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

OldAndrew: Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that sticking to science is certainly an useful strategy. For me, indeed, it's the only natural choice. But I speak only for me, and as I have said many times I also appreciate different approaches. However, I am happy that you seem to agree with my personal approach. Thank you. :)gpuccio_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

jdk: "That Ubiquitin post is way too technical for the average poster here, irrespective of their philosophical position. It looks like about four people have actually contributed to it. Perhaps the author should write it up for publication." You mat be right. They are technical, sure. But in the end, they are about the essential points in ID. If ID wants to be science (and it is) it must be technical. Moreover, the discussion there could be difficult for "the average poster here", but no poster at all from the field of ID critics is really surprising. If those details are too difficult, how is it that most ID critics who come here are so self-assured that ID has no scientific validity? How can they be so ready to attck everyone here, in soem cases, and still not understand enough of the related biological stuff to follow specific posts where I have done my best to be clear and explicit? How many here feel no fear to give bold judgements about complex philosophical, even scientific issues, like free will, morality, theology, quantum mechanics, the second law, cosmology, and so on? And then they become shy as soon as biology is concerned? But after all biology is the main theme of ID (at least in its biological aspect), and certainly of neo-darwinism. Are you suggesting that all those who defend neo-darwinism here with their whole soul and mind do not understand biology enough to comment about what I write? That would be strange indeed! :) After all, I am not a biologist, myself. Regarding publication, I have answered that other times. My choice of writing here is exactly that. an intentional choice. I have my reasons for that, and I have no real motives to change that choice. It is true that "about four people have actually contributed to" the discussion about ubiquitin. But it has been great fun, and still is! :)gpuccio_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

I noticed exactly what you described. When the post was science-heavy there was no debate. IMO the overwhelming number of complex mechanisms working in concert demonstrated how absurd it would be to even attempt a darwinist "explanation." I don't see how that's a bad thing. Posts like that have the potential to influence minds. Quasi-religious, philosophical reasoning does the opposite. It preaches to some of the choir, splits those who support ID according to their religious beliefs, and portrays ID as religiously motivated. Heated religious debates among religious people don't lead people to change religions. How much less likely are heated religious debates with atheists to persuade them about either religion or science? If establishing common ground is a useful tactic, that's the exact opposite. Another angle: if the goal is to change minds and influence people then your success may be harder to see because lots of people read and don't comment. You can't measure success by how many argumentative people argue.OldAndrew_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Thank you for the mention. I understand my OPs are rather technical, but I hope that the general meaning can be followed even by those who do not have a specific biological training. I would definitely like to see more discussion there, especially from the other field, not just because they are my OPs, but because I think that some of the issues debated there can be really interesting, for all those who are involved in the ID discussion. So, thank you again! :)gpuccio_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

KF I certainly agree design can be detected, so I wouldn’t consider myself an objector. My comment was vague but I was mostly responding to JDK about how many here do no understand the technical posts discussed here. That’s why I find it ironic that many A-mats are so sure evolution as commonly taught is right, no questioning needed. Though I also feel creationists and design advocates too should exercise caution on certain issues. 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.cobracai_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

You 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. 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. The heat pumped into this debate was done by design, that includes loud mouthed professors, pompous intellectuals, and mild mannered school teachers. 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.Upright BiPed_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Hi UB. Your typical sarcasm and disdain is showing: what kind of an unrealistic black-and-white world do you live in to see "publicly urging balance and professional respect in addressing the design inference" and seeing Behe as “a Jesus freak who is trying to establish a theocracy in science and state” as the only two alternatives.jdk_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Cobra, the design inference on functionally specific complex organisation and associated information may apply to biological systems but it is not a biological issue. Biologists, unless the also have experience in engineering and information, are not particularly expert. It so happens that from the cell on up, since the 1940's we have more and more realised that life forms are chock full of such FSCO/I. The known source of such, on a trillion member observation base and linked blind needle in haystack search challenge, is intelligently directed configuration. That FSCO/I includes the von Neumann self replicator put on the table in the 1940's so it needs to be accounted for prior to the origin of cell based life. We have very strong grounds to infer on tested reliable sign that the best explanation of FSCO/I and the only actually observed one is design. Remember, we are dealing with TEXT, alphanumerical coded digital information that functions algorithmically in the heart of the living cell. We have every epistemic right to make a strong inference to design as cause. If you doubt this, simply put up an actually observed case of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and or mechanical necessity of at least 500 - 1,000 bits of information: _______ I confidently predict that you cannot, nor can any other objector. Just the text of posts in this thread stands as further examples of the source of such FSCO/I, design. KFkairosfocus_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Oh geez, jdk, I apologize. I didn't know you had publicly urged balance and professional respect in addressing the design inference. I'd sure like to read that. I might even forward it to the departments at Lehigh University and urge them to take down that disgusting attack page on Behe.Upright BiPed_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

A bit strong there, UB: and you're way wrong in suggesting that I would support the conclusion that Behe is "a Jesus freak who is trying to establish a theocracy in science and state." I know I'm not responsible for your hyperbolic stereotypes, but you're certainly wrong about me.jdk_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Most topics in biology are too technical for most, so why are so many, on this blog for instance, so adamant that their position is right? That does not just include A-mats. I think we should recognize our limitations of understanding on some of these issues.cobracai_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

That Ubiquitin post is way too technical for the average poster here
Yes, we hear that all the time. Some 19 year old with a part time job at a pizza hut will read that tenured biochemist Michael Behe introduced the concept of IC in molecular systems, and in humility they'll demur from speaking on the technical aspects of the issues and just call him a Jesus freak who is trying to establish a theocracy in science and state. You should be proud, since you are on the team that helped intimate that acting in such a way is acceptable when it comes to ID.Upright BiPed_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Folks, that pattern also holds for other OP's that focus on technical issues, thermodynamics, cosmology, AI etc. The conclusion is, this is a worldviews and worldview linked cultural agenda debate in material part, but at core it is about scientific issues. That makes for some very strange bedfellows. KFkairosfocus_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

"Keep that in mind next time the A-Mats howl." I will. Thanks for the post.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

I've noticed that too.tribune7_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

The Ubiquitin post is outstanding. I don't even know how much I'd have to invest to be able to actually contribute. But it's a fun ride.LocalMinimum_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

That Ubiquitin post is way too technical for the average poster here, irrespective of their philosophical position. It looks like about four people have actually contributed to it. Perhaps the author should write it up for publication.jdk_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Bingo! -QQuerius_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

They consistently ignore the science and focus on religion demonstrating that for them it is in fact a religious battle. It seems coherent to me. :)Mung_{March 17, 2018
March
03
Mar
17
17
2018
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply