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

_{Clive Hayden

August 8, 2009

Culture, Intelligent Design, Off Topic}

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

KF, I'll tone it down, but I'll shine light as is required. There was a lengthy investigation of John Rogers and Huffington by the LA Times which dug up sordid issue after issue. Who is John Roger, good friend of Huffington? He is a "mystical traveler" who channels through Roger Delano Hinkins. Evidently he performs exorcisms as well. From Wiki: "In late 1963 Hinkins had a near-death experience while undergoing surgery for a kidney stone after which he fell into a nine-day coma. After this experience, Hinkins was aware of another ‘spiritual personality’ that had superseded / merged with his previous personality. He began to refer to himself as “John-Roger’ in recognition of this transformation. [14]" So, another "being" or "spiritual personality" "merged" with his previous personality. This new persona - the double identity - began to see new spiritual truths in which he shares now with the faithful. Ms. Huffington got caught up with the "new identity" in the 80s and 90s. She has been a major supporter and contributer to the cult. "From the Glossary of ‘Fulfilling Your Spiritual Promise’, ‘Mystical Traveler Consciousness’ is defined as energy from the highest source of Spirit whose purpose on Earth is to awaken people to the awareness of their Souls. This consciousness is always embodied through a physical form on Earth. [16]"" So essentially, you have an online "news" rag that schills for socialist utopia, that slings mud at other people for their personal religious beliefs. Yet, in her hypocrisy and in Browns hypocrisy, they refuse to look at themselves. Mr. Brown may be an atheist, but he is working for a believer in "channeling" of John Rogers. I'm curious as to what the "mystical traveler" has taught Mr. Brown about science, religion and everything?DATCG_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

KF, Yes it is over the top. Satire and humor like that of any SNL skit or the brand that HuffPo writers schill out in their sleep with anger, ridicule, derision, smugness, arrogance and ugliness against anyone that disagrees with them or they see as a possible threat to their future version of Utopia. Their operation is a 24/7 onslaught of sleeze and mud throwing. It is what it is. They deal in deception, disinformation and as you quite rightly pointed out above are aligned with "any means necessary to win." Demonize, Distract, and Destroy if all else fails. They do not care about you, your life, Dembski or anyone else that does not fit into their narrow world view. They have their master(s) too. The background, the confused and chaotic lifestyle of sex and worhsip is something informed people know about Huffington. I learned about her escapades with John Rogers over a year ago. I simply held a mirror up to their faces so they can see the hideous ways of their world order which is full of double-standards and hypocrisy. They live in a ring of the cult. They believe in unscientific medical treatments and false religious leaders who take advantage of people through some very sick and twisted practices. Yet, a "comedian" thinks he should challenge an ethical man outside his own dark world, ignoring the angry, bitter and many lost kooks at Huffpo. I always respect your post here KF and know you have weight here. If the moderators want me to back off, I will. At the very least, everyone should know about the hypocrisy from this website and their leader who trashes people all the time, who in fact makes news, invents news and is always in trouble leaping over the edge of any journalistic norms. I'm surprised that Dawkins, a strident hater of all things religion associates with so many at HuffPo that are into cult worship.DATCG_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

One last item: the ID bridge book at Google Books. Do a word search in the book to see Logos and its contexts of use. The discussion from pp 225 - 6 on is particularly interesting. So is that from about 88 on, which discusses the Stoic use of logos in the context of Paley's natural theology. Socrates' remarks p. 89 are worth a thought or two. And, of course more.kairosfocus_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Also: watch the video.kairosfocus_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

More for the record: Johnson has a useful essay on the basic nature of science in a world dominated by materialist ideology, here. It is still worth drawing attention to an accurate history of the roots of design theory, here.kairosfocus_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Has Barret Brown tucked tail and ran off like a scolded puppy dog?ShawnBoy_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Let us read -- per the attempt to bring the Wedge document into the issue as though this is a proof of a theocr5atic agenda -- into evidence for this thread, certain extracts from NAS member Lewontin's [in]famous 1997 NYRB article. For, in reviewing Sagan's Demon-haounted World (1996), in January 1997, Lewontin went on record as follows, in his 'Billions and billions of Demons": ______________ >> . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [BTW, self-refuting rubbish: this is a truth claim in popular level philosophy not science; i.e even the claim itself shows that science cannot be the "only" begetter of truth] . . . . Sagan's argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. [Thus, the next level of self-refutation] The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . . Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [reductio ad absurdum, anyone . . . ], in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. >> ________________ Of course, given that it is obvious that for miracles to stand out as signposts of wonder to a reality beyond the mundane events of this world [as well as for us to be morally governed, accountable creatures], there will have to be an orderly, predictable general pattern to the world [i.e., immediately, a strong basis for science as the study of the orderly, repeatable general patterns, causal factors and principles of the world, without any a priorism about absolute universality of such], this article reveals Mr Lewontin's profound ignorance of the relevant issues. And, BTW, teh most significant claimed miracle of the Christian perspective is given based not on direct declaration of miracle, but on the implications of using ordinary, generally reliable senses and observing a certain individual put to death publicly and buried, then three days and up to 40 days later, alive and kicking and even cooking a roast fish lakeside breakfast, so to speak, with up to 500+ eyewitnesses at the same time.] In short, academician Lewontin has here attacked a strawman. On the more direct point, let us observe the assumption of materialism and its pernicious censoring effects on science:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Should not science, instead, be an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned analysis? And if science as insitutionalised and as influential in our culture needs to be rescued from being held hostage and censored by a priori materialism -- again, kindly show us where the NAS definitively repudiated such a stance instead of evidently adopting it -- then it is more than reasonable that think-tanks should adopt programmes of exposure of the agendas at work, and of liberation and correction. Duly, read into the record. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

DATCG I do believe the just above from you is a bit over the top, stridently contemptuous, and beyond the pale of civility. Please. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Particiapnts and onlookers: First, some wrap-up business: _______________ Clive: Thanks. BillB: Pardon my accidental use of the same abbreviation with two different meanings. It is Mr Brown who is the central focus for this thread; for his sad insistence on slander. (More later, in light of his "update[s]" at HuffPo.) Nakashima-San: Thank you. TME, BillB & DS (etc): It is normal use on the Internet to address people by their given handles or names. As a rule, those who dig up personal information beyond that and then "out" it, are doing so out of ill intent. Further to this, FYFI, in a large part of the world, it IS rude to arrogate the right to address someone by their given name, apart from a certain degree of personal friendship or intimacy; and in particular in an adversarial context. For instance, it so happens that the present Chief Minister of Montserrat has for periods been my personal physician, but I do not regard that as giving me the right to address him by his first name; especially in public. And to do such in a [hypothetical] context where I were say criticising his policies, would be utterly beyond the pale. StephenB: Excellent work. ____________ Re Mr Brown: We may first observe that Mr Brown links as his authority on the Logos citation, TalkOrigins. That simple fact alone should tell us much of what is wrong with the attitude and contents of the piece (and by inference, the underlying book on which strength Mr brown seems to put himself out as an "expert" of sorts on Intelligent Design.) Again: by extracting remarks out of their proper context -- and cf 104 - 5 above for the exact context of Mr Dembski's "Logos" remark -- T.O. and Mr Brown have used the post-modernist hermeneutics of suspicion to extract a maximally adverse reading and have improperly accused Mr Dembski of "lying." This can be seen in a certain point of the "update" that I now wish to take up, in a bit of a supplement to SB's excellent take-apart above:
Several intelligent design supporters have accused me of slandering William Dembski by asserting that he is lying when he expresses his alleged opinion that the intelligence behind design could be one of many things, including something "natural." The crux of their argument is that it is entirely appropriate to speak on this from a theological context on some occasions and in a scientific context on others. I agree. But it is not appropriate or honest to go in front of a mainstream audience and try to give the impression that he is agnostic on the identity of the designer, when he has already told a sympathetic Christian audience that it is absolutely certain that the designer is Christ, and that science divorced from Christ is invalid. . . . . Dembski can validly claim that intelligent design need not be religiously motivated, but he cannot claim, when asked if he explains "specified complexity" with reference to God, that he does not. He does. He doesn't do it when talking to Daryn Kagan, but he does do it whenever addressing a Christian audience.
1 --> When Dr Dembski -- who holds a PhD in philosophy -- notes that the specific designer behind say cell-based life on earth could be "one of many things," he is stating an inherent limitation of the key methods of science (especially on origins), i.e. that it works by inference to best of competing current, empirically warranted explanations and is thus inherently provisional. That is a limitation of science in general, and caution in light of such is not lying. 2 --> It should be further noted in light of 104 - 5 above, that the design inference is in light of examination of the characteristics of contingent phenomena, and detection of empirically reliable markers of intelligence, such as specified complex information, which may often be found in irreducibly complex functional entities based on co-tuning of components to work together at an operating point. 3 --> On the strength of such, an inference to design is warranted, but this is not sufficient in itself to deduce the identity of the particular designer. (All of this, BTW, has been pointed out step by step in the Weak Argument correctives, which Mr Brown still gives no evidence of having read with understanding before launching into criticisms and accusations.) 4 --> In the further context of say the evidence of our universe being a fine-tuned, complex entity based on multiple interactions of subtle laws and parameters and objects to form a fit habitat for life, it is then reasonable -- and now a commonplace in cosmology -- to infer that the observed cosmos shows evidence of being designed. 5 --> This further context then supports the onward inference that a credible candidate for the designer of life on earth is the same intelligence behind the cosmos that facilitates such life. Such an extra-cosmic [the observed cosmos obviously, per self-evident reason, cannot be its own cause], powerful intelligence who created a cosmos of which it can be soberly said "In the beginning . . . let here be light" does sound sufficiently like the God of Judaeo-Christian theism, that it is not unreasonable or deceptive to further infer or even argue that the God envisioned on this worldview is the most credible candidate designer; and even that the current state of science supports [which is a very different term from "proves"; science is incapable of proof in the classical sense of that term] such. 6 --> It is false,irresponsible and slanderous, then, to twist Dr Dembski's words into a hermeneutics- of- suspicion based demonising reading that he is seeking to deceive "mainstream" audiences while arguing to Christian ones that -- wink, wink, nod, nod -- design theory is theology in scientific guise. And that suspicion-driven slanderous misreading is precisely what Mr Brown has advocated, and still advocates. (That modern science is currently returning to its roots, on which once the unfettered evidence speaks for itself and strongly points to a designer and upholder of the cosmos, may be alarming to committed materialists such as those who dominate -- and too often domineer -- major scientific and cultural institutions, but it is entirely in the spirit of the thought of say a Newton in the General Scholium to that most significant work of modern science, Principia. For, the overwhelming majority of the founders of modern science, saw science as reading God's book of nature and thus being able to "think God's thoughts after him." That is, they saw nature as sacred and science as vocation -- thus, even worship -- in its proper sense. And, manifestly, from the works of a Newton, or a Maxwell, or a Kelvin or a Linnaeus or even a Francis Collins, one can plainly successfully do first class science in such a paradigm.) 7 --> And in particular, specified complexity grounds inference to design of say DNA-using digitally coded algorithms that build, fold and dispatch proteins to do the work of the cell. The cosmological ID inference is NOT an inference on specified complexity as such but -- notoriously -- on fine-tuning of complex interacting components that form an exquisitely balanced operating point. 8 --> The difference between the two should be obvious from the fact that many who reject the design inference on the cell, accept and even advocate the design inference on the finetuing of the cosmos; indeed I believe a certain Mr Ken Miller is among these, and a certain Mr Colin Francis is at least sympathetic. 9 --> So, Dr Dembski is correct to draw the distinction between what the inference from specified complexity in general -- and in particular on the functionally specific complex information in DNA and its complex coded information -- warrants, and a wider worldview level conclusion based on the full reach of accessible evidence and experience [e.g. what happens if you happen to have personally met God in life-transforming, miracle-working power, in the face of the risen Christ? As, MILLIONS have . . . ?] and on the philosophical -- as opposed to scientific -- method of comparative difficulties across competing worldviews. 10 --> This is not deception or deviousness, it is being serious about the strengths, limitations and contexts of the different aspects of our reasoning process. And, that comes out rather explicitly in the actual touchstone article at he base of the accusation of "lying" where Dr Dembski first lays out he method in detail circa 1999 then moves on to explicitly discuss wider metaphysical issues connected to it. 11 --> And so, since this is on the public record in multiple ways in painfully explicit step by step details from the very beginning of the process, it is utterly unwarranted and indeed mischievous to self-servingly twist this through the hermeneutics of suspicion, into ad hominem laced demonising accusations or insinuations of a theocratic agenda of deception. 12 --> Which INCLUDES the insistent, willful misreading of the Wedge document and its context of addressing and rebalancing the outcomes on a very real ideological and worldviews conflict in our civilisation; in part on doing good science and communicating the result of that good science and its implications to the public, over the heads of the evolutionary materialist magisterium that seeks to censor science and turn it into the handmaiden of secularist materialism, as we may see from the direct statements of the US NAS member Lewontin [show us where the NAS rebuked him for this . . . ] and the actions of that august body on education policy on origins science. [Indeed, Mr Brown's hit piece is itself evidence on the reality of the secularist, evolutionary materialist agenda in action, its typical methods, and where its trends point. Onlookers, do you want to go to a world in which to raise issues such as the above leads to the threat or fact of being reported to policing agencies as a terrorist watch-list level threat? Remember: that is exactly what happened to me above, over the past few days.] ____________ GEM of TKI PS: Mr Brown, the issue is not whether you are able to answer to Mr hayden's "satisfaction" -- notice, onlookers,the pomo subjectivism implied in that -- but whether you have done your duty of care to the truth [= "that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not," per Ari in metaphysics 1011b etc.], and whether you have given the courtesy of readings of reasonable charity to to others who you seek to critique. On abundant evidence, sadly, you have not.kairosfocus_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Another beaut of a story about HuffPo antics... Swine flu? no problem. Just listen to HuffPo quacks... HuffPo's dangerous hacks, quacks and cultist I'd suggest little Barrett clean his own house of crazies out first before attacking Dembski. "Salon has a great post by a doctor about medical quackery at the Huffington Post, where a columnist recently suggested colon cleansing could treat swine flu. This is the downside of HuffPo's open, unpaid model — and culty recruiter" LOL! So, you got a bunch of cultist running the HuffPo show. Whats it like Brown to work for such whackos? Get a colon cleansing lately just in case. One cleansing a day keeps Swine Flu away! Hahahaha.... thanks for the laughs. Another Euro-trash whacko cultist who professes to lecture others about science and religion in America. No thanks, our ancestors left to get away from the idiots long ago. Now you bring your utter stupidity across the ocean. This explains the time of darkness clearly during Europe. When whackos like this controlled all communication and education. You can be a serf again all you like, just go to jolly liverpool or manchestor and wait in lines for your colon cleansing under the brilliantly planned healthcare rations of socialist. Why do socialist trash come to America? They're so unhappy that they have to make everyone else unhappy like them? lol... bend over Barrett, HuffPo's gotta gift for you, the new, improved Socialist ObamaCare, led by HuffPo quacks! hahaha.... thanks for the jokes rube.DATCG_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

Dear Barrett, When you have a donkey's ass as a representative, then Darwin's evolution as dogma in our schools has certainly worked its magic over time. I see you been programmed well. Chimps in office and chimps in media... laughs galore. Nothing like a dumbed down clown spreading his feces on a dumbed down town. A man who either didn't know how to pay his taxes or deliberately ignored them. Must make you proud. About as proud as Swami love fest? Ohhhh that huffpo, what a swell place of hatred and venom spewing, dark, dank cave dwellers. Dr. Dembski must be doing something right to get one of the most sleeziest pubs online to attack him. Keep it up UD! You guys are doing great. Nothing like a buffoon attacking a PhD to set one straight as to facts, lol. I wonder if the "brites" at HuffPo have learned well from their dear leader... "Huffington was accused of plagiarism for copying material for her book Maria Callas; the claims were settled out of court.[14]" (see wiki) I wonder how much she settled out of court? Such a professional bunch there. Anyone talk to John Rogers lately? Channeling John Rogers? Channeling whatever sex twisted Swami orgy you like for masta swami rami. Another gem from Wiki history on Huffpo... "After her attempts to woo the religious right, in 1994, Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau created a spoof of Arianna Huffington's spiritual experiences with a Los Angeles-based spiritual organization founded by John-Roger, the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA). The purpose of the MSIA is to teach Soul Transcendence, which, according to the MSIA website, is becoming aware of yourself "as a Soul and as one with God, not as a theory but as a living reality". Huffington has said that "I've been involved with John-Roger and the church for many years now."[citation needed] Tax returns show Huffington as an MSIA donor.[citation needed]"DATCG_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

Megan, I was just messing with you.lamarck_{August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

BA77, I link-hopped onto a very interesting page to say the least. Have you heard of Christopher Michael Langan? You can access his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" theory of reality here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/CTMUnet/CTMU.html It may turn out to be a handy addition to your information toolbox. BA77: The take home point for me right now from this experiment, is that this experiment has removed the last vestige of hope materialist had in forging any coherent basis for the foundation of realityOramus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

From the Huffington Post. ----Barrett Brown: “The crux of their argument is that it is entirely appropriate to speak on this from a theological context on some occasions and in a scientific context on others. I agree.” The problem is that Barrett Brown does not understand the subject well enough to agree or disagree. ----“But it is not appropriate or honest to go in front of a mainstream audience and try to give the impression that he is agnostic on the identity of the designer, when he has already told a sympathetic Christian audience that it is absolutely certain that the designer is Christ, and that science divorced from Christ is invalid.” This is a remarkably uninformed comment. First, Dembski’s comment about Christ is a statement about the “bridged between science and theology.” Now let’s think this through for a moment, [which means that Darwinists (and Brown) are temporarily excused.] [A] From a PHILOSOPHICAL?THEOLOGICAL perspective, if information theory reflects a “message,” and Christ, as creator, is the messenger, [revelation in Scripture AND in nature], does it not follow that there is an unbreakable bond between the sender of the message and the message itself? [B] From a SCIENTIFIC perspective, one cannot discern the identity of the designer from a design inference any more than one can identify the identity of a burglar after having made the design inference that his house was ransacked. In keeping with that point, one might believe the burglar to be a jealous neighbor, and even have good reasons for thinking that, but the design inference cannot determine that information. It can only discern that the physical chaos did not likely occur as a result of natural causes. At the same time, one can believe that science is useless without Christ all day long. That has nothing at all to do with the scientific process of detecting the EFFECTS of Christ’s handiwork. Nothing. It is impossible to extract the identity of Jesus Christ from the number of information bits in a DNA molecule. [OK, Darwinists and Barrett Brown, the hard part if over and you may uncover your eyes and unstop your ears.] ---“Dembski has done this repeatedly. Aside from the incident I mention in the above article, he did it again during a CNN debate with Skeptic founder Michael Shermer. After explaining the stunning complexity we see among the components of the cell, Dembski is asked by host Daryn Kagan, "Are you explaining that by saying it's God that answers those questions?" He responds, "No, what we're saying is that there's an intelligence involved." Of course. The only thing the design inference can do is detect the presence of an intelligent agent. ----Barrett Brown: “Nonsense. Dembski can validly claim that intelligent design need not be religiously motivated, but he cannot claim, when asked if he explains "specified complexity" with reference to God, that he does not. He does.” Barrett Brown obviously does not understand the difference between God, who creates specified complexity FROM THE TOP DOWN and does indeed have an identity, and the scientist, who detects specified complexity from the BOTTOM UP in nature, which verifies only the existence of a designer. Again, Brown is confused over context, perhaps willfully so. I can talk all day long about the prospect of my jealous neighbor leaving specified patterns when he ransacks my house, but I cannot detect the identity of my jealous neighbor by observing effects of his intelligent activity, I can only detect the presence of SOME intelligent agent. ----“He doesn't do it when talking to Daryn Kagan, but he does do it whenever addressing a Christian audience.” Maybe that’s because Daryn Kagan is curious about lies coming from the Huffington Post, tying ID methodology to religion, while Christian audiences are curious about the bridge between science and theology--- as in, you know, like, the title of the book. ---“I would evoke a favorite metaphor of the intelligent design crowd - that what they do when seeking to detect design is much akin to what a police investigator does when trying to solve a crime by way of forensics.” Oh good, let’s see if Mr. Brown can arise from the ashes of postmodern irrationality and show some signs of intellectual life. ----“Imagine that Dembski is a detective who has spent years studying a crime scene. He determines that the crime was perpetrated by a certain Jesus H. Christ, and even writes several reports to the effect that he is absolutely certain that this is the case.” In other words, let’s see what can happen if you assume that ID can do something that it has already explained it cannot do. As Chesterton once said, “Grant me this one assumption and everything else will be easy.” ----“Then he talks to someone whom he'd like to convinced of the soundness of his forensic methodology, but he knows that this person is disinclined to agree that Christ was the perp, so when asked if he explains the crime as having been performed by the perp in question, he says, "No, what we're saying is that there's a criminal involved" and then goes on to list a couple of possibilities without even mentioning Christ. That detective would be lying. Dembski, too, is lying.” Can you believe this? Brown sets it up so that ID can detect the identity of the designer, which its methodology obviously cannot do, then he scolds it for claiming that it can both detect personalities and not detect personalities. Unfortunately, I have had no success in registering with the Huffington Post to hold Barrett Brown accountable for his views, and he obviously does not have the courage to defend his remarks here. So, he gets a pass. One thing sure, I repent ever retracting my assertion that Mr. Brown slinked away because of any moderation policy or his own time constraints. If he had time to post here to tell us he didn’t have time, he had time to defend his remarks. Clearly, he was just using that pretext as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. He did, indeed, slink away. Once again weasel-like behavior and ignorance are rewarded in a culture gone mad.StephenB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Barret faces the same ignigma that anyone else suffers when they try to ignore the observed facts. Material things cannot form the representative symbol system found in living tissue. Discreet physical objects that are caused to act based on an input symbol that has no physical or chemical connection to the output function cannot be formed by physical or chemical means. We don't find such things anywhere, because they don't exist anywhere. All that can be done by the materialists is to assume their conclusions, ask for special pleading, attack their opponents personally, misrepresent the argument, obfuscate the evidence, stick together in numbers, and try ignore it all. Materialism has been falsified by its own evidence. Period.Upright BiPed_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

BarrettBrown,
Hayden denounces me as "a comedian;" I would note that we're now represented in the Senate, as we should be. Comedians are the greatest people in the world. He also asks an astonishing question:
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?
I don't trust evolution any more than I trust gravity or attractive women. I don't make any claims to the effect that evolution only produces swell things and makes everyone smart and honest. I'm not all totally in love with evolution; I just think it's the case. And I'm amazed that Hayden would ask me to account for the results of the process to which I ascribe when it is he and his fellow intelligent design advocates who attribute divine purpose to nature, not I. And what's up with those airline peanuts, amirite?
That is a complete non-answer. I've asked you to give a real response again, your update on HuffPost doesn't cut it for it doesn't even address my questions. I answered your questions, now you answer mine, and don't weasel out of it by talking about my memory. Can you not answer my questions? Can you not? It certainly appears that you cannot. If you can, do it here and now. Evasion won't work Barrett.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

As promised, I have posted my responses at the Huffington Post blog as an update to the Dembski article.BarrettBrown_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Doomsday Smith,
Sorry, Clive, I didn’t see that until I submitted that post.
It's fine, I understand.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

BillB,
Clive: I have never used that persons real name so in that regard I have always respected his wishes. You ought to point out to him that others who arrive here and use his name might not know that he finds it offensive (It certainly is rather odd behaviour) so his protestations about slander should be witheld until after a polite request for people to stop has been ignored.
I completely agree.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Oramus,
Excuse me Clive, may I ask what grade BillB and Doomsday Smith are currently in?
You should ask them.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
I hasten to remind everyone that Barrett Brown, the subject of this thread, still stands accused of dishonestly accusing William Dembski if lying. At 146, I provided a summary of the reasons why this outrageous charge is one more example of Darwinists’ incapacity to reason in context. A day or so ago, Mr. Barrett persuaded me that UD’s moderation policy and his own time demands were hampering his ability to respond to my post. Further, he invited me to visit the Huffington Post, implying that he would be happy to engage me there. (This is the second time this week someone has withdrawn from dialogue while suggesting that another venue would solve the problem.) I am not sure how that works.
Thank you StephenB, for he does still stand accused, and has obviously not adequately responded here, and like the other commenter, has no reason to run and hide to another venue.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: Stop complaining about people using your real name here. You link to your website constantly and your real name appears on it. Fix it yourself one way or the other but don’t expect us to waste our time on it anymore.
I have to admit that this does not equate to "shut up," and I apologize for posting the phrase.T M English_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Now that we have settled the issue of talking donkeys [I hope] and established the fact that kairosfocus is free to establish his communicative boundaries in spite of his adversaries' wishes to deny him that privilege, I hasten to remind everyone that Barrett Brown, the subject of this thread, still stands accused of dishonestly accusing William Dembski if lying. At 146, I provided a summary of the reasons why this outrageous charge is one more example of Darwinists’ incapacity to reason in context. A day or so ago, Mr. Barrett persuaded me that UD's moderation policy and his own time demands were hampering his ability to respond to my post. Further, he invited me to visit the Huffington Post, implying that he would be happy to engage me there. (This is the second time this week someone has withdrawn from dialogue while suggesting that another venue would solve the problem.) I am not sure how that works. If he didn't have time anyway, then the moderation didn't slow him down; if the moderation policy slowed him down, then he apparently had the time. If he has time to indulge me on his own website, why doesn’t he have time to do it here? In any case, he indicated that he would eventually make it a point to defend his comments. Taking him at his word, and ignoring his seemingly contradictory reasons for not responding, I retracted my earlier charge that he was unwilling to defend his remarks. Make no mistake, however, I was not nor do I retract my charges against him, I am simply giving him the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives for not responding. His charges are indefensible, and, as I stated earlier, the residual effect of his incapacity to understand the context principle involved in interdisciplinary communication. So, the question is this: Why do Darwinists fail to understand “context.” For one thing, having renounced the principles of right reason and logic [they do it on this site regularly], they end up renouncing reason itself and the object toward which it aims, namely truth. Sometimes, the process is reversed, that is, sometimes they renounce truth as a destination and follow up by renouncing reason, which is the vehicle by which we arrive at it. (What good is the vehicle is there is no destination). Either way, their skepticism renders them incapable of understanding the various aspects of truth, which manifest themselves in theology, philosophy, science, and other disciplines. (By the way, it also renders them incapable of distinguishing motives from methods and presuppositions from inferences). Following the lead of the postmodernists, they cling to the idea that truth is subjective; that we can make it up as we go along, or, that we can “socially construct it,”--- that it is “created in context.” No. It is discovered and understood in context, which is why all areas of study, rightly understood, will confirm the other. So, when someone like Dembski explains that information theory in science can be expressed as the “Logos theory” of the Gospel, which is little more than an affirmation of the principle that truth is unified, Darwinists such as Barbara Forrest or Barrett Brown, mindlessly accuse him of lying, or imply that his religious beliefs are leaking into his scientific methodology. In keeping with that principle, when I explain that the “big bang” can be linked to the Genesis command, “Let there be light,” they scratch their heads and wonder what I could possibly be talking about. To renounce truth and the principles of right reason is to become unreasonable. The problem is that unreasonable people often feel the need to persecute and lie about reasonable people and, by way of public education, to breed other unreasonable people in their own image and likeness. That way there will be no one around to challenge them. Misery loves company.StephenB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Excuse me Clive, may I ask what grade BillB and Doomsday Smith are currently in?Oramus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Clive: I have never used that persons real name so in that regard I have always respected his wishes. You ought to point out to him that others who arrive here and use his name might not know that he finds it offensive (It certainly is rather odd behaviour) so his protestations about slander should be witheld until after a polite request for people to stop has been ignored.BillB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Sorry, Clive, I didn't see that until I submitted that post.Doomsday Smith_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

BillB,
That said, he has certainly made almost no effort to conceal his identity so his hysterical complaints about invasions of privacy are just more clouds of burning oil-of-pomposity.
You will respect kairosfocus's wishes and refrain from using his real name, as will everyone else here.Clive Hayden_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Paul Burnett 194,
So are your blue collar relatives / friends attuned / interested / familiar with creationism as well as with intelligent design? And how well do they know the difference?
Good question. As for my blue collar relatives, they’re more of an unchurched and/or heretical genre and thus more prone to slough off the pronouncements of sectarians be they of the Church or Concensus Science. I know of none who are YECs. But you’re right—those outside the academy or power elite or otherwise untouched by the urge to be accepted tend to be more open to heretical ideas. What I hate most are the conspiracy theories (of which thankfully my rels seem mostly immune). It is wrong to repeat tales that perhaps could be true, where there is seemingly some indirect evidence, but are at best only a hypothesis of evil. An evil report (the biblical dibbah ra‘ah) goes contrary to all Judeo-Christian ethics and is a grievous sin. But then, as it turns out, today’s elites tend to be as guilty of this as the plebs (as re, for ex., 9/11 conspiracy theories). I’ve worked at blue collar jobs as also in the academy, and have encountered good and evil and the bright and the stupid in each. Each station in life has its opportunities for virtue and its temptations for evil. Envy and resentment lurk in the woodwork for all—see George Gilder’s The Israel Test (Richard Vigilante Books, 2009)—a must read.Rude_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Well caught, I retract my tongue in cheek accusation and apologise for the mistake. Thanks.BillB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Mr BillB, showed that BB has slandered WD. No I didn’t, that’s slander, I expect your apology. KF-san was using BB for Barrett Brown here, even though he had started the post with BB meaning the post was addressed to you. With all the sturm und drang, we don't need accidental slights to add to the confusion.Nakashima_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply