They Won’t Dance; They Won’t Mourn

_{Barry Arrington

March 17, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

“We played your a melody, but you would not dance, a dirge but you would not mourn.”

When we are discussing philosophy as it relates to ID, some A-Mat will invariably jump into the combox and howl “I thought this was a science blog; let’s get back to the science.”

Well, a few weeks ago GP put up an extraordinary brilliant science-heavy post. The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together. As of today, there were 414 comments. I scrolled through the combox and noted there were ZERO comments from A-Mats.

Keep that in mind next time the A-Mats howl. We put up science posts, and they ignore them. We put up philosophy posts and the criticize them for not being science posts. Proving once again that coherence is not the A-Mats’ strong suit.

Comments

gpuccio, re 46 and 47: I am also interested in the nature and role of religion, and worldviews in general, as an aspect of culture. (This was in fact my main interest as an anthropology major many years ago.)jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Jack, did you ever tell the press that you were uncomfortable characterizing ID as religion because there were “aspects of ID that didn’t interest” you and you “were unqualified to talk about it” ?Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Hi gpuccio. I am interested in various philosophical issues about the nature of the universe, and about the difference between science, and its limitations, and broader metaphysical beliefs. I am also interested in the nature of human nature, again differentiating, perhaps, between both a scientific and an experiential perspective from various metaphysical positions.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

jdk: "There are some aspects of ID that interest me and that I think I’m qualified to discuss, and many that are not." I am curious. What are the aspects of ID that interest you and that you think you are qualified to discuss? I would like to discuss them. Of course, if I can be considered among the "people of your choice". :)gpuccio_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Just trying to put UB’s complaints into perspective.
Perspective? You mean you'd to like to offer a cool-handed positioning statement, in the hopes that the scene of you clearly protecting your position from public scrutiny isn't viewed in posterity in such vivid terms as it was to anyone following along at the time.
There are some aspects of ID that interest me and that I think I’m qualified to discuss, and many that are not.
Utter horse-pooey. The entire planet of ID critics knows that codons represent amino acids in the translation of the genetic code, and that there is no chemo-physical link between bases and their referents. These things are not a secret to anyone with a pulse. This is further evidenced by the fact that it has been a topic of discussion for decades on end - acknowledged by both sides of the line.
all of us have the right to discuss subjects of interest with people of our choice, and to not talk about subjects, or with people, that we don’t.
You mean you'd like to pontificate on the history of what Michael Behe meant by the term "irreducible complexity", but you don't want anyone to affront you with any details about its validity. That sounds like a very cushy position for you, but its just a wee bit unreasonable. Perhaps, being that this is a ID blog, it would be better for you to just shut up about subjects you don't want to talk about.
I haven’t discussed your pet subject, semiotics, because I don’t have enough knowledge about the biological details.
You haven't discussed it because you know its a brick wall. Period.Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

I haven't discussed your pet subject, semiotics, because I don't have enough knowledge about the biological details. Also, all of us have the right to discuss subjects of interest with people of our choice, and to not talk about subjects, or with people, that we don't. Time is limited, and we have to make judgments about what is a constructive and reasonable use of our time. There are some aspects of ID that interest me and that I think I'm qualified to discuss, and many that are not. Just trying to put UB's complaints into perspective.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Having a "constructive discussion" with jdk includes listening to him pontificate openly on ID subject matter, right up until someone says something that puts his whole shtick into perspective, only to have him pack up and walk away under the flimsy reasoning that he and he alone gets to choose what topics he will and will not talk about -- never mind that he was already talking. In other words, if zero tolerance is your deal, I suppose walking away from scrutiny could be sold as the "civil" thing to do.Upright BiPed_{March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Hmmm. I don't trash talk either, I don't think, to any large extent (although I'm sure you could find a few instances of my being less than civil). I'm pretty sure I've been a constant advocate for civil discussion, both online and in my public comments (back a decade or so ago when I was publicly involved in these matters.) I know that there are people that have made some of the claims that UB mentions, but I seriously doubt that I have supported them. Anyway, I will stand on the principle that we should try to have civil and constructive discussions with people with whom we disagree, even when we have to make it clear that we do strongly disagree.jdk_{March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

JVL at 34,
I, for one have never encouraged or participated in trash-talk or anything of the sort.
Great.
I think what he meant was that it would take a specialist to understand and comment on the mentioned post.
Frankly, I don't know why you are responding to my comments to jdk about his comments on GP's post. You are not jdk. To put it another way (hopefully plainly enough to understand), the comments I made to jdk have a history that is particular to jdk, and I would not have written them to you.Upright BiPed_{March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

I have my own personal standard when it comes to interacting with our regular interlocutors. I usually only engage under two conditions: First, our interlocutor must be willing to ask and answer honest questions. Second, they need make a logically valid argument, which can be stated using succinct fact based premises. Being argumentative is not the same as arguing. Neither is pretension and posturing, obstruction or obfuscation. Reasonable people know how to make reasonable arguments. Here is an honest question: Is self-replication alone sufficient for a simple cell to evolve into something more complex? You can respond to it here: https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/jad-on-self-replicating-machines-and-ool/ PS Notice that this is a science question.john_a_designer_{March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

My 2 cents... Invariably, the a/mat appeal is to the Pop Science Community, rather than to a scientific process. Their minds have been shaped such that they confuse the two, and actually don't know how to discern the difference in a lot of cases. It's all about appearing to be Real Smart. Oh well. Andrewasauber_{March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Maybe we should all just get back to addressing the scientific issues?
Our opponents don't appear to have any science to support their position and they don't seem to understand the science and evidence that supports ID. If the people who accept unguided evolution had the science that would be different. Yet the fact remains that they don't even have a methodology to test their claims. Even the talk origins article on macroevolution is absent a mechanism. Whish is strange because it discusses patterns and patterns require the mechanism.ET_{March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

JVL: OK, thank you for your feedback. But I would say that a mathematical background is not bad at all, for understanding ID, The basci Id arguments are mathematical, even if it is nathematics applied to biology. Maybe you could give a look at this other OP of mine, which could be more in your field. If you want, of course. :) What are the limits of Random Variation? A simple evaluation of the probabilistic resources of our biological world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

jpuccio The ubiquitin post, after all, is about a rather simple concept: there is an ubiquitous system in the cell which determines the outcome of a lot of proteins, and regulates almost all important cell processes. That system uses specific tags, symbolic tags, realized by one protein, ubiquitin. Moreover, that system uses tons of specific functional information in the form of hundreds of unique proteins that confer specificity to the process. I certainly got 'the gist' of your post but I feel that in order to discuss your detailed and technical argument requires a level of specialisation that I do no possess. I come from a mathematical background and I know full well that people will offer opinions of mathematical issues without really understanding the complexities involved. And I am not going to do that with things I don't fully understand. So, I choose not to weigh in one way or another. I think that is fair and hones. I'm happy to have another look at your post to see if I can parse it better than after my first attempt. But I will not be drawn on things I don't understand well. As far as having an opinion regarding ID and/or un-guided evolution . . . well, you'd have to discuss that with whoever you were having a discussion. I think it's safe to say that many people, on both sides, have already made up their minds without really understanding the scientific arguments. But, that is just my opinion.JVL_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

JVL: I appreciate your thoughts, even if not addressed to me. You say: "I think what he meant was that it would take a specialist to understand and comment on the mentioned post. Personally I am in no position to criticise or praise it." OK, I understand that position. But still, I have tried in all ways to be as clear as possible in the OP, even if the following discussion is sometimes more specific and technical. Of course, some understanding of the basics of biology is needed. But then I wonder: how can anyone have a personal position about ID and neo-darwinisms, without some basic understanding of biology? So, while I don't expect that anyone is obliged to deal with biological details, I would expect some good will and curiosity from those who come here to debate exactly those issues. Moreover, to take part in a discussion does not necessarily mean that one has to "criticise or praise". It is possible to discuss in order to understand, to clarify. It is possible to ask questions about what is not completely clear. The ubiquitin post, after all, is about a rather simple concept: there is an ubiquitous system in the cell which determines the outcome of a lot of proteins, and regulates almost all important cell processes. That system uses specific tags, symbolic tags, realized by one protein, ubiquitin. Moreover, that system uses tons of specific functional information in the form of hundreds of unique proteins that confer specificity to the process. You see, it's as simple as that. I think it's possible to discuss those concepts, even if one is not "a specialist".gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed ou are right about one thing Jack, I do have a general disdain for all of you who sent the unspoken message to John Q Public that the trash talk you see from those with a organization, or a keyboard, or a microphone is perfectly okay when it comes to responding to ID proponents. I, for one have never encouraged or participated in trash-talk or anything of the sort. Yet, when I participate on this site in good faith, I am frequently derided and even called names. Assumptions about my views are liberally made. I do try to be fair and balanced but, to be honest, many of the ID supporters here don't match that standard themselves. And those words I wrote — they have been seen on this forum ( and print, and radio, and TV) in one form or another thousands upon thousands of times. I never see even one of you anti-ID leaders lift a finger to cool the rhetoric. You expect us to police thousands/millions of others, some of whom we have little in common with? For my own part I do not participate in any "A/MAT" forums and so am in a poor position to influence them. Nor do I think it's my responsibility. The heat pumped into this debate was done by design, that includes loud mouthed professors, pompous intellectuals, and mild mannered school teachers. Perhaps. Maybe we should all just get back to addressing the scientific issues? The issues “being too technical” was never a concern in slowing down the thrashing of ID proponents, so spare us your opportunistic rhetorical concerns about it now. I think what he meant was that it would take a specialist to understand and comment on the mentioned post. Personally I am in no position to criticise or praise it.JVL_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Mung: You really know how to scare me! :)gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

KF: "And it is also about intelligence and consciousness, hence my current series on memristors as the current great hope for neuromorphic computing and presumably “emergence” of consciousness via AI." You are absolutely right! You know how central the problem of consciousness is for me too. :) I have always thought that neo-darwinism and strong AI theories (the presumable “emergence” of consciousness via AI) are strictly connected: the two big scientific lies of our times. "GP, I think on fair comment that we could call a medical practitioner an applied biologist, albeit with primary emphasis on one certain species." Yes, that can be fair. There are no doubts that my education and experience in medicine has helped a lot. But it is also true that most of what I know of modern biology is mainly the result of my long militancy in ID. :)gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

gpuccio:
Hi my friend, how are you?
I am well, thank you. Perhaps I will drop in to your Ubiquitin thread and show why you are all wrong, since no one else seems up to the task. :)Mung_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Vivid, yes. And it is also about intelligence and consciousness, hence my current series on memristors as the current great hope for neuromorphic computing and presumably "emergence" of consciousness via AI. Mind you I have to go fairly slowly on the series as there are all sorts of factors and frankly I am not the same since July 18 last year. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

GP, I think on fair comment that we could call a medical practitioner an applied biologist, albeit with primary emphasis on one certain species. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed at #11: Thank you for mentioning that. I would say that "disgusting" is an euphemism. It's a shame for scientific thought and for academic dignity. This is the prominent link that we can find at the home page of the Biological Sciences Department of the Leigh University site: Read the department's position on evolution and "intelligent design" And the link leads to this page:
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
So much for scientific integrity! Labeling a professor of their own university and his scientific ideas as heretic seems to be their main interest, so much so that they chose to give the highest visibility to the matter. What a shame!gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Truth Will Set You Free: "So proud to be on the ID side of the debate." So am I. :)gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

LocalMinimum: "The Ubiquitin post is outstanding." Thank you! :)gpuccio_{March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

UB @ 14: "...I do have a general disdain for all of you who sent the unspoken message to John Q Public that the trash talk you see from those with an organization, or a keyboard, or a microphone is perfectly okay when it comes to responding to ID proponents." I completely understand (and share) your disdain. So proud to be on the ID side of the debate.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

gp,UB,KF Gp I too was very surprised that not one ID critic responded to your OP, pretty stunning really when you consider the recent criticism about the lack of technical posts. I for one much appreciate your always stimulating comments. UB you are spot on! KF I agree the problem ultimately boils down to worldview issues. Years ago I struggled with the evidence for Darwinian evolution, I just did not see the evidence for it but accepted it since every scientist assured me that it was there. I just took the stance that all these scientists knew better than I and I just accepted it until I read “Darwin on Trial” and my eyes were opened. I realized that it wasn’t about science rather it was about metaphysics and everything made sense. Vividvividbleau_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

cobracai: "Keep up those posts, we need more of them!" Thank you, I will! :)gpuccio_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Gpuccio Yes your posts are technical and that’s exactly what UD needs more of. It is quite ironic how those who think ID isn’t science turn silent to posts like yours. Sure ID involves philosophy and even religion, as does evolution. To deny that is just dishonest. Many opponents here claim to be about the science when it’s really their worldview they want to defend. That’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s otherwise. Silent observers such as myself clearly see this. Keep up those posts, we need more of them!cobracai_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

cobracai: "Plenty of questions may never be answered such as how and when the design occurred, how much variation can occur through selection and mutation, etc." Well, how the design occurred is a very big issue, you are right about that. But I am confident that science will at least give us some partial answers, in time. When it occurred is easier. Just one example: The design involved in the transition to vertebrates occurred in a time window of about 30 million years, at most, in particular between 440 and 410 million years ago. More or less. As I have argued here: The amazing level of engineering in the transition to the vertebrate proteome: a global analysis https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-amazing-level-of-engineering-in-the-transition-to-the-vertebrate-proteome-a-global-analysis/ and in the following discussion. How much variation can occur through selection and mutation is definitely a treatable problem. I have given my views about those two point, in some detail, in the following two OPs: What are the limits of Natural Selection? An interesting open discussion with Gordon Davisson https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/ and: What are the limits of Random Variation? A simple evaluation of the probabilistic resources of our biological world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/ and in the related discussions. Everyone is invited to comment on those points. OK, they are a little bit technical too, but whatever! :)gpuccio_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Mung: Hi my friend, how are you? :)gpuccio_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply