Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The guy had successfully hidden his identity for about five years, while posting all kinds of sexually charged abuse to the Internet about many people, including me. But now we know.

But Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater

A Linux genius, apparently. [Foul language warning re his posts and any reports on them. ]

Here is part of what Sullivan said, once she traced him:

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

Perhaps not. The thing I know from covering the intelligent design controversy is that a number of people like Cynic give themselves the right to pour obscene contempt and abuse at the public. Obviously, those people are frightened of something.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

He had decided to raise the abuse level last night for me, presumably in response to being outed. The Centre for Inquiry is sponsoring it. Did those people really sit there and listen?

Can you be good without God? I’d never necessarily maintained that, but now I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently, Day proclaimed himself to be “coming out in public” at that venue. But only because bloggers outed him first.

Sullivan tells me his recent posts have featured greatly toned down language. It figures.

Some people have morality. Others rely on avoiding exposure.

Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?

The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled Here are the contest rules.

Note: Entries that merely claim it isn’t happening will not be judged. Too many people here know otherwise.

Comments
Well, I think it's simple. When you can't attack the facts as they are true, you attempt to take down the person delivering them, by any means necessary, which in this case, is with foul invective not normally used in polite society. Unfortunately I think the polite society is rapidly vanishing in favor of those whose mouth's are filled with scatological references....Batman
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
DK: I note that at least we are somewhat on speaking terms again. (That is to the good - I trust you understand that last time around I spoke to tactics, and that anger on implications of a prevalent trend does not deflect that trend from its path.) I must suggest on your material point, that there is a reason for raising the question that evolutionary materialism as a theory that grounds reality in nothing but a physical IS, has a serious problem then trying to ground any OUGHT, i.e it is in the strict sense AMORAL. And evolutionary materialism is held to be not just a worldview but SCIENCE, indeed it is now being embedded in redefinitions thereof that have been proffered in recent years by, for example the US NAS. So, to point that out is not to denigrate but to point to a key point of incoherence in a now dominant worldview, one that needs urgent correction. On the point that you have declared yourself a rhetor [presumably in the postmodern mould], I have noted that this explains the pattern of your comments in recent months, a pattern that has been observed on by others. I will simply note in response that unless truth rises above competing narratives and rhetorical devices to that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, discussion is fruitless. (Cf for instance how CY documents how for nearly a decade the "definition" of ID as presented by Wikipedia has evolved, but never towards the plain, easily accessible truth.) And, unless we move beyond rhetoric as power games for control of Plato's Cave, we cannot make progress from en-darkenment of one species or another. (Also, the subtler point of Jesus' story on two sawyers is that it is the junior who is down in the pit with dust pouring into his face. Unless the senior shows ability to respond to that fact, the dismissals of protests or concerns from down in the pit -- however imperfectly made by a fallen individual -- will ring hollow. In our day, it is plainly the evolutionary materialism dominated establishment that holds institutional power, so is prone to distorting and agenda serving totalising metanarratives.) These I have remarked on to CY earlier. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
kairosfocus [193], I checked your comments 111 and 237 to which you alluded. 111 is a link, but the reason for providing is only vaguely alluded to after you provide. Your habits of exhausting your interlocutors may have (by now) diminished your ethos (yes, I use a rhetorical term). In 237, you provide a quote but only first by denigrating your opponents thus:
The REAL problem my dear sirs, is that evolutionary materialism is not “just” a theory of allelle frequencies, it is a worldview core claim motivated on the claim tha ti t [sic] is practically certain “science,” a claim that de-moralises the world for those who adhere to it. And, amorality is ever an enabler of immorality. So, we need to learn some lessons from painful history. In that context, I observe that — quite predictably JT et al (I cross reference a parallel discussion, pardon . . . ) — a mere link to relevant facts (as I gave at 111 above) is not enough to get a focus on the merits of the issue. So, I must now take up the painful duty of actually citing just how herr Schicklegruber and his ghostwriters drew a significant part of their inspiration form the stream of Darwinism that dews upon Descent of Man and flowed through German culture.
Aristotle noted that good ethos (or rhetorical character) includes three components: intelligence, virtue, and good will. Your intelligence is clear, your good will toward your opponents less so.David Kellogg
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
kairosfocus [191],
PPPS: DK @ 188: “rhetoric (my own scholarly field) . . . “ A light bulb goes on . . . . (Now we know the why of a pattern of argument visible for months in this blog, and coming from DK as a representative of the Anti Evo agenda of talking points.
That's beneath you.David Kellogg
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
CY: You have raised a serious point, false enlightenment (and BTW, I have had to expose sectarian groups that were destructive, cf how I approached the challenge here). Jesus addressed the challenge of thinking oneself enlightened when one is only en-darkened, in Matt 6:
22"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
In Jn 8, he amplifies the implications: 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say . . . 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! . . . If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." In short, one can be blinded by commitment to an agenda and live in a cave of false light and manipulative stage shows. But, notice what happens to Socrates in that cave: his chains fall off, he rises,a nd sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is foerced to ascend tot he real world outside the cave of shadow shows. With much pain, he gradually is accustomed to the light of the truth and the good. Then, he takes pity on his fellows in bondage to lies and agendas and tries to help them. Only to be found stumbling as he tries to communicate and interact,a nd only to find himself the object of persecution. Notice how Plato subtly shifts instead of directly accusing the Athenians: such a one is in danger of his life. Now, in our own situation we can see some key factors: 1 --> The likeliest and most dangerous manipulators are those who hold power and act ruthlessly in that cause. 2 --> Manipulators seek to close minds and drive wedges of misunderstanding, hostility and mistrust between people, so that they can rule over a polarised community, marginalising the truth and the right. 3 --> So, the weapons of truth and open-hearted mutually respectful discussion on comparative difficulties are the obvious counter to the strategy of divide, deceive and rule. 4 --> Here, truth does not equal agenda: truth is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. 5 --> And, truth no 1 for us finite, fallible and too often ill-willed is that error exists. it is undeniably and not just contingently true, with all that that implies. 6 --> Further, exploring our world unfettered (but responsibly and mutually respectfully) is the safest way to detect error and move towards the truth. 7 --> So, when we see a pattern of distraction, distortion, hostility scapegoating, demonisation and dismissal [as Mrs O'Leary has been highlighting], it is a strong warning sign. 8 --> Also, since the turnabout accusation is a classic tactic of those who do that, one should insist that claims of such be warranted. Mrs O'Leary has done so. ____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Footnote: I did another test on "effective style of comment," on the current ethics thread, at 111 and again this morning at 237, after the linked materials from key historical documents were ignored. This again shows how a link to unwelcome material facts is routinely studiously ignored by those with an axe to grind. (Notice, too the darwinist advocates' attempt to deflect from the relevant history, to try to suggest that herr Schickelgruber was a creationist, to try to suggest that Christians etc are just as guilty, etc. In short, we see turnabout accusation and immoral equivalency rhetoric -- classic features of the distract, distort, demonise, dismiss pattern of rhetoric. And that in the immediate context of dealing with a sadly notorious exemplar.) A more direct and sufficiently detailed corrective intervention is clearly required. Let us see what happens now that some suitably highlighted relevant documents are in play. Here is my prediction, drawing on a classical remark by a key C1 figure:
John 3: 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
In the end, the real issues are spiritual-moral, not stylistic or technical. GEM of TKI PS: JT, it should be fairly easy to cross check to see if my reasoning on basic thermodynamics and information issues is well founded; starting from the point that we recognise signal in the midst of the possibility and reality of noise, as a first step in information theory; thus the central role played by signal-noise ratio and noise figure and noise temperature, etc. If you cannot address these on the merits, then you are simply dependent on talking points supplied by others; and in light of the issues pointed out int he weak argument correctives, that is not wise on this matter.kairosfocus
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
KF, "I therefore simply make reference here, noting that while it tends to be de-emphasised in modern discussions, Plato clearly spoke to a situation where dominant community forces manipulate the intellectual environment to foster their power agendas." I percieve though, how Plato's Cave analogy could be misused, and perhaps has been misused. One could perceive themselves as having "seen the light" to the exclusivity of all others, or simply within the context of a small elite group - such as in the esoteric notions of the Gnostics - a light that can only be seen by the initiate, and through the practice of particular religious counterintuitive insight. And indeed, many religious cults do just that. How would you address this aspect - I know I'm getting way off topic here.CannuckianYankee
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
PPPS: DK @ 188: "rhetoric (my own scholarly field) . . . " A light bulb goes on . . . . (Now we know the why of a pattern of argument visible for months in this blog, and coming from DK as a representative of the Anti Evo agenda of talking points. I therefore simply make reference here, noting that while it tends to be de-emphasised in modern discussions, Plato clearly spoke to a situation where dominant community forces manipulate the intellectual environment to foster their power agendas. That is why the concept that truth is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is so vital. And, it is why on the design controversy to the merits, to the merits, to the merits, we must go. Even if this requires significant effort on a fairly technical apparatus of facts and reasoning.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
CY (et al): Kairos, according to Wiki:
Kairos (??????) is an ancient Greek word meaning the right or opportune moment (the supreme moment). The ancient Greeks had two words for time, chronos and kairos. While the former refers to chronological or sequential time, the latter signifies a time in between, a moment of undetermined period of time in which something special happens. What the special something is depends on who is using the word. While chronos is quantitative, kairos has a qualitative nature.
There is a well-known hymn by Lowell (originally a protest against the US-Mexican war, also protested by Finney) -- Once to every man and nation -- that captures the essence of my focus on kairos:
Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side; Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light. Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust, Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just; Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside, Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied. By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track, Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back; New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth, They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth. Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong; Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong; Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.
And that should show why I take a very dim view of rhetoric indeed, insisting that its primary value as a field of study is essentially defensive. (I think that the focus on making the decision on important matters should be on dialectic, not rhetoric: using comparative difficulties across factual, logical and explanatory power issues; as I elaborate here in a lecture note.) As to why an emphasis on the design issue, I think this is at the crux of the existential kairos facing our science-dominated civilisation. Science is at kairos, and our civlisation is at kairos. (And, as you know, my feeling is that on current track, the USA as the leading country in the civlisation, is looking at trends that look frighteningly like those facing the USSR circa 1980. I am not optimistic, for your nation, and as a result, for our hemisphere and the wider world. But where duty calls, I must not be wanting there.) GEM of TKI PS: JT et al. While I appreciate concerns on clarity, I sometimes find that one highly relevant reason why some things seem to be utterly unclear is that there is a conceptual block driven by a worldviews clash. (Initially P seems reasonable, and P => Q, but prevailing commitment to F => NOT-Q. So, one then tends to see onward rejection of P, but often at the expense of logical incoherence and absurdity.) That is why a comparative difficulties approach as underlying cognitive strategy is so powerful: it does not require commitment to any one view to enable understanding, and by forcing consideration across the range of relevant views, it broadens and deepens understanding. And while I can be obscure at times, I suspect this cognitive dissonance is what is at work in much of the "difficulty" some find with what I have said, especially since many have been convinced of the accuracy of a hostile agenda driven strawmannish picture of the basic points of design theory. And . . . PPS: I have relevant pieces of paper, education, qualifications and experience to write with some knowledge on the information theory and thermodynamics based approach to the design issue I have raised, as should be immediately apparent from a look at the always linked -- which BTW is not at all anything new. (That's part of why I insist that we should not forget TMLO.) Just as I have some relevant qualifications and experience to remark on strategic change and related communications issues. (I also note that in the end, you have come to agree with me on my basic thrust on such: summaries are brief heads up primers at best; it is in the details and balance on the merits that the issue must be decided. This especially holds in a context of significant controversy in which education and correction of misinformation are relevant. But in the end, it is to the merits, to the merits, tot he merits that we must go.)kairosfocus
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
DK, Yes I am familiar with Kairos - just didn't associate it with "renewal," but now that makes sense in reference to what you stated as a "moment of decision." I can see how it can be a very persuasive term. So Gem's ministry is focused on renewal (or should I say - the moment of decision, which leads to renewal). Makes sense. Thanks for the etymology. KF, maybe you could expand on this?CannuckianYankee
July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
CY, kairos (not kairo) is a Greek word for time, but it's different from chronos, from which we get chronology. A simple way of distinguishing the two is that chronos measures time by the clock (or the sundial) whereas kairos represents time in terms of opportunity: the moment of decision. The study of kairos begins in ancient rhetoric and continues in rhetorical theory to the present day; it is also employed in some areas of Christian theology. As kairosfocus tends to say disparaging things about rhetoric (my own scholarly field), I imagine he's more interested in the theological uses of the term.David Kellogg
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
JT, "But even the technical journals I read are less dense, and verbose than anything from KF. Again, who is KF and why should I invest the time? Is he a renown scholar?" I don't know much about him. I know from reading his material that he lives in the Caribbean, and that he has concerns regarding the gospel and evangelism throughout the Caribbean, as well as concerns about ID. From his material he appears to be quite educated in these areas. But it appears also that for some reasons he prefers to remain anonymous. He talks alot about "kairo," which appears to mean "renewal," although I'm not certain in what language. I found by taking a glimpse into some of his literature, that he is anything but verbose. He's a fairly clear and systematic thinker, and his writing required quite a bit of research - indicating some sort of advanced degree - it's not just guess work. Now I probably have an advantage over you in that I haven't found much with KF where I actually disagree. We're both apparently Evangelicals. If I do happen to find something that I disagree with, I will of course let that be known, and try to discover why. I hope my post isn't too dense and verbose for you. :)CannuckianYankee
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
CY: "So when you read these technical epistles, do you get all warm and fuzzy?" You betcha I do! But even the technical journals I read are less dense, and verbose than anything from KF. Again, who is KF and why should I invest the time? Is he a renown scholar? A prophet of our time? Who exactly is he and why does he think we should be so accomodating because he won't make the effort to communicate better? I guess the thing about KF is that several people (both sides) have politely tried to help him with his writing style (with the goal of making his message clearer and more accessible, as well as making this a more compelling place to visit). So far, he seems immune to any such advice. I think that tells me evertyhing I need to know and will take that into account in reading (or more likely not reading) his contributions in the future.JTaylor
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
JT, So when you read these technical epistles, do you get all warm and fuzzy? :)CannuckianYankee
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
KF,
4 –> When it comes to full written presentations, let’s use my Info Design etc note as a sample. Pardon my going didactic:
a –> It tells at the outset that it is a briefing note [so, non-literary but instead educational], and headlines its focus, giving the scope in the subhead b –> It takes as point of departure, a classical quote, which documents the roots of design thought in western civilisaion: Cicero, contrary to what some may think is not a redneck yahoo from the ozarks. (Nor is Plato . . . ) c –> A synopsis of 331 words makes the messager in a paragraph [with links for details], 1 minute’s reading time worth. d –> An internally hotlinked table of contents and outline lays out the structure and substance of what is to follow. e –> the introduction elaborates on the context and sets up wha tis to follow, in 565 words, a 2 minute read. f –> A “nutshell” incorporated in that — and thanks SB — gives teh core issue in 176 words: imposition of evolutionary materialism as a constricting, censoring filter on scientific thought. g –> The first main section lays out the central points on information, including that the inference to signal in a world of noise already inextricably embeds a design inference in modern science. That is, the core ID thesis that design is a best explanation for certain empirical phenomena, on empirical evidence, is already a genrally accepted scientific one, so that he issue is really that evo mat is imposing selective hyperskepticism. h –> Next, the missing taproot of the darwinian tree of life is addressed in light of the functional, complex information origination challenge. This key case is the slice of the cake thathas in it all the ingrediaents, as the same issue holds for orign of body plan level biodiversity. i –> In the case of cosmological ID, the inference is on not only fine-tuning and isolation of functional target in a vast search space, but that we are dealing with a species of irreducible complexity: detune one or a few key parameters and the cosmos that would result would be radically unfriendly to intelligent life as we experience it. j –> Next, the context of imposition of radical evolutionary materialism is addressed, starting with the rhetorical taunt: God of the gaps. A conclusion is drawn. k –> Technical appendices follow: thermodynamics and info theory issues, the Dover case, the CSI concept and its roots, the causal factors issue and the accusation on inference to supernatural vs artificial, Newton’s general Scholium as an example of great scientists thinking God’s thoughts after him, the Caputo case that has so often been challenged and related issues on Bayes vs Fisher, Weasel and the problem of targetted proximity reward search, mind as an issue
QFT---If only those on the Darwinist side would emulate your style, KF.herb
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
KF: "So, the issue in the end is that JT et al find it distasteful to read what is not entertaining and does not agree with what they already think [along with the rest of us], and find all sorts of flaws in it, on style if not on substance." It isn't about entertainment. I regularly read technical journals and the journals, all of which are lengthy in nature. The issue for me is that your convuluted and archaic writing style clouds whatever message you may have. It's hard work, and until I have some idea of your credentials and authority, I'm simply not going to commit the time. You seem to think we should immediately drop what we are doing and rush to the Internet to read your latest epistle. Case in point, I only just scanned your latest epistle...don't have time to read it all. You are a very smart person, but unfortunately you have a lot to learn about effective communications.JTaylor
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
PS: Sparc, on noticing a talking point on being about to shut down: Has it occurred to you that CY is talking about OUR civilisation, and makes no inferences about others? In OUR history, the Juadaeo-Christian worldview did in fact ground civility thusly, citing here from Locke in Ch 2 of his 2nd essay on civil government, citing Anglican theologian Richard Hooker [and setting up what he meant by "natural law"]:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. [From Ecclesiastical Polity, 1594+]
Evolutionary materialism a la Lewontin et al, by sharpest contrast, posits a world based on an IS that can entail no OUGHTS. (And this is precisely the view that is now being imposed much as CY summarised.) Thus, morality becomes inherently relativistic. And, as I have argued elsewhere, that IS can also provide no grounds for the OUGHTS of logical -- or, more broadly, reasoned -- thought too. We need to think really hard about where we are headed as a civlisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Some further points: 1 --> AOF, I make no claims to be a "prophet"; I am outlining a self-destructive trend, and am highlighting that we have very recent examples on how fast such can play out. (The Wiemar republic is another case in point, where its internal disintegration set up the circumstances for the horrors to follow.) 2 --> It is now fashionable to dismiss slide show presentations. I comment, as one with a bit of chalk-dust still detectable in the veins, that a modern multimedia presentation package makes for a very useful educational digital chalkboard (including the extension to Kiosk style presentations). 3 --> Which brings up that there are different styles for different purposes. Darwinists are usually interested in points-scoring debates and associated rhetorical [a red flag word . . . ] tactics and talking points; I and others are interested in education on the design theory issue, and in that context responding to misconceptions and distortions point by point serves a very important purpose. 4 --> When it comes to full written presentations, let's use my Info Design etc note as a sample. Pardon my going didactic:
a --> It tells at the outset that it is a briefing note [so, non-literary but instead educational], and headlines its focus, giving the scope in the subhead b --> It takes as point of departure, a classical quote, which documents the roots of design thought in western civilisaion: Cicero, contrary to what some may think is not a redneck yahoo from the ozarks. (Nor is Plato . . . ) c --> A synopsis of 331 words makes the messager in a paragraph [with links for details], 1 minute's reading time worth. d --> An internally hotlinked table of contents and outline lays out the structure and substance of what is to follow. e --> the introduction elaborates on the context and sets up wha tis to follow, in 565 words, a 2 minute read. f --> A "nutshell" incorporated in that -- and thanks SB -- gives teh core issue in 176 words: imposition of evolutionary materialism as a constricting, censoring filter on scientific thought. g --> The first main section lays out the central points on information, including that the inference to signal in a world of noise already inextricably embeds a design inference in modern science. That is, the core ID thesis that design is a best explanation for certain empirical phenomena, on empirical evidence, is already a genrally accepted scientific one, so that he issue is really that evo mat is imposing selective hyperskepticism. h --> Next, the missing taproot of the darwinian tree of life is addressed in light of the functional, complex information origination challenge. This key case is the slice of the cake thathas in it all the ingrediaents, as the same issue holds for orign of body plan level biodiversity. i --> In the case of cosmological ID, the inference is on not only fine-tuning and isolation of functional target in a vast search space, but that we are dealing with a species of irreducible complexity: detune one or a few key parameters and the cosmos that would result would be radically unfriendly to intelligent life as we experience it. j --> Next, the context of imposition of radical evolutionary materialism is addressed, starting with the rhetorical taunt: God of the gaps. A conclusion is drawn. k --> Technical appendices follow: thermodynamics and info theory issues, the Dover case, the CSI concept and its roots, the causal factors issue and the accusation on inference to supernatural vs artificial, Newton's general Scholium as an example of great scientists thinking God's thoughts after him, the Caputo case that has so often been challenged and related issues on Bayes vs Fisher, Weasel and the problem of targetted proximity reward search, mind as an issue
5 --> So, there is that which is short and sharp, and there is that which elaborates and gives exposition with links to where to go for more. Both have a legitimate role. 6 --> It is to be noted as well, that it is ever so easy to make assertions and rest on the impact of who controls most mikes and institutions [even blaming the victim for persecution], but to respond cogently requires substantiating information; and that in a context of idea hitmen where all too commonly merely linking is not enough, nor merely summarising in a compressed remark. 7 --> if you doubt me on this, observe just how often the substantial summaries in the weak argument correctives and glossary here at UD and the easily accessible ID FAQ's out there are ignored by those spinning a strawman tale. 8 --> And, notice how often the resulting talking points are echoed by those who come to UD, not realising that they are falling for strawman tactics. 9 --> And yet, it should be plain that we have a duty of basic respect [so there is no excuse for the sort of foul mouthed fulminations that are the focus for this thread] and of fairness and truthfulness [so, strawman tactics and associated misrepresentations are inexcusable, even in a blog forum, much less a courtroom or university seminar room or policy chamber.] ____________ We therefore need to ask where our civilisation is headed, why, and whether the inherent a-morlaity of the evolutionary materialist worldview [one cannot get an ought from an is unless the ought is embedded in the is; and BTW, the favoured Euthyphro "rebuttal" was rendered irrelevant to theistic views 1500 years ago, so it only becomes prevalent now because such responses have too often been censored out of relevant contexts . . . ] has something to do with that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
A few footnotes: First AOF has made some very apt remarks, valiantly trying to pull the discussion back on topic. (Onlookers, observe how much time has been devoted in recent days to discussions of style rather than substance, and who consistently initiate such.) I observe some remarks by JT above, and simply observe: (i) he has underscored my point that decision-makers do not trust summaries and summary presentations, (ii) the sorts of inquisitions he points to are tailor-made for idea hit man tactics as I also pointed out, (iii) at 300 words per minute, 800 words takes just over 2 minutes to read. So, the issue in the end is that JT et al find it distasteful to read what is not entertaining and does not agree with what they already think [along with the rest of us], and find all sorts of flaws in it, on style if not on substance. Unfortunately, instead of addressing substance on the merits, the Darwinist tendency is then to go into distractions, distortions, demonisation and dismissals. (And yes AOF, that tendency is at large in our culture but guess what ideas and movements have been associated with the radical secularisation and de-moralisation of our civilisation; especially given that since materialists acknowledge no realities beyond the physical and extensions thereof, their is-es cannot ground oughts.) And that brings us right back tot he issues Mrs O'leary put ont he table for this thread. GEM of TKI PS: JT, in organisation behaviour research, the criteria for consistently successful change initiatives are: idea originators and champions, sponsors at middle mangement levels, incubators {often called reservations] in which demonstrations can be done, and godfathers at top level to take on senior level politics. The usual counter tactic is the idea hitman. And, the success of the latter is such that for decades venture capitalists were making 35% ROI on rejected ideas and demoralised people crying into their beer in watering holes.kairosfocus
July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Manners and civil discourse were part of an older society conditioned by a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.
Do you think that you won't find Manners and civil discourse in non Judeo-Christioan countries?sparc
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
KF, "You are right about what happens when radical relativism compounded by disrespect enabled by a dominant worldview that discounts the “ought” prevails in a culture. Right now, your culture is looking like the USSR circa 1980, with 1989 - 1991 ahead" Thanks. I prefer not to make predictions about what our culture is leading us into. My beliefs prevent me from doing so. The Bible is full of conditional prophecies: "If you do this, such will be the result." Not everything is set in stone. We collectively got ourselves into this mess, we can collectively get ourselves out. If I were a Darwinist, I would of course believe otherwise. Inevitabilities seem to be directly connected to our choices regarding the "oughts."CannuckianYankee
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Actually it would not have gotten me fired immediately but I would never be included in anything meaningful again and eventually I would be let go.
Trust me, it can happen. You just have to remember, when one door closes, another door opens.herb
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
I almost wrote an essay, then decided to heck with it because I run out of vocabulary too quickly. The "why are Darwinists so foul?" question implies causation, when it is simply correlation. Manners and civil discourse were part of an older society conditioned by a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. This conditioning is seen as evil by certain anti-authoritarian factions in our society. These factions have been diligent in eroding this conditioning and have now gotten to the point where they can declare the conditioning "indoctrination" and convince parents to stop instilling the traditional worldview that had worked better for civil discourse than all previous worldviews. The reason I believe it is prevalent on Darwinist sites is because the members there are most likely second-generation anti-authoritarians, with no grounding in (usually even a revulsion for) the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.angryoldfatman
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
"Just google “experimental evolution”" Why not present a few of your analysis of these google searches. Would such a thing work in your corporate environment? It would have gotten me fired to say I googled it and I found some stuff but did not know what it was (though this particular example is irrelevant since I left a corporate environment several years before google existed and worked in our own business since). Actually it would not have gotten me fired immediately but I would never be included in anything meaningful again and eventually I would be let go.jerry
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
KF: "So, do bear with me when I find that it is sometimes necessary to be a little more substantial than a breif remark or to simply make a link." Substantial does not always mean quantity. A well-crafted piece of 200 words can have more impact than a long-winded rambling piece of 800 words. And it doesn't necessarily mean having to resort to sound-bites. (A good example of succinctly crafted writing are the Op-Ed pieces one might find in major newspapers). My issue KF is one of time. I only have a certain amount of time to commit to reading blogs. When I encounter your voluminous comments, my first thought is that I'll come back and read it later. But I usually don't because more pressing things grab my attention. (Again, when I do find the time to read you comments they can be thought-provoking; if you adopt a more compact and less verbose writing style, you'll gain a wider readership). Like it or not the Internet is a market place of ideas, all competing for attention. I have no issue in reading long pieces. But I barely even know who you are, or what credentials you have (are you a lay person or some kind of professional scholar for example?). So that also influences whether I am going to commit time to reading your work.JTaylor
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Joseph: "Does the theory of evolution have any lab-based non-telic science that supports the claims of itsd position?" Just google "experimental evolution" Joseph: "Did Watson and Crick perform lab-based experiments to deduce the double-helix?" Their work was certainly based on the experiemental evidence of many others both contemporay and prior to their time (e.g., x-ray diffraction images by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling). And both Crick and Watson had been heavily involved in other experimental work prior to their DNA work (even though Crick was primarily a theorist). Crick also went on to do further experiemental DNA work with Brenner and others in the early 60s (Crick FH, Barnett L, Brenner S, Watts-Tobin RJ. General nature of the genetic code for proteins. Nature. 1961 Dec 30;192:1227-32. PubMed: Entrez Pubmed 13882203.)JTaylor
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
KF: "THE END, NO-ONE TRUSTS SYNOPSES, A FEW POWERPOINT SLIDES OR TWO-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES TO PRESENT AN ADEQUATE VIEW OF A SERIOUS MATTER, though such may give at least a vague idea of what is going on." That's not how it works in the corporate environment (not in mine at least). The issue has been that for a long time people used PPT slides as a crutch and simply "read the slides". Now, many companies want the PPTs only as an aid to complement or facilitate in-depth discussion, with an extensive Q&A session. I even work with some executives who prefer no slides at all.JTaylor
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
JTaylor:
When was the last time any experimental lab-based ID science was presented here?
So if Behe goes into a lab and designs a flagellum ID is "proven"? No. Does the theory of evolution have any lab-based non-telic science that supports the claims of itsd position? No. Did Watson and Crick perform lab-based experiments to deduce the double-helix? No.Joseph
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
GEM-san, I thought your brief message @101 on the other thread was just right! I'm going to guess that it got more thoughtful readership than the same ideas would have had, had they been clothed in 5 numbered paragraphs. That was certainly the case with me.Nakashima
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Mr Hayden, I put up a comment as Morpheus to see how that part of the WordPress system worked. I was exploring what was under the "Site Admin" link yesterday. Related to that exploration, are Entries RSS and Comments RSS suppoesed to give different results? I was hoping the Comments RSS would give the entire set of comments, not just the OP.Nakashima
July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply