support your wild claims with evidence. You claim that your expertise in mathematics and software engineering has helped you to more or less "see the light" through Darwinist lies. You say that proponents of evolution use illogical and evidence-deprived arguments. Can you give me some examples of any such arguments, and what specifically is illogical and evidence-deprived? Going further, could you give me an example of what you would accept as positive evidence for the "Darwinist" side? On a friendly aside, why exactly do you feel an expert in mathematics and software engineering would have any particular insight onto a matter that is explicitly biological? You wouldn't hire a software engineer to do your plumbing or appraise your house, would you? I hope you'd hire a plumber or a real estate agent.Ardeekay
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
I don’t see anything wrong with this “dilemma”, that is until you sufficiently answer the various connections between ID and relgion (sic)that have been posted, some even from Dembski’s own mouth.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that at one time I was militant atheist like you. The design argument, and my expertise in mathematics and software engineering, were major factors in my rejection of what I now consider to be illogical and evidence-deprived arguments against design in the universe and living systems, which leaps out at every turn, unless one is irrevocably pre-committed to philosophical materialism and nihilism. Of course, a design inference has deism- or theism-friendly implications, just as chance-and-necessity materialism has atheistic implications. Live with it. You sir, are the (anti)religious fanatic who refuses to follow the evidence where it leads, not I.GilDodgen
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
lamarck,
I’m going to guess that you used to be christian and you have a chip on your shoulder, and that you’ve never seen other posts from me.
As for the first guess, no, and for the second guess yes, I have seen many other posts by you. Is your most recent one somehow different in a way I should know about? And what do you mean by “what is time”? Are you endorsing the view that time is a concept that is hard to define, or that it simply doesn’t exist? Because that would be silly. Time is a very tangible concept, it can even be ripped and bent.
And whats the problem if ID is tied to creationism
Not just that they are tied, but that they are one and the same.Ardeekay
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
I’m going to guess that you used to be christian and you have a chip on your shoulder, and that you’ve never seen other posts from me.
As for the first guess, no, and for the second guess yes, I have seen many other posts by you. Is your most recent one somehow different in a way I should know about? And what do you mean by "what is time"? Are you endorsing the view that time is a concept that is hard to define, or that it simply doesn't exist? Because that would be silly. Time is a very tangible concept, it can even be ripped and bent.
And whats the problem if ID is tied to creationism
Not just that they are tied, but that they are one and the same.RDK
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Ardeekay, I'm going to guess that you used to be christian and you have a chip on your shoulder, and that you've never seen other posts from me. My "bias" is that the answer to the problem likely lies in the answer to "what is time?". And whats the problem if ID is tied to creationism? Isn't that what the scientific method is there for?lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Gil, if my work is so misleading that my readers have become my "victims," then you or Dembski or anyone else should refute the dozens of points that I have made about intelligent design and the telling behavior of its advocates. Dembski has read my book or at least skimmed it. He has written two posts about it. But he has not actually refuted anything I have written. The sole exception was his objection to my references to the Book of Revelation; regarding prophecies of stars falling to the Earth, he cited C.S. Lewis's assertion that the Bible is written for "grown-ups" who know how to separate metaphor from literalism. It's a strange objection coming from him; millions of ID sympathizers believe that the Book of Revelation is to be taken literally and will play out more or less as described. Perhaps Dembski thinks that these Biblical literalists are not "grown-ups"? If so, he should say this plainly. He should tell the members of ID's "natural constituency" that their beliefs are childish. The advocates of intelligent design cannot refute what I've written about their movement because there is nothing to refute. Also, I can ride my bike real fast. Barrett Brown Brooklyn, NY barriticus@gmail.comBarrettBrown
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
lamarck,
MeganC why not just come out of the closet. You believe Random mutation and natural selection built both Deep Blue and Gary Kasparov; and that man walking on the moon was inevitable because of the properties contained in the first ball of matter from the big bang.
And you believe that everything that has ever occurred was inevitable due to the properties contained in the creative powers of a highly complex entity (most probably the Biblical war god Yahweh, but don't let anyone else know that!). Mr. Dodgen,
The bottom line is that his only familiarity with ID was through the mainstream media. All he “knew” was that ID is creationism lite.
I don't see anything wrong with this "dilemma", that is until you sufficiently answer the various connections between ID and relgion that have been posted, some even from Dembski's own mouth.Ardeekay
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
MeganC why not just come out of the closet. You believe Random mutation and natural selection built both Deep Blue and Gary Kasparov; and that man walking on the moon was inevitable because of the properties contained in the first ball of matter from the big bang.lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Deadman why don't you keep it here. Will you go so far as saying you can't separate bias from thought? I don't see any reason why not. I think what you really mean is we can't confirm that we can. You have to go as far out as "the apple will not fall this time" and that's not constructive or interesting, unless you see the pathway to the next level. Lead us there.lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
OK, StephenB. Lets have some context here. Should a family protect itself by being innoculated with a 1970's flu vaccination. Or would it maybe be more prudent to use the current vaccine against the cuurent flu strain. You know, the so called Swine flu that has evolved from the 70's version. Real context. Your call.Geology Guy
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
The most frustrating thing in all of this is that the vast majority of people have no idea what ID is all about, so they become easy victims of people like Barrett Brown. My wife’s cousin is an extraordinarily bright and talented engineer, and he knows that I’m a software engineer in aerospace R&D. He was stunned to learn of my interest in, and defense of, ID theory. At one family gathering he asked (I paraphrase): “You don’t actually believe that nonsense do you?” I then asked him which ID literature he was familiar with. (Please accept my apologies for ending a sentence with a preposition, but the alternatives are worse. As Winston Churchill was once purported to have exclaimed: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.” But I digress.) I listed about half a dozen standard ID book titles. He had not read them, and had not even heard of them. I then listed the names of the major ID proponents. He had not heard of any of them. The bottom line is that his only familiarity with ID was through the mainstream media. All he “knew” was that ID is creationism lite. At that point I changed the subject to finite element analysis of nonlinear dynamic systems, and a very interesting conversation ensued.GilDodgen
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
StephenB asks:
How do you extract relgious ideology from “irreducible complexity.” Would deadman-932 care to address that point without the usual motive mongering? Not likely.
It is my understanding that Dembski was a theist first, then hit upon his argument regarding design...after already being a believer in a God that created all things, period. I haven't seen anyone produce any example of "irreducible complexity" that is demonstrably devoid of presuppositional bias and/or fallacy-mongering illogic, StephenB. Perhaps you can debate that with me at Theology Web, since you seem keen on making claims about such matters. I believe we all arrive at our own "inferences" or arguments regarding observed complex structures with presuppositional biases in place at some level of ideation. This is a standard observation in science that is widely accepted to influence not only what we "observe" but also, of course, the quality and nature of inferences drawn from what we observe through the filter of our preexisting biases. Some people (you, StephenB?) may *claim* that it is possible to (1) reliably eliminate preexisting bias and then (2) eliably demonstrate that some irreducibly complex structure has some "more likely correct" inferred origin in an "Intelligent Designer" but I have yet to see that demonstrated. You can try that over at Theology Web, where there is a nicely structured environment with less potential of moderator bias, in my biased view. Surely, you'd be willing to accomodate that change of venue so that you can show your argumentative skillzorsdeadman_932
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
I rest my case. As I pointed out at @8, Darwinists ignore context, confuse motives with methods, and mistake an inference for a presupposition. To that we could add the distinction between Christian apologetics and the legitimate science that supports it. Given the fact that this site provides an FAQ, anti-ID partisans have had sufficient time to learn the differences alluded to, so there is nothing here reminiscent of an honest misunderstanding. These failures to address the issue can fairly be interpreted in only one of one of two ways. It’s either willful ignorance or mischievous misrepresentation, all courtesy of the mindless Wikipedia connection. Either way, there is no excuse and no reason to assume good faith dialogue.
Right! We'll just forget the whole Wedge Document, and the whole bit where Dembski tells one thing to a secular audience and another thing to his Christian audience. We'll forget the whole Logos of John's Gospel thing. We'll forget every single one of those Wikipedia quotes where Dembski clearly shows that Intelligent Design is nothing more than dolled-up creationism.
Again, I ask the relevant question: How do you extract relgious ideology from “irreducible complexity.” Would deadman-932 care to address that point without the usual motive mongering? Not likely.
Because, Stephen, it seems that you're the one who can't tell the difference between inference and presupposition. Where is your inference coming from? Upon what scientific facts is ID based? How did you come to the conclusion that organisms were intelligently designed? Because of hieroglyphics? You're only fooling yourself, Steve.RDK
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
allanius & Clive, "The vast majority of Americans accept design because it is self-evident." "You’re right allanius, the vast majority of Americans accept design..." So is this regarded as consensus science or consensus non-science? And should GilDodgen be informed?MeganC
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
----deadman-932: "Barrett’s purpose, which he supported, (contrary to your claim) was to merely point out the seeming incongruity of ID as “not necessarily” religious but simultaneously based on Christ — as Dembski has said *all* theories in science must be:" I rest my case. As I pointed out at @8, Darwinists ignore context, confuse motives with methods, and mistake an inference for a presupposition. To that we could add the distinction between Christian apologetics and the legitimate science that supports it. Given the fact that this site provides an FAQ, anti-ID partisans have had sufficient time to learn the differences alluded to, so there is nothing here reminiscent of an honest misunderstanding. These failures to address the issue can fairly be interpreted in only one of one of two ways. It's either willful ignorance or mischievous misrepresentation, all courtesy of the mindless Wikipedia connection. Either way, there is no excuse and no reason to assume good faith dialogue. Again, I ask the relevant question: How do you extract relgious ideology from "irreducible complexity." Would deadman-932 care to address that point without the usual motive mongering? Not likely.StephenB
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Nor is he pretending to be a philosopher or logician, Clive. Barrett's purpose, which he supported, (contrary to your claim) was to merely point out the seeming incongruity of ID as "not necessarily" religious but simultaneously based on Christ -- as Dembski has said *all* theories in science must be: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski As you see, there was more than one Dembski quote to choose from regarding this. The touch of literary irony comes with the nature of the information concerning the claims of the Newton of Information Theory. It's a shame you couldn't be more humorous about it, Clive. Or at least a little less seemingly injured.deadman_932
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Barrett Brown has since worked up a clown routine at the Huffington Post as an update to my blog post. You're right allanius, the vast majority of Americans accept design---which, according to our clown friend, is a result of evolution. For everything is a result of evolution to him. He must really dislike certain outcomes of evolution. Whence comes the discernment between competing worldviews that are all outcomes of evolution? If evolution, to Barrett, admittedly produces false worldviews, such as religion, then why trust it in any other regard? What would Barrett use to make the judgment between evolutionary outcomes that was not itself an outcome of evolution and subject to the same doubt? The judge cannot also be on trial, the thing on trial cannot also be the judge, or else the verdict is invalid. It's what we call special pleading on Barrett's part. But, he is, after all, a comedian, and not a philosopher or logician.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Barrett’s absolutely right—back in the dark old days before the Internet, disinformation was sustainable. Darwinism could not be openly challenged. The notion that nature cannot be the product of undirected causes was not permitted to be heard. The academic journals would not tolerate it. Secular publishing houses would not tolerate it. Science departments at universities would not tolerate it. That’s why so many people enjoy stopping by Uncommon Descent on their coffee break to “talk a little treason.” Barrett prefers the tall tales about origins of Darwin and his cohort because they support a certain worldview. Since worldview is linked to identity, he also prefers a cultural environment where those tall tales cannot be deconstructed. Uncommon Descent, to him, is an affront. Its very existence is personal. It is not surprising that bloggers at UD might have said some unseemly things in the heat of the battle over the years. After all, they have no disinterested editor-friend to restrain them from printing what they feel. One might extend the same consideration to Barrett and his ad-hominem attack over at HuffPo. It is not rational to claim that Dembski is “lying” about his interest in ID when he openly describes himself as a theologian. Poor Barrett—he doesn’t realize that the battle has already been lost in the court of public opinion. The faux buzz surrounding HuffPo has bewitched him. The vast majority of Americans accept design because it is self-evident. And there’s nothing Judge Jones can do about that.allanius
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
So, it appears that I should have said Mr. Brown and not Mr. Barrett. Sorry, but I have never heard of him so I will revise my last comment as follows: Intellectual deficits can be explained in a number of ways and the last thing I would want to do is plant the idea in someone's mind that Mr. Brown is stupid.StephenB
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
In science education, as in most things, Pareto’s 80/20 principle seems to apply to the ignorance quotient among anti-ID enthusiasts. I have found that most of my posts consist of providing remedial education for Darwinists who falter on the same 20% of the errors that make up 80% of their correspondence. In short, there are three things that they typically cannot comprehend and, given the reactions to my efforts at remediation, will never comprehend. [A] Darwinists do not understand the meaning of the word, “context.” Countless times I have found myself explaining that truth is unified, meaning that theology and science provide different aspects of that same truth. So, when Dembski speaks of “Logos theory,” or when Behe acknowledges that a theist might find ID more “plausible,” or when Stephen Meyer acknowledges that, from a theological perspective, he believes that the designer is God, Darwinists attribute the changing context to an equivocation or a lie. They can’t conceive that a fact can be interpreted theologically, philosophically, and scientifically, and that each those interpretations will provide a different kind of testimony. Thus, if I say that the scientifically verifiable theory of the “big bang” can be expressed Biblically as, “Let there be light,” the Darwinist howls, “Aha, I told you that he was smuggling religion into his science.” Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the Darwinists who can’t comprehend this are “stupid,” I am merely pointing to an inexplicable intellectual deficit and an interesting social phenomenon that sociology has yet to explain. [B] Darwinists do not understand the difference between a motive and a method. I can attest to this failing since I have encountered it numerous times on this very site. Darwinists, believing that they have un-earthed highly classified information, continually hearken back to Judge Jones’ decision in which he held that ID that "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” and is therefore “religious.” One searches in vain for any indication that Judge Jones understands even at the most basic level that even if that were true, which it isn’t, it would have nothing at all to do with the fact that ID motives have nothing at all to do with its methods. I have asked Darwinists multiple times to extract religion from the concept of “irreducible complexity.” Obviously they can’t. Again, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Darwinists who can’t make this simple distinction are stupid. I am merely pointing out that they don’t respond well to remedial education. [C] Darwinists do not understand the difference between a presupposition and an inference. I would not want to count the number of times that Darwinists have stated outright that ID’s inference to the best explanation is imbedded in its hypothesis---that its findings are mere tautologies---that its ultimate conclusion is a restatement of its premise. More precisely, they cannot comprehend that fact that a presupposition, as expressed through creation science, begins with Biblical faith, while an inference, as expressed through intelligent design, begins with empirical observation. Once again, I am not saying that anyone who cannot mark this difference is stupid. I am simply explaining the difficulty I have had in disabusing them of this notion. In summary, Darwinists keep making the same basic few errors, so those in ID who do remedial education find it necessary to repeat themselves from time to time. In keeping with that point, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to dehumanize Mr. Barrett or attribute to him any negative quality of the mind simply because he cannot understand the points at issue. Intellectual deficits can be explained in a number of ways and last thing I would want to do is plant the idea in someone’s mind that he is stupid.StephenB
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Marylin Manson isn't the kid from "Wonder Years"?!! But anyway why do people conflate proponents with the theory? If an IDist is religious that does not make ID a religious-bent theory.Joseph
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, You're exactly right. The fact that he calls Dr. Dembski a liar by taking him out of context, and a racist by associating with the Southern Baptists, tells me that this clown cannot make a real argument, so he resorts to clownish clowning and Barrett Browning.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
In a UK based jurisdiction, he would be on his way to court to defend a libel charge right now, and with the prospect of having to pay the full costs of the other party and the court too, in addition to damages.
Don't you think that the notorious Judge Jones video overdubed by Dr. Dr. Dembski would have had the same consequences.
But those who set out to drive wedges across our civilisation and polarise us into warring factions count on that.
Too true. BTW, which side created the wedge document?sparc
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Clive: If Mr Brown had simply taken time to work his way through the weak argument correctives here at UD, he would have saved making a classic example of red herrings dragged across the track of truth and led out to hominem oil soaked strawmen ignited to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. I will take just one point: why did he not simply read here on the Logos remark before wrenching it utterly out of context through what darwinist advocates are ever so fond of terming "quote mining"? And, if he failed to do his homework that badly [after all his post date is Aug 6th 2009, and for months, the WAC's and the glossary have been shown on every page of the blog he was attacking . . . ], how can he roundly accuse Dr Dembski -- who holds double PhDs, one in Mathematics,the other in philosophy (and a masters in theology out of was irt Princeton) -- of "lying" when he highlighed that NT theology has here passed a point of empirical test? In a UK based jurisdiction, he would be on his way to court to defend a libel charge right now, and with the prospect of having to pay the full costs of the other party and the court too, in addition to damages. Satire is one thing, calling people liars without good reason is another thing entirely: uncivil behaviour, and indeed tort. For shame! The sad thing is that a lot of people will be duped by it, instead of thinking: wait a minute, there might be another side to the story and checking out the facts. But those who set out to drive wedges across our civilisation and polarise us into warring factions count on that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
deadman_932 Wasn't my sense of humor obvious? It was the same sort of satire as Mr. Brown's, long on boring and colorless satire and short on argument. Except, maybe mine was a little bit better than colorless :)Clive Hayden
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
What, no sense of humor, Clive? I thought satire and sarcasm was all the rage here -but only when it's your seriously serious satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, right? When you were in high school did you ever tell any of those guys you didn't like that you didn't like them? Or did you filter out the things you didn't like and pretend nothing was actually said? Just curious! Your friend, deadman_932deadman_932
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
Excellent takedown, Clive. I noticed that Mr Brown said absolutely nothing about the scientific content of ID theory, for obvious reasons. Instead, it seems he prefers to exploit a few unfortunate episodes for lulz, several of which involve a person who doesn't even post here anymore! Whatever anyone thinks about UD, they can't deny that 99% of the posts here are strictly science related. If Mr Brown happens to read this, I have just two words in response to his hatchet job article: DEEPAK CHOPRA!!herb
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10

Leave a Reply