Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Review of Darwin’s Doubt slams ID theorists for not publishing in Darwinist-run journals

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Daniel Muth at Living Church, reviewing Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt:

I am fairly certain that there are thoughtful and potentially influential intellectual movements that have been subjected to more shameful and inexcusable misrepresentation and ill treatment than Intelligent Design (ID), but the list is not long (Roman Catholic teaching on artificial birth control comes to mind). To be fair, ID theorists have invited critique in no small part by tending to hold theirs out as a valid area of scientific research while mainly publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed articles. If their intention was not to be lumped in with creationists, it has not worked.

From the disastrous Dover School Board lawsuit to the propaganda screeds of the New Atheists, ID has managed in a short time to fix itself in the popular consciousness as little but another movement of bellicose anti-scientific crackpots. That is a shame, because the theorists are generally quite thoughtful and reputably credentialed. The stuff they have written is informative, challenging, and worthwhile. More.

Muth appears to believe the incorrect information I (O’Leary for News) know for a fact that they were not. They thought the Dover school board’s decision, which resulted in the case, was appalling but also felt they ought to get involved to try to minimize the damage. The myth he refers to persists because people often don’t actually want to know what happened. If they do, they can’t really say the things they feel burdened to say and can gain approval for saying.

As for “mainly publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed articles,” surely Muth is not so naive as to imagine that Darwinist-run journals would publish good ID research?

Just recently, Gunter Bechly, the gifted scientist who was disappeared from Wikipedia after he turned out to be an ID supporter described a beautiful dragonfly fossil with ID implications, which he had spent some time studying, in a peer-reviewed ID journal, BIO-Complexity.

He was promptly slammed for not publishing it in a Darwinist-run journal—as if Darwinists would have accepted it. And as if they would allow a discussion of the way it upsets neat Darwinian categories—other than a discussion entirely controlled by themselves which closes with reassurances that all is well.

But then that is probably what Living Church readers want: reassurances that a good Christian just accepts whatever mainstream science says, whatever it is. Makes life easier.

Here’s a thought: When a “thoughtful and potentially influential intellectual” movement is “subjected to more shameful and inexcusable misrepresentation and ill treatment,” it is usually due to intellectual corruption in the establishment. Again, one hesitates to believe that Muth is too naive to know that, but is there a better explanation? If so, what?

See also: Evolution News slams “sloppy” IV book by BioLogos advisor

and

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID

Note: In the combox below, bornagain77 offers examples of what happens when ID theorists or sympathizers try to publish in Darwin-sympathetic journals. I he taken the liberty of posting it here to the OP. Essentially, the evidence the ID theorists offer against Darwinism proves that they are outsiders.  Insiders circle the wagons to protect a theory (Darwinism) that has become largely meaningless where it is not metaphysical. It has become so vague as to be largely unfalsifiable. And they like it that way. And they plan to keep evolution studies that way.   nyway, here are some stories to ponder in that light:

At post 9 Allan Keith states this in regards to Darwinian journals not allowing ID friendly papers:

I often here this claim but I have never seen any concrete examples. It would be of great interest to post a rejected paper here along with the reviewers comments and reason for rejection.

Well, here are a few examples of Darwinists publicly suppressing dissent from their views:

Richard Sternberg

Richard Sternberg – Smithsonian Controversy
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth.
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php

Douglas Axe:

Douglas Axe, director of the Biologic Institute in Seattle, knows this first-hand. As a post-doctoral researcher at the prestigious Medical Research Council Centre in Cambridge in 2002, he was experimenting on protein structures when his superiors discovered that his research was being funded in part by an intelligent design organization. The science was solid – he later published his findings in a prestigious journal – but his association with intelligent design was considered unacceptable. He was asked to leave.
http://www.jewishpress.com/ind…..016/07/27/

Granville Sewell

ENV readers will recall that last year, University of Texas El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell was disallowed from publishing an article in Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) simply because it was (indirectly) critical of Darwinian evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/04/double_censorsh/

Guillermo Gonzalez

As we amply documented at the time, the real reasons Gonzalez did not get tenure at ISU were simple: discrimination and intolerance. Despite an exemplary record as a scientist, Gonzalez was rejected by ISU because of his support for intelligent design.
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/setting_the_rec/

Günter Bechly

Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

William Dembski and Robert Marks:

Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University
https://evolutionnews.org/2007/09/academic_freedom_expelled_from/

Michael Behe

ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe – September 22, 2013
https://uncommondescent.com…..n-microbe/

So, Michael Behe Was Right After All; What Will the Critics Say Now? – Casey Luskin July 16, 2014
Excerpt: Will Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Paul Gross, Nick Matzke, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers now Apologize to Michael Behe? (for their ad hominem attacks),,,
Is an apology from Behe’s critics then forthcoming? In a world where debates were conducted with the goal of discovering truth rather (than) scoring points, it sure ought to be. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we live in that world.
What we’ll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers’s concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..87901.html

Stephen Meyer

The Letter that Science Refused to Publish – November 8, 2013
Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
See more at:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..78871.html

The attempted censorship of the book “Biological Information: New Perspectives”

Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives
Casey Luskin – August 20, 2013
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..75541.html

James Tour and anyone he knew who signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” list

“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
https://uncommondescent.com…..evolution/

If silencing by intimidation, or censorship, does not work, Darwinists simply ‘EXPEL’ anyone who disagrees with them:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
“If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte…..0981873405

Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – 2011 – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

Slaughter of the Dissidents – Dr. Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0

Here are some of the peer reviewed papers supporting ID that have been published in spite of the systematic bias against ID:

BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-­REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN – UPDATED – July 2017
http://www.discovery.org/scrip…..8;id=10141

Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
http://evoinfo.org/publications/

Bio-Complexity Publication Archive
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/…..ue/archive

Biological Information – New Perspectives – Proceedings of the Symposium – published online May 2013
http://www.worldscientific.com…..8818#t=toc

Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) – list of published papers
http://lifeorigin.academia.edu/DrDavidLAbel/Papers

Of related note:

But Darwinism is universally accepted among “real” scientists! – December 30, 2016
Excerpt: A friend started making a list of books that doubt all or most of modern Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, the slightly elastic Extended Synthesis, and came up with a three-tiered, hardly exhaustive, shelf:
St. George Mivart, On the Genesis of Species (1871)
Charles Hodge, What Is Darwinism (1874)
Samuel Butler, Evolution, Old and New (1879)
Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution (1907/tr. 1911)
Svante Arrhenius Worlds in the Making (1908)
Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1940)
Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (1941)
Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947)
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959)
Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (Delta, 1971)
Pierre Paul Grassé: “L´evolution du vivant” (1973)
Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (Harper, 1983)
L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1984)
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985)
Soren Lovtrup Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987)
Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: The Memory of Nature (1988)
R. F. Baum, Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud (1988)
Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT (1991)
Dorothy Kurth Boberg, Evolution and Reason – Beyond Darwin (1993)
Remy Chauvin: “Le darwinism où le fin d´un mythe” (1997)
Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Life: A New Look at Evolution (1998)
Stuart Newman and Gerd Muller (eds.), Origination of Organismal Form” (2002)
David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales (2006)
Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again : A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution (2009)
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin God Wrong (2010)
Gerd Muller and Massimo Pigliucci, Evolution: the Extended Synthesis” (2010)
George McGhee, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful, MIT (2011)
Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos (2012)
A Lima-de-Faria, Evolution without Selection: Form and Function by Autoevolution (2013)
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (2015 [updated from 1985])
Suzan Mazur’s:
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009)
Paradigm Shifters (2015) and
Public Evolution Summit (2016).
https://uncommondescent.com…..cientists/

Even though neo-Darwinists still like to complain that Intelligent Design advocates don’t have that many published peer-reviewed papers, it turns out that if one looks at the peer-reviewed papers coming from neo-Darwinists themselves, the evidence will many times directly, and overwhelmingly, support the Intelligent Design position (such as ENCODE research), while their explanation for the evidence is found to be, many times, highly contrived, and twisted, just to support their presupposed philosophical conclusion of neo-Darwinism.

Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell:
Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015
Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
https://uncommondescent.com…..ilerplate/

 

Comments
F/N: As a relevant example, let the objectors reflect on Loennig on the claimed rise of the giraffe: http://ad-multimedia.de/evo/long-necked-giraffe_mU.pdf Is this a tissue of misleading citations, half-truths and reams of outright lies as the rhetorical club "Gish gallop" would imply? On what basis would such a claim stand? (I note, this essay is of monograph length, but is typical of literature I have seen that documents the gap between oh there is a path to the body plan and admissions against interest that show the reality of serious and too often papered over gaps.) KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
I sincerelyapologize to KF for suggesting an intentional quote mine.
It's not like quote-mining is morally wrong.Mung
May 16, 2018
May
05
May
16
16
2018
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
F/N: I took time out to track down the essay where the ideas are introduced by Ms Scott. The taint I pointed out is there from the outset. Ms Scott complains on citing Gould on the trade secret of paleontology, then says:
Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time.
[--> she later contradicts herself on this point, arguing for a tight time debate format that locks out substantiating the big picture problem that is at stake; surely, 45 minutes and what a 20 - 30 minute rebuttal is a lot of time, especially after hundreds of debates have been done and books have been published so the substance is no surprise. BTW, Creation Scientists Answer their critics is a key part of that literature, as well as Gish's Fossils say no series]
And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, your audience is left with the , "Yeah, but..." syndrome: well, maybe there are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric dating, YEAH, BUT why didn't that evolutionist answer the question about polonium halos?" (or some other argument.)
[--> Thin gruel. If one has solidly broken several key cases AND has laid out the positive evidence that actually shows by clear observed case the pattern of body-plan level macroevo that surely is there all across the fossil record, the other side should be shattered. Oh, maybe, the point is, that from molecular machines in the cell to major body plans, there is a systematic pattern of gaps and islands of function isolated by gaps without functional forms . . . in which case Gish and co clearly have a point, one the public has a RIGHT to hear.]
The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what . . . .
[--> suspicion that a case has not been made on the empirical merits, substantiating the arguments by icon?]
Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a narrowly-focused exchange in which the debaters deal with a limited number of topics. Instead of the "Gish Gallop" format of most debates where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error
[--> see the contradiction? What about the cross-complaint that YEARS of schooling, hundreds of hours of TV time, acres of museum space and more are used to indoctrinate and it is complained that there should never be a forum where both sides can make the case they have in summary at feature article length or book chapter length?]
that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time.
There is much that is utterly wrong with this essay, for reasons already highlighted and in part noted in-quote. In particular, a torrent of half-truths is a thinly veiled way of saying reams of lies. For, a half-truth is a whole lie. Including twisted quotation -- as I was accused of above. I here substantiate that my concern was there from the beginning, though Ms Scott is a bit more genteel than the raw statement in Rational Wiki which I found years ago on first encountering this pseudo-fallacy. Where spewing reams of half-truths, lies, distorted dishonest quotes etc is an actual problem, any half-decent lawyer knows that if you pick out several points of error, and properly expose falsity and deceit or even just incompetence, the credibility of the other side is shattered. So, the rhetorical premise Scott offers is fundamentally false. Her claims about Creationists dodging narrow formats is also misleading, as in fact the claimed gradualism is a matter of a wide array of evidence relative to 150 years of fossils, with a broad pattern that should be there but is not. That's Gould's famous trade secret. And no it's not just rates, the rates issue was put up to explain the gaps. The systematic gaps. So, the core point is there, right from the beginning. The term is tainted, it insinuates deceitful insincerity and manipulation of the public. Even, going so far as to suggest that a format that gives time to make the case is calculated to get away with in effect public education fraud. I am reminded of the what, six year old offer here at UD that we would publish an up to 6,000 word or so (the limit is generous and flexible, where at 120 WPM that is 50 minutes of speech, about the times in question) essay that would outline and substantiate the core blind watchmaker thesis case for ooL and tree of life. Links can go elsewhere but the case as a summary must be made in the essay. After a year of pursuing it, no satisfactory submission was received from the penumbra of objector sites. That is relevant to the credibility of the argument Ms Scott made. No, I do not buy the claim, for cause. Coming back to the core point, it is clear that "Gish gallop" is loaded to the point of slander and should not be used. it boils down to saying that if one puts up a sustained, lecture length or magazine feature article length argument with many sources, using expert testimony against interest one is a liar and misquoter, pretty automatically. That is patently false and unjustifiably accusatory. It is time this was set aside. And, web searches show the term is now being migrated into making even more loaded political points in what is in effect a policy opinion verbal war that is deeply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion. Something is wrong here, seriously wrong. Something connected to the obvious ongoing suicide of our civilisation. It is time to turn back before the crumbling cliff's edge collapses underfoot. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
AK, really? Attack? I asked for a responsible resolution of a very serious conclusion-jumping game directly relevant to the point at stake; recall, you just called a man who has put his life on the line on matters of truth, a deliberate, calculated liar who willfully composed a deceitful construct as a sham definition, to base a meritless complaint. Yes, on Steve-h's direct correction, you pulled back, which is indeed a good first step towards a return to civility. However, in all fairness, an explanation -- as opposed to grovelling -- is reasonable, in the context of that return to civility -- which is the point of an apology; which I am willing to acknowledge. I in turn apologise for not explicitly acknowledging that apology as offered earlier. I trust the voltage can now be turned down to sub-lethal levels. G'night. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, your continued rhetoric is utterly unimpressive.
My continued rhetoric? I wasn’t the one who doubled down and went on the attack after an apology was given. If you can’t accept an apology, the problem lies with you, not me.Allan Keith
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
AK, your continued rhetoric is utterly unimpressive. The explicit and hinted at meaning of the pseudo-fallacy slander tactic are one and the same, and the just now Wiki reference underscores the fact. The term is irretrievably tainted by its usage across time and it should never be used by a sincere, responsible and civil commenter. In a day and age where "microagressions," so-called, are loudly denounced on far slenderer grounds, the point should not require belabouring. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
I clipped the definition from Rational Wiki verbatim, as described. You suggest that they have amended the definition, and it seems this is done without explanation or apology, it is just pushed into an archived version.
Since you are unwilling to accept an apology, I retract it. You obviously “clipped” it at least four years ago and never checked to see if it had been updated.
Now, the same definition continues, eg: >> https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/
Yes. It continued two years before RationalWiki corrected their definition. I didn’t know that time travel was one of your super powers.
Going forward, the use of the same pseudofallacy to accuse us today is slander, false accusation of being a gross liar, and those who resort to it will by that behaviour identify themselves as poisonous slanderers. Period.
So, you are just going to arbitrarily redefine “Gish Gallop”. From now on I will refer to it as the Kairisfocus Canter.
On further thought, I point out that you should examine why you so quickly jumped to a loaded, slanderous conclusion of systematic deceit on my part. I am a man who has put his life on the line on issues of truth.
You used a quote that was corrected four years ago and can only be found by going through the audit trail. I asked you if it was from a different site and offered to apologize if it was. Someone else pointed out where you probably found the quote and I promptly apologized. But rather than acknowledge this and move on, you attack. And then you go all self righteous on me. Obviously you are incapable of following the Christian teachings that you preach about. I think that our conversation has come to an end.Allan Keith
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
PS: On further thought, I point out that you should examine why you so quickly jumped to a loaded, slanderous conclusion of systematic deceit on my part. I am a man who has put his life on the line on issues of truth.kairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
AK, I clipped the definition from Rational Wiki verbatim, as described. You suggest that they have amended the definition, and it seems this is done without explanation or apology, it is just pushed into an archived version. Now, the same definition continues, eg: >> https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/ Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time. This leaves some points unanswered and allows the original speaker to try and claim his opponent lacks the counter-arguments.>> The source for this is obvious, given close resemblance. Next, we see Wiki as of just now: >>"Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie C. Scott and named after the creationist Duane T. Gish, who used the technique frequently against science-based opponents on the topic of evolution. During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.>> The slanders and insinuations of being a liar continue, in short. And no, my citation is not out of date as is in your latest suggestion. Finally, the "weak arguments" subtle-form, dog whistle wink-wink, nod-nod version of the claim fails, as it does not responsibly acknowledge how evidence can mutually support and reinforce. ESPECIALLY IN AN INDUCTIVE CONTEXT. A useful contrast is deductive argument chains which snap at a single weak link vs inductive, cumulative ones that are like twisted strands and fibres in a rope. The fibres and strands mutually reinforce, leading to a case where an individually weak and short fibre, joined to others will form a long, strong rope. This is a classic system effect where the whole is greater than the mere sum of parts. (And BTW, I discuss exactly this in my 101.) A capital example is Babbage in the 9th Bridgewater thesis. One familiar witness to the risen Christ may be given say a 1 in 1,000 chance of being mistaken. But when the number of witnesses, variety of relationships, views and circumstances begin to multiply, the odds of all being wrong drop exponentially. That is, we here see the probability meat in the classic saying that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a word be established. What happened with Gish is that he did in fact survey the range of cases and correctly identified the systematic gaps, in a context where there are 250+k fossil species with billions of observed cases across the span of the fossiliferous rocks and around the world. Such a sample is not likely to be wrong in such a dominant pattern, Darwin's hope has been dashed. That's why Punctuated equilibria was put on the table, to find another way around the "trade secret" of paleontology. But that too has fizzled. More foundationally, the issue of the origin of the FSCO/I in body plans from OoL up is a separate line of evidence and it highlights the only empirically warranted source: intelligently directed configuration. As I have pointed out, there is a reason why Gish scored 300+:0 in debates, and the slanderous, character assassination pseudofallacy explanation simply does not hold water. Period. Going forward, the use of the same pseudofallacy to accuse us today is slander, false accusation of being a gross liar, and those who resort to it will by that behaviour identify themselves as poisonous slanderers. Period. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Steve_h,
Actually the quote appears exactly as KF gave it between October 2012 and February 2014 – and maybe at others times too. You can see it on the ‘Fossil Record’ tab.
Thank you for pointing this out. KF was not fabricating a false quote, just using a quote that was corrected four years ago. I sincerelyapologize to KF for suggesting an intentional quote mine.Allan Keith
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Actually the quote appears exactly as KF gave it between October 2012 and February 2014 - and maybe at others times too. You can see it on the 'Fossil Record' tab.steve_h
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
KF@140, I went back to comment 125 and to your dedicated OP. In both you have written:
And so, we can hardly but observe that you are forced to appeal to our sense of duty to truth, justice and more, even as you work as a saw-tooth cutting away at our connexion to the root of such things. Now, Rational Wiki (and no I will not link the source, do your own search):
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.”
The only problem is that the quote you say is from RationalWiki does not appear anywhere on that page. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop The actual definition from RationalWiki is:
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Although not flattering, it does not say that it is " the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments...", as you implied. Possibly you were mistaken about where you obtained the definition you posted. But I must say that on the face of it, it appears that you picked and chose parts of different sentences from the RationalWiki page and assembled them to suggest a definition that RationalWiki, no fan of ID, never intended. It is possible that your quote comes from a different RationalWiki page, or another site. If you can provide a link to this, I will certainly apologize.Allan Keith
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
PS: This latest episode also shows the suicidal nature of the alleged tactic. For, AK has here given enough of a performance that -- were there any remaining doubt -- we know the irresponsible, un-serious, unreasonable rhetorical habits we are dealing with in this case. At this point, we can only correct for record.kairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
AK, I highlighted a relevant part of a citation which I gave in more extensive form earlier [including in a headlined OP]. In so doing, I directly demonstrated that -- contrary to your assertions -- the term DOES directly assert half truths and lies in wholesale quantities. You then failed to acknowledge that I had obviously made my point and proceeded to double down with the further accusation of misleading out of context citation. You have thus shown your own utter lack of seriousness, responsibility and reasonableness. Duly noted. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Allan Keiths:
Thank you for demonstrating the fine art of the quote-mine.
As if someone ought not quote-mine. Why all the moral judgmentalism Mr. Keith?Mung
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Gish gallop does not pertain to blogs and forums such as UD.ET
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, an actual half truth would be a whole lie, and as was already cited, there is an explicit assertion of piling up reams of lies — Rational Wiki (so-called): ” the debating technique of drowning the opponent in . . . a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments . . .
Thank you for demonstrating the fine art of the quote-mine. The actual definition from RatialWiki is:
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort."
The part about "torrent of lies...", follows on from this sentence:
"Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. "
This explains that the Gish gallop is often used in conjunction with other questionable debating tactics, including lies, red herrings and straw man erecting. It does not say that the Gish gallop itself involves lies. Gish's debating style often involved bombarding the opponent with mountains of arguments, some weak, some strong. In a timed debate, this dos not allow the opponent time to respond adequately to all of them. My criticism is not with Gish. He employed a tactic for which his opponents could not adequately respond to. That is what debaters try to do. My criticism is with the moderators and his opponents for not calling him on it.Allan Keith
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
The “Gish gallop” style does not make any implications of lying.
Thank God for that! But what's wrong with lying?Mung
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
AK, an actual half truth would be a whole lie, and as was already cited, there is an explicit assertion of piling up reams of lies -- Rational Wiki (so-called): " the debating technique of drowning the opponent in . . . a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments . . . " That is the context in which I am pointing out that this term was born in slander and lives in slander to this day; unless you are in a position to demonstrate piled up lies, kindly do not use language with that implied accusation. As for matters epistemological, your attempt to project the fallacy of the closed mind to me by snide suggestion obviously reflects your failure to seriously read and reckon with the already linked 101 on worldviews here on. I will note, some things are self-evident (on pain of instant absurdity on the attempted denial; I used error exists and consciousness as cases in point), other things are warranted to lesser degrees. I also think you failed to see why I normally use a weak form understanding of knowledge: warranted, credibly true (and reliable) belief, which for instance applies to many scientific, managerial or historical claims. And so forth. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, you are simply wrong.
I am willing to admit the possibility. Are you?
Remember, you are by DIRECT implication accusing people of trying to win debates by wholesale lying;
No. The “Gish gallop” style does not make any implications of lying.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
AK, you are simply wrong. For reasons long since laid out. Further to this, you seem indifferent to the basic discourtesy of a double-slander [which beyond a certain threshold is an outright tort]: Gish to begin with and those you wish to smear, tag and dismiss today. Remember, you are by DIRECT implication accusing people of trying to win debates by wholesale lying; seldom a wise thing to suggest, especially when you deal with those who have put careers and lives on the line on issues of conscience and truth. Blend in the indication that you have caught the bad habit of selective hyperskepticism and we can see the hint of a perfect storm of mutually reinforcing fallacies. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
So AK, let me see if I got this straight. Disingnuous Darwinian debating tactic #449, or is that tactic #448?, is that if someone presents ample evidence against Darwinian claims, instead of addressing any of the evidence forthrightly, you just issue a ad hominem with what is termed a "Gish Gallop" and then you claim victory and walk away??? Golly gee whiz you just got to luv this Darwinian stuff, no messy research or backing up your claims with actual real time evidence, just attack the man, ignore the research, and call it a day. Of course, those who are not so enamored with all things Darwinian, as you are, might not find your tactics so compelling. But hey, who am I to say anything. All the evidence I presented, and me included, are rendered pointless and moot by your magic two words "Gish Gallop"! :) satire off!bornagain77
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
What part of slander do you not recognise?
Gish’s debates are there for all to see. I think that the definition of Gish Gallop describes his debating style quite accurately. You disagree. The fact that you think it is slander doesn’t make it so. But you will also note that I almost never use the term, even though the definition aptly describes the debating style of two frequent commenters on this site.
My reply stands, “fabrication” is an obviously loaded term and your insinuations and suggestions about “religious programming” are yet further doubling down.
All I will say about this is Google Charles McVety, a recent commenter here, and watch a few of his videos.Allan Keith
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
AK:
his was coined for the debating style of Duane Gish, a creationist proponent. Whether it accurately describes Gish’s debating style is immaterial.
What part of slander do you not recognise? This further doubling down is sadly telling. Now, on your second assertion, I see:
With regard to evil being a fabrication of religion, I was obliously exaggerating. The term “evil” is used in many fashions in the English language. In its simplest form it is just a qualifier on the good/bad spectrum. However, in the religious frame of reference, it is used to imply something much more. That is the use of evil that is a fabrication of religion. And anyone who watches religious programming will know what I mean.
My reply stands, "fabrication" is an obviously loaded term and your insinuations and suggestions about "religious programming" are yet further doubling down. You have tried to circumvent the issue of gross error regarding the nature of evil by suggesting "The term “evil” is used in many fashions . . . In its simplest form it is just a qualifier on the good/bad spectrum." Good vs bad only manages to use a synonym for evil. Fail. There is a substantial conceptualisation of evil on the table:
what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc.
KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Gish Gallop:
"Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
This was coined for the debating style of Duane Gish, a creationist proponent. Whether it accurately describes Gish’s debating style is immaterial. We have terms in the English language that are commonly used that don’t necessarily accurately reflect the person they are named for. But to argue that it is not a technique often used by ID proponents would be wrong, although to be fair it is also used by others. I used it in reference to BA77’s comments. And anyone who has read BA77’s comments would be hard pressed to find relevance or validity to the points being made. And, with respect, the same could be made for some of KF’s comments. Of what relevance is sawdust and cutting the branch to the use of a certain phrase or a statement about evil? Or lemmings going over a cliff? Or abortion being the greatest holocaust ever? Or Plato’s cave? KF uses these metaphors in the strangest associations. This is all to say that terms like Gish gallop are no more slander than Platonic or Machiavellian are slanderous towards Plato and Machiavelli. However, With regard to evil being a fabrication of religion, I was obliously exaggerating. The term “evil” is used in many fashions in the English language. In its simplest form it is just a qualifier on the good/bad spectrum. However, in the religious frame of reference, it is used to imply something much more. That is the use of evil that is a fabrication of religion. And anyone who watches religious programming will know what I mean. But thank you for posting an OP about something I sai. It is good for the ego. But to be serious, I enjoy these discussions, especially when something I say stimulates further discussion, even when it is in opposition to me those are the most constructive discussions.Allan Keith
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Charles,
Let me tell you what radical sex education is doing in Canada. Children as young as eight are being taught how to have anal sex, and how to use condoms to reduce the risk of disease during anal sex. And they are being forced to question what gender they are. This radical sex education is just leading to a generation of perversion.
This level of intentional misrepresentation doesn’t warrant a response. It’s inanity speaks for itself.Allan Keith
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
CM, zip-zip-zip, as the sawdust piles up and as the branch begins to groan. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/answering-aks-claims-a-the-so-called-gish-gallop-is-an-id-technique-and-b-evil-is-a-concept-fabricated-by-religion/kairosfocus
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
AK, let us go back to your context from 64 above: "the ID technique [--> that's already a Big Lie agit prop tactic and slander] that you excel at called the Gish Gallop [--> diagnostic, terrible sign], made famous by Duane Gish and others [--> root-slander]" and again at 100 above: "evil is a concept fabricated by religion." Before anything else, I note this is an attempt to relativise and dismiss the reality of evil and to side-step two significant developments. First, that while up to the 50's - 70's the appeal to the problem of evils was a favourite tactic of atheists to try to dismiss the reality of God. But after Plantinga's highly successful free will defense was put on the table the deductive form collapsed and the inductive one was broken in its impact. But of course, some of us are old enough to remember and to bear witness. In short, deep inside the dismissal is resentment that a favourite rhetorical appeal of atheism has collapsed decisively, and that at the hands of a Christian theist and leading philosopher. The second matter turns on recognising what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc. As WmAD famously highlighted from Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, that issue is the problem of good:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
I doubt that you would as cavalierly assert through the confident manner fallacy: evil [--> GOOD] is a concept fabricated by religion . . . But the two are inextricably intertwined, indeed evil parasites off the good and much of its repugnance when its destructive effects are manifest for all to see comes from its patent violation and frustration of what is a manifest proper end. And so, we can hardly but observe that you are forced to appeal to our sense of duty to truth, justice and more, even as you work as a saw-tooth cutting away at our connexion to the root of such things. Now, Rational Wiki (and no I will not link the source, do your own search):
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.”
Now, too, before I speak more specifically, remember my metaphor just above on the cumulative impact of corrosive polarising slander and cutting off the roots of our civilisation -- noting, the dismissive genetic fallacy on evil also made by you, AK: one tooth of a zipping saw does not do much, it seems, from how tiny a sawdust shaving is. But once we see many teeth in action, the cumulative effect is huge as the sawdust pile grows and grows and grows zip-zip-zip, especially if the branch we are sitting on is under strain and has to bear all of us. Then, beyond a certain unpredictable point, a critical threshold is hit and CRAACK, SNAP, COLLAPSE. Too late, bitterly too late. Where, we are dealing with a civilisation that -- having nukes -- is far too dangerous to fail safely. In that light, AK's strawman tactic of twisting my words into:
Civilization is going to come crashing down because I used the term “Gish gallop” . . .
. . . only manages to show the sort of destructive blindness caused by evil and in accumulation, the zipping saw at suicidal work in our civilisation may well precipitate the unthinkable. FYI, AK, you sheared off one little curlicue of sawdust from the branch on which we are all sitting. You did this by a doubly slanderous reference. Which, I called you on, and which you show no signs of due responsiveness and responsibility over. And indeed, making that particular reference is a serious sign of how far the rot has progressed in a particular case. I don't know if we can wake up from the stupor of a Plato's Cave suicidal horror show already in progress, but that will take a miracle of mass repentance. This I do know, our civilisation is in self-induced mortal peril, and the saws are busily zipping away with destructive agit prop cutting us off from the root and support that are vital for our civilisation to thrive. Not that the blinded, benumbed and polarised will be particularly inclined to wake up to, face and do something about our common peril. Now, here is my longstanding response to the Gish-smear slander, here at UD (and no it is not a threat to ban, in answer to yet another twister of facts and issues out there):
In short, this term [= Gish gallop] is an accusation of lying, distorting and the like on a wholesale basis, further allegedly in order to overwhelm an opponent and thus prevent answering the flood of falsehoods. Something is very wrong here, however, even after taking the questionable list of sources cited at face value for the moment, for the sake of discussion. For, it is well known that to select several examples of actual falsehood or gross error and to expose them normally suffices to ground the conclusion that the party who has actually indulged such a flood of false assertions, is not responsible or credible and should be dismissed. One slice of such a spoiled cake has in it all the ingredients, and all that. In short, if the accusation were TRUE, it would be quite easy to overturn such an argument. It would fail so spectacularly, that it would be rhetorically suicidal. Provided, the other side of the debate or discussion were in command of the actual facts, not mere ideological talking points and disputable opinions. So, it is quite plain that there is no real need for such a named fallacy. And, in the case of Mr Gish, it is well known that he consistently won debates on origins science by focussing on the problem that the fossil record is full of gaps that lead to a want of on-the-ground evidence for body-plan level macroevolution. [Kindly, see the linked discussion of the real facts, onward at the linked.]
Nobody wins 300+:0 public debates, inducing opponents to find excuses to dodge further debates and to smear the debater unless he stands on solid facts and cogent reasoning. In this case, were [neo-] darwinist evolutionary theory even roughly true, 250+k fossil species in museums and the billions of further readily seen fossils in the field [e.g. Barbados, where I have lived, is literally built out of layers of fossil limestone, often in the form of corals] would overwhelm us with gradualism of body form transformation as a dominant, obvious pattern. Instead, as Gould et al inadvertently highlighted by championing Punctuated Equilibria, the actual pattern is one of systematic gaps and persistent absence of the roots of the tree of life icon -- OoL by blind watchmaker mechanisms. That's why we see so many evolutionary just so stories in the textbooks, the museums, the documentaries and the literature. By utter contrast, we may answer the slanders against ID simply and directly. On a trillion directly observed cases [including your objecting comments above, which are meaningful text strings], functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information -- FSCO/I for handy short -- is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration [= design] as relevant cause. This is backed up by the search challenge posed by blind chance and mechanical necessity driven needle in haystack search for configuration spaces that start at the 500 to 1,000 bit threshold of complexity. That is, such a search challenge overwhelms sol system or observed cosmos scale resources, given 3.27*10-150 to 1.07*10^301 and sharply up possibilities, overwhemingly non-functional gibberish. The only empirically warranted, analytically plausible cause of FSCO/I is design. The issue is not evidence and analysis, but that design is repugnant to a culturally dominant ideology, evolutionary materialistic scientism. Which, on closer inspection, is readily seen to be self-referentially incoherent and thus irretrievably self-falsifying. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Allan @ 123, I have never heard anything more nonsensical in my life. Babies are still being killer in the womb. Even one abortion is too many. And why is accepting homosexuality a good thing? Homosexuality is a sin and a destructive practice, leading to disease and early death. These people don’t need tolerance and acceptance, they need help. Let me tell you what radical sex education is doing in Canada. Children as young as eight are being taught how to have anal sex, and how to use condoms to reduce the risk of disease during anal sex. And they are being forced to question what gender they are. This radical sex education is just leading to a generation of perversion.Charles McVety
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply