PZ open cut quote mines

_{idnet.com.au
June 12, 2011

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

PZ has a lot to say. I present some gems below for your education.

I’m sure that I have some irrational beliefs of my own. I have no idea what they are. It’s not holding irrational beliefs that makes you an idiot. It’s holding the irrational beliefs and demanding that those be imposed on everyone else.

Nobody has convinced me that God exists. That’s not going to happen.

Science is the answer. I’m sorry; you may be a very devout religious person, but praying is not going to solve the world’s problems. It never has. We’re living in an enlightenment, which is fuelled by rational thinking and science. Science is the answer.

I’m buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. There’s nothing we’re saying that Betrand Russell didn’t say. This is all the same old stuff. The only difference is that we’ve got the primal scream therapy of atheism. New atheists are the people who shout and yell a lot about this stuff. But it’s the same old stuff that atheists have been talking about for years and years.

Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals.

I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)

Comments

kairosfocus,
I have, with evidence, pointed out just how you are in error in implying that I have clipped Lewontin out of context and/or have distorted what he has had to say.
I just re-read your response and see no such evidence. Taking exception to what Lewontin wrote in those two sentences and quoting Colossians is, as I noted, missing the point. If I were reviewing a paper for a colleague and saw a quotation that could suggest that the quoted author meant something other than what a fuller context indicated was that author's intention, I would expect a response more along the lines of "Thank you for preventing me from mischaracterizing the author's position." This kind of thing is taken very seriously in academia. I hoped you would take my original comment as the courteous, constructive criticism it was intended. In any case, I've raised the issue with you -- at least if you use the quotation in the future it will be with full knowledge of the potential problems of omitting the last two sentences. I have no more to add.MathGrrl_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Other than argument from authority, what was the point of the Isaac Newton quote?Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: MG is again trying the thread hijack card, so I will now clip the standard response that she has yet to seriously respond to, week after week: ++++++++ On CSI and its "rigour," that has been addressed over and over again, in most specificity to the issue of rigour, at 34 - 5 in the CSI footnote thread. Similarly, the talking points MG tends to use over and over as thought hey have not been cogently answered, were last dissected in 23 - 24 in the same thread. And, the overall summing up of the issues MG has needed to explain herself on has been kept up in the editorial response to Graham at no 1 in the CSI newsflash thread; which MG has persistently ignored. When it comes to ev, 137 in the same shows my links to the places in the CSI Newsflash thread where it is dissected by Mung. (NB: One of MG's tactics seems to be to wait until something is buried under enough posts in a thread, or has been continued in a successor thread, before repeating the assertion that was rebutted.) She knows or should know better than she has consistently acted. ++++++++ To see the balance on the merits for yourself simply follow the links. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

F/N to Dr Bot: The just above shows the problem. There -- on warrant -- is not an immoral equivalency here and it would be appreciated if you would acknowledge that fact. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

MG: I have, with evidence, pointed out just how you are in error in implying that I have clipped Lewontin out of context and/or have distorted what he has had to say. In fact the additional sentences show further that Lewontin's argument is based on an irrational and unfair distortion of theists and theism. But that in itself is additional to the basic and -- cf the cites from the US NAS and NSTA onlookers -- demonstrably widespread point: there is an a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism that distorts the ability of science to consider anything that might possibly let the "Divine Foot" in the door. The additional remarks you give simply add to the irrational fear and distortion of theists, based on slandering them with a caricature of irrationality and believing in a chaos not a cosmos. You have direct citations form foundational documents and from the man who is probably the leading scientist over the past 400 years, in correction. Further to all of this, I pointed out the basic blunder of making an epistemological claim that would undermine all epistemological claims: if science is the only begetter of truth, that implies that this (non-scientific!) claim must be false, i.e. it refers to and refutes itself. So, the context of irrationality, unfortunate though it is, is established, on multiple grounds; not just the question-begging of imposing a priori materialism. But it is clear from the above that you again -- that is demonstrably what happened over these past three months -- wish to insist on an unwarranted assertion in the teeth of any and all correction, regardless of how well warranted. So, this is for the record, so that the astute onlooker can see for him or her self just what you are continuing to do. I wish you would turn over a new leaf and do better, but until and unless you do so, I have a duty of correction. Good day madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Dr Bot: Sorry, the turnabout rhetoric does not work anymore. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus,
I am NOT taking Lewontin out of context or clipping in any way that materially distorts his essential meaning.
I pointed out exactly how you were doing so. To repeat: Without these two sentences, your excerpt implies that Lewontin is claiming that science is actively and irrationally anti-religious. In fact, he is explaining exactly why the the tools of science cannot be used if an omnipotent entity is postulated to intervene in the physical world. To say of the two sentences you elided that
. . . this shows sophomoric ignorance of the nature of actual theistic beliefs, and makes a direct and improper insinuation of irrationality.
misses the point. Without the final two sentences, your excerpt does suggest that Lewontin said something different from what he did actually say. This would not be considered acceptable practice in an academic environment. My intention in pointing this out was to let you know that, by continuing to use the quote in the form you have been, you are potentially opening yourself up to charges of deliberate mischaracterization. Simply including the additional two sentences would eliminate any confusion and would allow your readers to determine whether or not Lewontin supports whatever point you are making when you use that quote. Whether you choose to modify your behavior based on the information I have provided is, of course, entirely up to you.
PS: Onlookers, there are several longstanding issues that MG needs to address, e.g. here.
As I have made clear in several threads over the past few months, when you choose to provide a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI and detailed example calculations for the scenarios I detailed I will be more than happy to continue the discussion.MathGrrl_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, there are several longstanding issues that MG needs to address, e.g. here.
You are in no position to criticise others about their behaviour. You frequently deploy unplesant rhetoric against others and I often find some of your paranoid diatribes against the scientific community offensive. It is a daily struggle to turn the other cheek. And don't give me any of your 'turnabout accusation' rubbish - you are often the first to resort to ad-hominem attacks, you can't demand one standard of behaviour for others and another for yourself. As you said - such behaviour should not be tolerated.DrBot_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

MG: Pardon me but -- as is now routine with you -- you know or should know that at the linked point I discuss the issue in more details. Are you not tired of setting up and knocking over strawmen? I am NOT taking Lewontin out of context or clipping in any way that materially distorts his essential meaning. As to the cite from Beck,
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.
. . . this shows sophomoric ignorance of the nature of actual theistic beliefs, and makes a direct and improper insinuation of irrationality. But in fact, the main point of the miraculous is not that they are capricious and chaotic but that they are SIGNS -- that is the root concept of the term -- pointing beyond the usual course of the world. That is, to work as signs, miracles REQUIRE a general and reliable order of reality, a creation in short. In a classic text from the Judaeo-Christian frame of thought, we may see what that order is held to be like and where it is held to come from:
Colossians 1:15-20 Amplified Bible (AMP) 15[Now] He is the [a]exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation. 16For it was in Him that all things were created, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, whether thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [by His service, intervention] and in and for Him. 17And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).(A) [This is a direct inference to God as cosmic lawgiver who holds creation together by his Word of power.] 18He also is the Head of [His] body, the church; seeing He is the Beginning, the Firstborn from among the dead, so that He alone in everything and in every respect might occupy the chief place [stand first and be preeminent]. 19For it has pleased [the Father] that all the divine fullness (the sum total of the divine perfection, powers, and attributes) should dwell in Him [b]permanently. 20And God purposed that through ([c]by the service, the intervention of) Him [the Son] all things should be completely reconciled [d]back to Himself, whether on earth or in heaven, as through Him, [the Father] made peace by means of the blood of His cross. Footnotes: Colossians 1:15 Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: Strong terms--thus translated "exact likeness." Colossians 1:19 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies. Colossians 1:20 Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon. Colossians 1:20 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies. Cross references: Colossians 1:17 : Prov 8:22-31
You seem bound up in a strawman distortion of thestic thought, so let me cite that eminent and supernaturalistic scientist, a certain Newton, Isaac, in his General Scholium to the Principia: _____________ >> . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler . . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. >> _____________ In short, the reason why you find the Beck quote to support your views is because you have been led to swallow a strawman caricature of the thought of those who are theistic and believe in miracles. As, evidently, did Lewontin. To a more instructed person, the clip underscores the point being made, as it is further indication of how the dominant evolutionary materialism leads even highly educated people to distort the views of those they dismiss. this is of a piece with his dismissive language as cited. And, there is much more that Lewontin gets blatantly wrong -- e.g. that science is the only beggetter of truth is a self-referentially incoherent epistemological claim i.e a philosophical claim that tries to dismiss philosophical claims and warrant for knowledge, but what is cited is central. And, my memory is that only some weeks back I have had to make essentially this correction before. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, there are several longstanding issues that MG needs to address, e.g. here.kairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl:
Since this is a thread discussing quote mines (taking excerpts out of context to suggest that the author’s meaning is something other than what was intended),...
Any evidence the OP quotes were taken "out-of-context to suggest that the author’s meaning is something other than what was intended"? Or are you sill tilting at windmills?Joseph_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Since this is a thread discussing quote mines (taking excerpts out of context to suggest that the author's meaning is something other than what was intended), it seems a reasonable place to raise an issue with the Lewontin quote you post so often.
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.
That is not complete. Indeed, there are two additional sentences that conclude the very paragraph you quote that are essential to Lewontin's thesis:
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.
Without these two sentences, your excerpt implies that Lewontin is claiming that science is actively and irrationally anti-religious. In fact, he is explaining exactly why the the tools of science cannot be used if an omnipotent entity is postulated to intervene in the physical world. Your quotation would far more accurately reflect Lewontin's views if it were to include the final two sentences of that paragraph.MathGrrl_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

DM: Sorry, but this misses the key point on evils in a materialist view:
when Richard Dawkins says, “there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, he’s referring to the inanimate universe. There is plenty of evidence for evil individuals.
Namely, the worldview resources available to materialism are time, chance, matter energy space and time. There is in such materialism no foundational is that can ground ought. Such materialism is inescapably amoral. And that was exposed and denounced since Plato in the Laws Bk X, 360 BC, in light of the harm done to Athens. In such a view, terms like evil and good etc become simply tools for cynical emotional manipulation and programming of populations and individuals. Will Hawthorne's summary is devastating:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
This is not usually explained plainly to the public, so it may seem strange. But in fact it is rooted in Hume's well known [and quite cynical, BTW] is-ought argument, in light of the Anscombe point that the only way to build in a real ought into a worldview is that in its foundations there must be an IS who can ground ought. What amazes me is that in all my studies, readings and discussion, I never ran across Plato's expose until in looking up the roots of the causal trichotomy on chance, necessity and agency, I came across this:
[[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
If you do not hear in this the anticipation of Alinsky's cynical polarisation tactics, and jack-boots marching in torchlight parades and the secret police knock on your door at 4 am, it is because you are not listening closely enough. I do not exaggerate when I say our civilisation is in mortal danger. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Clive is on to something (along with the other Clive). It’s the shouting Chatty PZ does, and his open embrace of it, that is telling. There was a time when all a “committed Darwinist” had to do was whisper. He was able to speak softly because he carried the big stick. Seems that happy time is over. Now he feels the need to “shout and yell about a lot of stuff.” He’s cashing in his bow-tie for the “primal scream therapy of atheism.” Why? Because the worm has turned. The people he used to tread on are rising up against him. Too bad shouting and yelling are a sign of weakness. PZ thinks he’s rescuing the Modern age and all of its, er, glories through his intemperate antics. In fact he’s a sign of its demise.allanius_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."-Eleanor RooseveltJoseph_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Dr Bot: Pardon, but you are overlooking the ideologised attempted re-definition of science that lurks under PZM's comment. Lewontin summarised it in a somewhat less acerbic form, but with essentially the same content:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [science is NOT self-evident, nor is its epistemology self-evident, it can at best provide warrant on best explanation in light of principles established by other more foundational disciplines including epistemology and Mathematics] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . 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. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
Nor is this just Mr Lewontin or Mr Sagan -- as he explicitly summarises, in the circles he runs in this is the DOMINANT view. (Cf the other three excerpts here.) In short, once we translate and adjust for the ideological intensity and hostile boorishness Mr Myers so often shows [remember he is the one who showed a picture of a stolen host pierced with a NAIL and thrown in the trash next to a banana skin], the meaning is very clear. In straight terms: If you do not line up with my a priori materialism, and especially if you dare point out errors or manipulative devices in how origins science is presented, you have gone beyond the circle that I, PZM, can "forgive." Now of course ID thinkers, theorists and supporters will err, as we are human. That is not the material point (though it is handy to hang the real issue on). The point is that here is an alternative view on origins that would naturally attract widespread support, undermining the institutional and cultural power of the ideological materialists in the establishment. Worse, it would allow that ever so despised Divine Foot in the door. Which is the root of the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" slander. So, the key issue is to expose the a priori evolutionary materialism, how it ideologically distorts natural science [as once Marxism distorted social science] through so-called methodological naturalism, especially on origins; and, to restore a historically and philosophically -- specifically, epistemologically -- well warranted understanding of the nature and limits of science. It is high time we stopped allowing the Alinsky tactics to prevail by default. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Only very small-minded people blurt ut accusations like that.
ROTFLDrBot_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

If the interviewer would have asked the question PZ would have walked away. But anywy if PZ is going to say something it is up to PZ to support it. Only very small-minded people blurt ut accusations like that.Joseph_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Joseph, perhaps if the interviewer had asked that question he might have answered it - of perhaps you could e-mail him yourself!DrBot_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

DrBot, Don't you find it odd that PZ doesn't support any of his rant? No examples of IDists being nasty and nothing showing an IDist misrepresenting science?Joseph_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

No, none at all. No, I do that all the time. There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. At the same time, when you get to know them, when you talk to them, they're generally nice people. They're your neighbors. They're ordinary people. So I would say, right off the bat, no, this is not about demonizing the individuals. It's about demonizing really, really bad ideas.
A plain reading is only possible when you have the full text, not edited excerpts. The full transcript is available here.DrBot_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

paragwinn you state; 'you’ve read way more into my statements than i intended.' Well paragwinn, you opened the whole 'can of worms' into the ugly, shallow, theology that underlies neo-Darwinian thinking!!! Why is the when the can poured out for all to see its deceptiveness becomes unpalatable for you???bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

paragwinn, I found the source at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/09/bright-ideas-pz-myers/ along with a video of the interview. idnet.com.au, where did that last sentence come from? I can't find it in the transcript. Also, there are some conventions that are supposed to be followed when quoting somebody else's words. The main convention is that whenever you change another person's words in any way, you're supposed to indicate it. For instance, you write: "There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals." Here are PZ's actual words, from the transcript: "There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. At the same time, when you get to know them, when you talk to them, they're generally nice people. They're your neighbors. They're ordinary people. So I would say, right off the bat, no, this is not about demonizing the individuals. It's about demonizing really, really bad ideas." That's quite a difference. At a minimum, you should have quoted him something like this: "There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. .... [T]his is not about demonizing the individuals." But even then, leaving out, "At the same time, when you get to know them, when you talk to them, they're generally nice people. They're your neighbors. They're ordinary people." and "It's about demonizing really, really bad ideas." would get you in trouble at any respectable school. Or are you trying to show people what quote-mining (taking words out of context) is? moderator, when Richard Dawkins says, "there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference", he's referring to the inanimate universe. There is plenty of evidence for evil individuals.dmullenix_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

paragwinn Which statements do you think may have different meaning than a plain reading suggests? All but the last sentence are from the one source. Use Google.idnet.com.au_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

ba77, you've read way more into my statements than i intended. kf, i was addressing Ilion's point regarding "not just about the “God question,” but about any question of which they fear rational examination will yield the unwelcome answer." And i will take a look at your link.paragwinn_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

id.net, can you cite the sources for these quotes? context may be importantparagwinn_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

PZ- long on the (false) accusations and very short on the supporting evidence. Wow just as in PZ's "science"- go figure...Joseph_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

paragwinn asks; 'how can one perform a rational examination about something that doesnt have a reasonable definition, let alone a clearly-defined approach by which to perform the examination? The concept of god becomes vacuous in the endeavour.' paragwinn, though you may feel God's actions cannot be discerned through science, Charles Darwin himself felt no such reservations about discerning God's actions in nature. Indeed his book 'Origin of Species' is now found to be Theological, rather than scientific, in its basis: Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Paragwinn, you may object that Darwin was limited to making Theological arguments due to limits of science in the 1800s. Well it turns out that the 'God would not have done it that way' argument is still the primary argument that neo-Darwinists use; For instance Ayala here: Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig vs. Ayala - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg or Francis Collins here: Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html Thus paragwinn, it seems your criticism against studying God in nature is of a lop-sided affair, in which neo-Darwinists are allowed to say how God would and wouldn't act, but IDists are not!?! ======================== What I find very persuasive, to the suggestion that the universe was designed with life in mind, is that physicists find many processes in a cell operate at the 'near optimal' capacities allowed in any physical system: William Bialek - Professor Of Physics - Princeton University: Excerpt: "A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,," http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html ========================== Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000355_cicero_040710.mp4&dir=mp4/lectures ===================bornagain77_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Gage @7 -
I have hung out with Jonathan Wells at lunch a couple of times. He strikes me as a courteous and well-spoken person, as are almost everyone in the ID movement. And this courtesy is despite the vehemence and unfair attacks that are so commonly employed against pro-ID people. Contrast that to PZ’s boorish behavior.
I haven't met PZ, but I've heard from several people who have (including my wife) that in real life he's a nice person in real life - perhaps even cuddly. Unfortunately it's far too easy for people on both sides to inject a lot of rancour into the debates. It's understandable that things will sometimes get heated, and that some enmity will be built up. One wonders who will try to build bridges, and if anyone will support them.Heinrich_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

F/N: P would be well advised to view this video.kairosfocus_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

PS: On exposing the misleading icons in a nutshell cf, here.kairosfocus_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply