Oldies but baddies — AF repeats NCSE’s eight challenges to ID (from ten years ago)

EA: of course not, AF -- on evidence -- was only interested in playing the dark triad troll. He is unwilling to face the fact that the reality of function based on correct arrangement and coupling of parts -- leading to the further pattern of island(s) of function in a much wider sea of non-functional alternate arrangements of parts, where the degree of tolerance for variation in parts and arrangements allows for quantification of that, at least in principle . . . -- is a self-evident, observable phenomenon in the world of technology and in that of life. At a basic level, the Chi_500 = I*S - 500 expression, through the dummy variable S for functional specificity, allows for reckoning with the degree of specificity and objective manifestation of function. Where, the nodes-arcs network topology that has been discussed long since -- e.g. in the IOSE summary page that AF angrily brushed aside instead of addressing -- allows us to reduce such to a list of structured strings, which can be noise bombed with controlled proportions of noise to test specificity, leading in principle to a general approach to quantification. All of which has been outlined long since. Just willfully brushed aside. Revealingly and sadly, AF was last observed over at CH's blog, pretending or projecting that design thinkers are hidden agenda Creationists in cheap tuxedos trying to subvert science, progress and the like, apparently to institute a Christofascist tyranny complete with witch hunts or the like. The fact that he was specifically corrected on just that point here, in the past few days, makes no difference to the agenda of talking points and smears he has been spreading for years. Sooner rather than later, once he thinks things have cooled down here at UD, predictably, he will be back with much the same. He will not be entertained in threads I own, unless he expresses apology and remorse for the matters already exposed above. Remember, those include false accusations of fraud at the root of design theory, in the concept CSI -- which BTW was pioneered by OOL researchers in the 1970's, i.e. before deign theory came into being, I mean people such as Orgel and Wicken -- and the claim that intentional tainting by false invidious association with nazism constitutes fair comment. KFkairosfocus

April 29, 2013

April

04

Apr

29

29

2013

02:08 AM

2

02

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

TA: You are trying to pull the matter off topic and playing the destructive Alinskyite personalising- polarising game. Tactic exposed, and so ineffective; so is the underlying manipulative agenda. All I will answer to it is that measures for effective disciplining of trolls in blogs are well known, and can be extended to apply to dark triad trolls in institutions and communities: unruly, disruptive and willfully destructive behaviour will meet with warning, then treated with the simple rule, three strikes and you are out. As of now, the score for you is STRIKE ONE, TA. Those for dealing with toddlers and spoiled brats -- as you full well know but are ignoring to play at trollish games, given known wider context -- depend on a case by case basis; for instance I have a fine son who, when he was a toddler, if he had been a bit rude, a symbolic light tap by two fingers on a shoulder would express sufficient disapproval to reduce him to tears of remorse and a resolve to do better. (The allusions you have made to the slanders of sadism in the penumbra of fever swamp sites, are duly noted, and underscore your status as being at STRIKE ONE.) Instead of such poisonous and pointless games, why don't you instead deal with something pivotal like the UD pro-darwinist 6,000 word feature article length essay challenge that has sat without a serious answer for over seven months now? Could this be because you have not got a sound answer on the merits, but think you can gain an advantage by playing manipulative ideological games using the tactics of a notorious neo-marxist subversive, Alinsky? If so, consider the troll game terminated. KFkairosfocus

April 29, 2013

April

04

Apr

29

29

2013

02:04 AM

2

02

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Did we ever hear whether Alan Fox thinks a piano or a computer has a function? What is his mathematical calculation that supports his conclusion?Eric Anderson

April 28, 2013

April

04

Apr

28

28

2013

06:44 PM

6

06

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus posted this:

In some cases, some will need to pay a sufficient penalty for misbehaviour that they will be stopped cold and others will take warning that this sort of thing cannot be got away with. (Notice, how they try to twist about the idea of due sanctions for misbehaviour, into a projection of sadism, yet another false accusation or vile insinuation? Utterly telling. And maybe, just maybe, if their spoiled brattishness had been properly and sharply corrected in younger days by parents, teachers and school administrators, we would not have to face some of what we are facing at community level now.)

What is a sufficient penalty that some will have to pay (who is the some to whom you refer)? What should happen to a person in this context to make them stop cold? What is your approved form of sharp corrective for young children? In particular, what do you think represents misbehaviour by young children?timothya

April 28, 2013

April

04

Apr

28

28

2013

03:50 AM

3

03

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: of course, the dark triad is not the only problem we face, there is a sidekick problem, enabling behaviour. What do I mean by that? (You may recall, that this is actually where this all started, with my pointing out how enabling behaviour can become a community or institution wide phenomenon that allows the dark triadists to get away with what they are doing.) Maybe, Martin Niemoller's remarks about when they came for me will help us understand. Here it is, in the form of a poem:

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

In short, divide and conquer, gull or intimidate and subjugate, step by step until it is too late to stop the juggernaut. And, too often, out of excessive concern for the unreasonable, "rights for me but none for thee" demands of the narcissistic, we overlook the problem of injustice to others. We can get caught up, unawares, in the rip tides of the times, not realising that sharks and other predators know all about rips, and look for tumbling prey caught in them once the tides and waves surge, setting off the fierce back-flows in cuts that we call rips. Human sharks, of course often pose as our lifeguard rescuers as we tumble and panic in the rips of our times, but reveal themselves by their wolfishness; their predatory attitude and behaviour. As Niemoller warned, we must never fool ourselves that sharks or wolves have a button marked stop or enough. It is high time to recognise the Dark Triad pattern for what it is, and to stop from going along to get along with it. Compromise with injustice, slander, willfully deceitful misrepresentation and the like, now too often bleeding over into career busting and expulsion, are enabling of evil. Where also the deceptive nature of evil reveals its critical vulnerability: evil resorts to deception because it cannot stand up to the light of truth about reality. So, the key step is to expose the truth about what is going on, and call for reformation. Where, of course, the Dark Triadists will try to twist the truth about and project false accusations. That is their ingrained habitual nature, and they are not open to sweet reason. So, that tactic, too needs to be exposed for what it is. And then, we must determine to tough it out through the storm of temper tantrums and flinging of stink bombs and manipulative false accusations, until the dust, shouting and poison settles down enough to see the truth clearly. In some cases, some will need to pay a sufficient penalty for misbehaviour that they will be stopped cold and others will take warning that this sort of thing cannot be got away with. (Notice, how they try to twist about the idea of due sanctions for misbehaviour, into a projection of sadism, yet another false accusation or vile insinuation? Utterly telling. And maybe, just maybe, if their spoiled brattishness had been properly and sharply corrected in younger days by parents, teachers and school administrators, we would not have to face some of what we are facing at community level now.) Enough is enough.kairosfocus

April 28, 2013

April

04

Apr

28

28

2013

01:58 AM

1

01

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Joe: I have no desire to quarrel with you, especially in public. However, I have given sufficient caution from the hard-bought wisdom of "Uncle James" (and BTW, that's not KJV, it is ESV; a modern open source translation . . . and King James of Scotland and England and of the "counterblast to tobacco" was named after the apostle) on how the tongue easily sets dangerous, out of control fires because of saying the wrong thing in the wrong way and place, or even saying the right thing in the wrong way and place. He also advises that there is a sort of worldly wisdom that boasts of its knowledge, skill etc, but is riddled with envy, selfish ambition, and the like [all of which are forms of cold anger], leading to disorder and every evil work. This is all too accurate to what we are seeing, and it is what we must avoid like the plague. Short term apparent gains from fighting fire with fire, will be undermined long term by being corrupted form within and setting bigger, more far ranging conflagrations. Besides such only serves to further feed the polarising rage that drives the cold anger we are dealing with.

(Even atheism, for all its intellectual pretensions, is often revealed on psychological probing, to be little more than dressed up anger at God as projected Father figure. Then that rage becomes displaced and focussed against anyone who reminds such of Him with whom they would not wish to do. This is of course a much of the subtext for the canard that design theory is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and the projection of false accusations on an alleged vast right wing conspiracy to subvert science [h'mm what do you think it means when science has been redefined as applied atheism by imposing a priori materialism . . . ?], impose an imaginary right wing fascist regime [fascism is actually statist Nietzschean superman political messianism and is therefore -- as its history shows, of the left] that will bring back witch hunts etc. Where of course witch hunts were imposed by popular demand and often by the civil authorities because people genuinely thought witches were harming people and endangering community survival by blighting crops. At most, we may have had a few embittered herbalists using poisons to get rid of those they hated. Something that ordinary law against murder should have been enough for. There is no chance that witch hunts will ever come back. But, we do have modern materialist hysterias of outing design thinkers, accusing them of all sorts of imagined nefarious schemes, and busting careers by unjustly expelling them. Which was BTW where the current exchanges started. "Rights" for me, but none for thee, in short.)

Trying to gain the whole world while losing one's soul is a recipe for losing both. James therefore contrasts the true wisdom, which comes from above:

. . . the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

[NB: I strongly suggest the well-tested, "straight" version of the 12-step recovery process, for those enmeshed in addictive, life and soul-warping en-darkening, addictive destructive, sinful habits and patterns. (And yes, that includes addressing the porn-perversion agenda -- one of the major issues that seemed to set off some of the worst of those in the ring of fever swamps surrounding UD, cf. here and here.)] At this stage, it is clear that we are dealing with the spreading of the sort of modern Alcibiades, a pattern of nihilism that Plato warned against 2350 years ago. The manifestation in question is the Dark, nihilistic Triad of modern Psychology:

The Dark Triad is a set of three personality constructs: Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy, which have been deemed to be socially aversive[1]. That is, individuals who possess characteristics of any of the personality disorders that make up the Dark Triad are likely to be selfish, possess a grandiose sense of importance, and feel an increased sense of entitlement. Further, these individuals are often pre-occupied with dominance and power and will use aggressive tactics such as manipulation and exploitation to get whatever it is that they feel that they deserve[2] . . . . MACHIAVELLIANISM: Machiavellianism is best represented as a manipulative personality, one who believes that the ends justify the means regardless of the human suffering. These individuals are arrogant, calculating and will use whatever means necessary, such as deception and undermining the trust of others, to achieve their goals[3] . . . . NARCISSISM: Narcissism is a personality disorder characterized by feelings of dominance, grandiosity, and superiority. Individuals with narcissism often experience an increased sense of entitlement [--> it's my RIGHT! how dare you block what I want! how dare you oppose us!], a need to succeed, and a craving to be admired . . . . PSYCHOPATHY: Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a cold [--> how we love to be "cool" . . . ] and emotionally void personality as well as antisocial behavior[7]. Personality traits common to psychopaths are high impulsivity, thrill seeking, glibness, low empathy, and recklessness. Psychopaths are superficially charming, are skilled liars, and they often use these skills to manipulate and exploit others. Further, they do not feel remorse or guilt after deceiving or manipulating others7.

(If you doubt the relevance of this analysis, just scroll up. And, people like this will be pretty deaf to reason and blind to light. There is no short-term reasonable expectation that they will be persuaded by mere sound argument. The dark triad pattern has to be exposed and broken, and maybe there has to be sufficient of a life-crisis to wake up the cold anger-benumbed soul. [The real audience for now is the onlooking silent circle of the potential coalition of the decent, who at most may pass a personal message or two.] Above we had a case of being caught out in a case of demanding an entitlement that one is not willing to concede to others; and when it was exposed, the person spun on a penny and tried to pretend that that which was an unspeakable outrage demanding action and retraction when imagined to be unjustified and pointed at him, suddenly became a case of alleged fair comment and nothing is wrong once he was caught out and called on it. Utterly revealing. "Rights" for me but not for thee.) An excellent quick and dirty test for how caught up we have become in this web of darkness is the following agree/disagree (to what extent) survey:

Lurking beneath the surface of people who use others to their own advantage is psychology’s “Dark Triad.” Defined as a set of traits that include the tendency to seek admiration and special treatment (otherwise known as narcissism), to be callous and insensitive (psychopathy) and to manipulate others (Machiavellianism), the Dark Triad is rapidly becoming a new focus of personality psychology . . . . Until recently, the only way to capture the Dark Triad in the lab was to administer lengthy tests measuring each personality trait separately. With the development of the “Dirty Dozen” scale, however, psychologists Peter Jonason and Gregory Webster (2010) are now making it possible to spot these potentially troublesome traits with a simple 12-item rating scale . . . . “the Dark Triad as a whole can be thought of as a short-term, agentic, exploitative social strategy...” (p. 420). This means, in simpler terms, that people who show these qualities are trying to get away with acting out against others in order to achieve their own ends. Each of the individual qualities alone can make life difficult for those who know people like this. Combined, the Dark Triad traits in another person close to you can be detrimental to your mental health . . . . Jonason and Webster’s Dirty Dozen scale can give you a quick way to spot the Dark Triad individual in your midst. Rate each item on a 7-point scale as you think it applies to this person. Of course, you can also rate yourself on these qualities to see how you measure up:

1] I tend to manipulate others to get my way. 2] I tend to lack remorse. 3] I tend to want others to admire me. 4] I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions. 5] I have used deceit or lied to get my way. 6] I tend to be callous or insensitive. 7] I have used flattery to get my way. 8] I tend to seek prestige or status. 9] I tend to be cynical. 10] I tend to exploit others toward my own end. 11] I tend to expect special favors from others. 12] I want others to pay attention to me. [--> Sounds like the anti-ID troll and fever swamp rating scale to me . . . ]

The total score can range from 12 to 84, but you can also break down the scales into the three traits as follows: Machiavellianism = 1, 5, 7, 10; Psychopathy = 2, 4, 6, 9; Narcissism = 3, 8, 11, 12. Among the college students tested in a later, validational, study Webster and Jonason (2013) report an average of about 36, with most people scoring between 33 and 39, meaning that anyone scoring upwards of 45 would be considered very high on the Dark Triad total.

Sadly, such is all too familiar in the circles of the ID debates, manifested in the ruthlessness and cynical manipulation of ever so much of the campaign to discredit design theory, and carried further forward by many of the all too familiar web personalities and activists who take up cynical ID bashing as an obsession, a way to project blame for their ills. Such have become en-darkened in mind, benumbed in conscience and led into a cold anger that drives envy and selfish ambition to gain power at any price. And, to such, those who stand before them are simply prey, that hey think they can dominate at will, using tactics that exploit the fact that most people do not act in the way they behave:

1 --> ruthlessly manipulative controlling nihilism a la Alinsky's rules for radicals, 2 --> willfully distorting of truth, 3 --> having no regard for fairness [but exploiting others' regard for that], 4 --> cynically distorting science through the insertion of a radical question-begging ideology of a priori evolutionary materialism right into its definition, 5 --> seeking to destroy credibility by smears and slanders, 6 --> only restrained by what they think they cannot yet get away with.

This cannot be reasoned with, it can only be exposed and defeated, forming a coalition of the decent of sufficient breadth and depth backed up by enough intellectual horsepower that first restores science to a sound foundation in inductive logic, then addresses the wider implications of the nihilist movement. All this, before the juggernaut of evolutionary materialist nihilism can be stopped cold before it wreaks irreparable havoc in our civilisation. The nihilists know that this is the one thing they cannot in the end defeat, providing there are enough uncorrupted left who can stand together. That is why they have made such a years long campaign out of willfully distorting what hey love to call "the wedge document," and project a turnabout accusation of nefarious creationist plots to impose a right wing anti-progress, anti-science theocracy and to bring back witch hunts and the like. (Meanwhile they are busily conducting REAL witch hunts to out, burn the reputation of, blow up the careers of and expel those who dare differ with them in key institutions thy have gained sufficient power in.) But if we allow ourselves to be gulled into remaining divided, one by one they will pick off the key cont4rolling or influencing institutions in our civilisation, and one day we will wake up to find ourselves in the Brave New World, the reality. A nightmare. And, Joe, that is why I start from the premise that we can only stand together on basic decency, as integrity means an inner moral coherence that gives solidity to our stance and will attract the decent who begin to see that something has gone very shockingly wrong with Science and society. It is time for sober reflection on what we are facing, then to make a resolute decision that we have to go for reformation. KFkairosfocus

April 28, 2013

April

04

Apr

28

28

2013

12:43 AM

12

12

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I am afraid, you are wrong.

Not in this case. I think that you are afraid that I am right.

Fighting fire with fire is most likely to set a bigger conflagration.

Well obviously they ain't interested in anything else. Here is what I can do- If I ever observe that your methodology actually works, I will emulate that methodology. However my experience is that your methodology is wasted on 99% of the evos that read what you post. And apologies but I don't get the Biblical reference. King James doesn't talk to me.Joe

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

05:00 PM

5

05

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: since it is "fascism" that seems to be a pivotal ideological term (understanding the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS PARTY . . . the Nazis, for those who don't know the full name . . . to be a form thereof), I think it useful to give a clip where I outlined what seems as good a summary of a fairly confused term as we are going to get:

Fascism. Right wing fanaticism! I hear someone: "Of course that is really dangerous, but we are not going to be taken in by such, especially those silly fundy TV preachers and their fleeced, mindless flocks! Not to mention the right-wing politicians who prey on them!" That sentiment brings out my precise concern. First, are you aware that the founder figure of modern Fascism -- he was trying to become a modern Caesar -- was a leading socialist in Italy, who then took on the focus on nationalism that led to his identity politics? [Cf. Steele's summary here. --> Yes, really take time to read!] Are you aware of the statism -- utter dominance of the state in political and community life -- that is pivotal to fascism from its roots? Let me cite Mussolini's words:

"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

That is a part of why, yesterday, I noted on what Fascist political messianism is and how it works:

FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of "unprecedented" crisis that targets a large -- locally dominant or pivotally influential -- perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of "destiny." In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man "people's champion" figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge. (Cf. here on the last couple of times around, with particular reference to arms races and where they often lead.)

_____________ [NB: Cf here for a good description in light of comparative studies. Enc Brit online, here on is good. Fascism is generally tagged as a "right wing" phenomenon, but this is actually misleading, as for instance the single most destructive fascist party ever was the National Socialist German Worker's Party, the Nazis. Fascists generally are clever enough to strike deals with existing power blocs, and so establish a sort of state controlled cartel based economy. But the central pivot is the state and the politically messianic man who embodies the state. Statism -- dominance of the society by the state in the name of the people -- is inherently of the left. For mind-blowing reading, cf. Daniel Pipes here. A clip is instructive: >> Benito Mussolini was a leading Socialist figure who, during World War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian nationalism and called the blend Fascism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler headed the National Socialist German Workers Party. These facts jar because they contradict the political spectrum that has shaped our worldview since the late 1930s, the political spectrum which places Communism at the far Left, followed by Socialism, Liberalism in the Center, Conservatism, and then Fascism on the far Right. But this spectrum . . . reflects Joseph Stalin's use of the word "Fascist" as an epithet to discredit anyone he wished – Trotsky, Churchill, Russian peasants – and distorts reality. Already in 1946, George Orwell noted that Fascism had degenerated to signify "something not desirable.">>

Given what is happening again in our day, we need to re-think and more accurately understand Fascism and its poisonous spiritual root in political messianism. as well as in Nietzschean super-man nihilist amorality, and the onward roots of that in ideological evolutionary materialism as Plato highlighted in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC. obviously, I don't expect those plainly caught up in the dark triad, Alinskyite form, to suddenly bestir themselves and rise above the level of willful misrepresentation. But, the rest of us may just find such helpful. And one last point. This is how I spoke to my fellow Christians in the Caribbean, by way of direct application of the above:

If we look hard in the mirror, too often -- if we are honest, we will recognise ourselves in this summary. The solution to this, first, is to identify political messianism as idolatry. Putting the state, glib-tongued politicians and their real or imagined powers in the place of loyalty and devotion that belong only to God. Then, we need to repent. After that, we can set about truly sustainable development, in light of good and sound participative democratic and just government and sound community life, with an economy that is built on a solid education system and finding a way to compete effectively in targetted markets that suit our resources and capabilities.

Not exactly the strawman stereotype being erected, soaked in ad hominems and burned in the various fever swamps, nuh. Surprise. NOT KFkairosfocus

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

03:26 PM

3

03

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Joe: I am afraid, you are wrong. Fighting fire with fire is most likely to set a bigger conflagration. Pardon the following direct counsel from the man my mom loved to call Uncle James, which is all too relevant to what has been going on in this thread and elsewhere:

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,[a] and set on fire by hell.[b] 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers,[c] these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. Wisdom from Above 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

I trust that such counsel, all around, will in the end not prove futile. And, I think what is now happening is that I think some are waking up to the fact that the relevant jurisdictions do not just include the US with its deeply flawed tort law on defamation and similar matters. And, some may be waking up to the further fact that one can be an accessory (proverbially down to the newsboys selling the papers on the streets and all the way back to the printers who printed the matter, which I suspect extends to servers in our day). Alinsky's evil nihilistic counsels to cruelly mock, smear, poison and slander will not work very long, in the end. And, even without going all the way to HM Courts or the like, what has now plainly happened is that there is an expose of willful and sustained misrepresentation, leading to loss of credibility. Already, it should be clear to any astute onlooker, that the design inference is not a fraud, but rests on well established inductive principles. It should be clear that relevant function is observable and in some cases measurable, and that on the requisites of multi-part function dependent on well matched correctly arranged parts, functional configs will indeed come from narrow zones in the field of possibilities. Thus, blind search dependent explanations that appeal to chance and/or necessity are not credible, in addition to not being observed. The only serious candidate able to explain FSCO/I is design. And, we are looking at DNA codes and a cluster of associated execution machines. When objectors are reduced to trying to dispute that DNA stores a digital code, that speaks volumes. Loudest volumes. Multiply that by the sort of distortions, misrepresentations, evasions and well-poisoning nihilistic tactics that objectors are resorting to. It is clear that this is ideology backed by nihilism, not genuine science that is speaking in objection. A "might makes right" nihilism explicitly identified and ever so accurately warned against by Plato, 2350 years ago:

Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[ --> In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and ,i>that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[--> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ --> Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality . . . as we are seeing], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[--> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[--> such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.

Sounds familiar? It should, that is what we are again seeing in our time. After this, please, please, please, do not come to us and pretend to be outraged when I or others point out that evolutionary materialism foments nihilism and undermines civility, with a long and patently unfinished track record of such nihilist bully-boy mischief. (And if you don't like the historical antecedents to such, remote and recent, then don't carry on like them. Wise people will learn from history so they don't make the same naive mistakes again. You have given enough warning that we see the Alinskyite promoted nihilistic dark triad of high machiavellian cold anger callousness and manipulation, narcissist worshipping at the altar of oneself and demanding a level of treatment one is not willing to accord to others, and conscience-deadened, win at any cost sociopath tendencies. We know where such nihilism leads, and that such people cannot be appealed to [they typically view gentle appeals as a mark of weakness . . . ], only exposed and stopped cold.) (Stay tuned, folks . . . they started the fight. You are the witnesses to that. You are the witnesses to insistent false accusations of fraud and invidious associations with Nazis and trumpeting of unwarranted accusations about intending to carry out witch hunts. The tour of shame is clearly needed.) You, the circle of objectors around UD, have provided the clearest proof of this by insistently running thuggish bully-boy fever swamp operations and slightly less vile operations that genteelly manage to harbour slanders and willfully continued misrepresentations despite repeated corrections. QED, KFkairosfocus

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

01:31 PM

1

01

31

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here.

I am what I am. I was brought up under- "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours. But if you step on my toes I will stomp on yours". And "crude behaviour" is a subjective call. Boyscouts are nice but no one seems to listen to them. Perhaps if more of us took up my tactic then we wouldn't be bullied so much. No one would even attempt it. Just sayin'...Joe

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

11:23 AM

11

11

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Those who need and are open to some education on the nature of fascist ideology and of the nazi variant in particular, may wish to cf here and here. (We also need to know that in a time where there are ruthless manipulators democratic processes can fail leading to disaster, cf. here. Eternal vigilance, pains to get the facts behind sound policy, virtue and courageous public spiritedness are part of the cost of sustainable liberty.) Of course, such will be twisted by too many of those we deal with into occasions for further twisted accusations and willfully continued misrepresentations. That very fact is part of the warning signs that are there for us to read and heed. For, those who are caught up in the Alinskyite neo-marxist ruthlessly nihilistic/ dark triad radicalism problem have already shown themselves impervious to duties of care to facts, reason, evidence and fair mindedness [absent sufficient defeat that they cannot deny], so we need not do more than notice that they are of zero credibility and show an utter want of soundness and justice, so we should take due note of that as we make decisions as a community; much as the example of Acts 27 on the potential failure of democracy at the hands of ruthless manipulators gives us warning on. KF PS: Please note, my primary concern with fascism is not so much with whether it is left or right of center [until I learned better facts such as can be seen here in a summary, I thought it to the far right as is a common view, and wrote such in school essays . . . where of course my first political view ever (under the shadow of Hitler's memory) was anti-fascism -- which shows just how ludicrous the smear tactics being used are . . . . ], but its nietzschean superman nihilist political messianism, which is a dangerous idolatry that opens the door to tyranny. And I first understood political messianism as -- and I mean this -- heresy, in terms of having to deal with understanding how a certain charismatic political leader in my homeland was able to gain such a "devoted" following. That is also the matrix in which I came to be ever so wary of media agit-prop spin games and similar games embedded in institutions. Not that I have the slightest expectation that those now seeking to smear have any compunctions whatsoever about willfully spreading misrepresentations regardless of how they are set straight. Which is in itself a big red warning flag on the underlying animating spirit at work.kairosfocus

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

09:47 AM

9

09

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Joe: Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here. It is time to get up on the wagon across the board. KFkairosfocus

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

09:24 AM

9

09

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: I see that AF has tried to justify his accusation of how CSI is fraud. It suffices in correction to highlight again Meyer's summary description of the inductive logic, scientific basis for the design inference in reply to a critical review of SITC (which has already appeared in the IOSE introsummary to which AF's attention has been repeatedly drawn, so AF can hardly justify a claim of ignorance:

The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). [--> Notice how close this phrasing is to FSCI and how it is directly conceptually related] Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals [--> he is here speaking to an aspect of OOL, a similar argument extends to OO body plans]. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . . . [[W]e now have a wealth of experience showing that what I call specified or functional information (especially if encoded in digital form) does not arise from purely physical or chemical antecedents [[--> i.e. by blind, undirected forces of chance and necessity]. Indeed, the ribozyme engineering and pre-biotic simulation experiments that Professor Falk commends to my attention actually lend additional inductive support to this generalization. On the other hand, we do know of a cause—a type of cause—that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. That cause is intelligence or conscious rational deliberation. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts [--> note the allusion to complexity] of specified information . . . .

In short, we have here a well warranted inductive argument on a large body of evidence. To label that "fraud" or a close synonym for that -- "bogus" -- is an outrage, and should be apologised for. KFkairosfocus

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

08:17 AM

8

08

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: It is worth noting another dark triad/Alinskyite rhetorical trick being used by AF above. Observe, how he speaks when he refers to an outrageous and utterly unwarranted invidious association with nazism and witch hunts being made in a poison the well tactic used by OM and RTH at TSZ, with enabling all around there:

The comment that offends you so much is still there, plain to see. There is nothing there that is not fair comment, in my view, especially in contrast to some of the name-calling and other bad behaviour that you condone on this site.

1 --> The key trick is to project blame and turn about the issue to try to create moral confusion and evade responsibility: it is I who am being thin-skinned in response to "fair comment." (As in, blame the victim and shoot the messenger.) 2 --> In fact there is no warrant for such an invidious association. For simpler instance, there is no reason to believe that I or any significant number of Christians in our day would wish to pursue witch hunts; which were premised on the false but formerly widespread belief that witches really could harm people or kill them, and were responsible for crop failures and the like that threatened the whole community. In short,they were treated as perceived menaces to society, and were subjected to defective legal procedures that have long since been found to be wrong and corrected, with Christians including clergymen involved in such reforms in light of Biblical principles of the duty to justice and to avoid harm and injustice to neighbour, which are explicitly taught in the Bible. Those are public facts of history, law and theology, easily accessed though unfortunately not usually taught in the sort of circles that promote the notion of Christians as seeking to restore witch hunts or the like. To top off, there is no acknowledgement that when I had occasion to write a systematic theology survey that is intended to train Christians in my region, one of twelve main units of the semester length course is about: THE SINS OF CHRISTENDOM, and addresses just that subject. Something I have repeatedly drawn attention to. (Contrast that with the career busting and stereotypical scapegoating, well-poisoning tactics that are routinely used today to target Christians, coming from secularists. Which was the context of complaint.) Let me cite the major quote from the great Jewish scholar Bernard Lewis from his epochal 1990 essay on the Roots of Muslim Rage, a cite that I did actually endorse as a major context for discussion:

. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

3 --> So, right off the bat, this whole exercise by AF and others he has chosen to endorse as making fair comment, is a smear in defiance of duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness; one that again willfully continues a misrepresentation in the teeth of opportunities to correct it. Pure and simple. 4 --> Now the context used to invidiously associate me with Nazis is dual. First, I had, to draw out a point that needs to be heard, pointed out how ordinary Germans living near concentration camps were forced to tour the camps after the defeat in 1945, to witness what they had enabled by their silence since 1933. I also highlighted the indictment of the White Rose -- Christian -- martyrs, who in pamphlets 2 and 4 exposed the holocaust and indicted the German people as a whole for enabling behaviour. When I raised this in a discussion thread here at UD, AF professed ignorance, and OM sought to twist this into my calling the objectors to design theory who have been spending years in denial of the expulsion phenomenon, Nazis. 5 --> Thus, we see the first stage of a twist-about, blame the victim manipulative rhetorical tactic. 6 --> In the next step, the extraneous notion was raised that Nazis and I share a common attitude: objection to homosexuality. 7 --> Note the poisonous twist at work. 8 --> In the wider context, in the name of "rights" and "equality" an historically unprecedented legal shift is being pushed on what is literally the foundational institution of the community, marriage and family, with implications for sexual identity, freedom of conscience and expression and more. I happen to be one of a vast number of people who view this latest politically correct radical push as ill-advised at best and highly destructive to the stability of our civilisation. People who would join with me in that point would include the likes of Pope John Paul II (whom I, an open and principled protestant have publicly called, The Great), Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Mother Teresa of India had she been around, Chuck Colson -- who until his recent death was associated with the ADF and the declaration it has made in defence of Life, of Creation Order, naturally evident marriage, and freedom of religion and conscience . . . all of which are currently under serious attack in our civilisation at this time, Billy Graham, the leadership of ALL major religions, the historic view of law across the world, and any number of others, including a significant number of homosexuals who do not identify with the radical wing of the Gay movement. [Which BTW, is one reason why a favourite radical homosexualist tactic is "outing" such, which has had significant, arguably deleterious impact on public policy.] 9 --> So is it this list that is used to associate with me? Nope, Nazis. 10 --> Why? Obvious: to smear and taint by invidious association. Now, publicly endorsed by AF as "fair comment." And my objection to such a smear is not a matter of a thin skinned person taking undue offence at "fair comment," it is plainly calling out a smear through guilt by improper association for what it is. 11 --> It is also a typical tactic of those who are pushing radical agendas under false claims to rights, to seek to shut down serious principled discussion by making poisonous false accusations and use intimidatory tactics, ultimately, if they can get it, administrative or legal sanctions. Which reveals here the significance and relevance of concerns for freedom of conscience and expression. So AF shows himself here to be an enabler of wrong in the context of an agenda of injustice, which was where this all started. 12 --> Note as well how he tries to further justify it, by falsely accusing me of ENDORSING abusive name calling etc. A glance up at this thread alone will suffice to show that I have not done so and will not do so. Instead I have highlighted behavioural challenges and have called attention to the proper labels for such. You will see where I have snipped things that were improper in my view that caught my eye, and have tried to caution where I find things suspicious but not clearly over the top, reminding someone of a formal warning he has received. 13 --> But no that will never be enough, I am to be smeared on any handy excuse. 14 --> AF, here is your further sentence, first the finding: you have doubled down on false accusations by making further false accusations and resorting to similar poisonous rhetorical tactics. At no point -- in the teeth of opportunities and calls to correct your willfully disruptive misbehaviour -- have you shown remorse or intention to return to a reasonable standard of discussion. In addition, it is clear that you are unresponsive to evidence, and have insisted on continued misrepresentations, even after repeated corrections. 15 --> Action: At this point, it is clear that you have nothing of merit to add to any discussion where I am present. Either find the common decency to retract your false accusations, cease from further misrepresenatations and apologise -- which will help you to amend your ways from those that lead towards the dark nihilistic triad so enabled by evolutionary materialist ideology and linked attitudes (as Plato warned against 2350 years ago) -- or leave any thread I am owner of. =========== Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

06:28 AM

6

06

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Lack of curiosity and lack of respect for people who have different views was certainly my impression gleaned from interactions at TSZ and other evo sites. ;)Joe

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

06:27 AM

6

06

27

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan Fox:

The continually varying and multi-dimensional nature of the niche environment is something that some ID proponents find difficult to grasp.

Nice false accusation. And if you had some EVIDENCE to support your tripe we would be able to grasp what you say. However you do not and that must bother you.Joe

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

06:06 AM

6

06

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan Fox:

My simple point was, however you manipulate the figures, to pretend to be able to predict functionality of unknown sequences is the bogus element.

That's not the claim, Alan

On the other hand, if that is not the claim, then the process becomes trivial.

Perhaps to you and some other evos, but to the rest of the world determining design from not is a game changer.Joe

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

06:04 AM

6

06

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan spews:

Eric, you seem to misunderstand the core of evolutionary theory which is reiterative steps of variation and selection.

Nope, we understand it very well. We also understand that there isn't any EVIDENCE that accumulations of genetic accidents can do anything constructive. And BTW both ID and baraminology are OK with variation and selection. YOUR position requires all the variation to be due to chance/ happenstance. And yet you have no way of even making that determination. And that is what forces you to be a cowardly equivocator. Alan sez:

The piano, especially, makes me think of evolution.

It makes every one else think of DESIGN. So Alan doesn't understand ID and he equivocates and oversells evolutionism. Pathetic but typical.Joe

April 27, 2013

April

04

Apr

27

27

2013

06:02 AM

6

06

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Eric, SETI is id (lower case). And ID (upper case) is something or other blah, blah, Gregory, blah. :)Joe

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

02:11 PM

2

02

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Joe @476: Of course Shostak is desperately trying to distance himself from those flat-earth, neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping IDists. The funny thing is, his approach is less rigorous than ID.

An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial.

He sees something that is not known to be produced by natural causes and simply concludes: it isn't natural, therefore it is artificial. Incidentally, that is not an outrageous approach. One could look at something like DNA and make a very similar argument: it is not known to be produced by natural causes, therefore it is artificial. A reasonable tentative conclusion; just as good as SETI's acknowledged "scientific" approach. But ID is more careful and more stringent. It looks not only at known natural causes, but presents a reasonable complexity threshold to help avoid false positives. In other words, it contains an additional objective criterion beyond what is needed for Shostak to accept a signal as created by an intelligence. ----- Note, having met and talked with Shostak briefly, I think he a nice fellow and, personally (unlike some folks who post here), I think SETI is an interesting project and that positive results from SETI would be a most remarkable discovery. I suspect, however, that he doesn't know that much about intelligent design and keeps getting asked by evolutionists "What do you have to say to those nefarious IDists who claim that SETI is a form of design detection?" Hopefully someday he'll take time to think through the issues a bit more carefully or will be less swayed by the winds of popular evolutionary thought.Eric Anderson

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

01:04 PM

1

01

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Folks: This is the conclusion I have been forced to after having dealt with what we have been seeing. Namely that Plato's warning is playing out, not just in the openly crude and nasty, but among the more genteel or refined, and the more dangerous for that as such will beguile many into thinking that all is well when the knife is up a sleeve to be slid in at the back if one gets too close. It has been a long time now that I pointed out how we need to start from basics in morality. Such as, that it is immoral, self evidently immoral to torture, rape or kill a little child. Remember, how we dealt with people who had ever so hard a time acknowledging even something as patent as that? (And, it seems that we are having a sadly live case playing out now, with the abortionist Gosnell. The image of that little baby in the bowl struggling for its life as it is flushed away as unwanted, disgusts me beyond words. Now, notice, the gatekeepers in ever so many media houses were perfectly willing to quash such a report, let it disgust too many people. Forget the excuses proffered, we are dealing with people who care not for truth or right, only for their agenda and what they can get away with. So, let us be direct, they sought to manipulate us, only it has partly broken through the disgusting spin games. Same for the recent events surrounding abuse of pressure cookers of all things. [And there is no movement for pressure cooker control.]) So, it is a little time for real fair comment. Such as that: a --> unless your worldview foundation has in it an IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT, you are left with no foundation for ethics, however your present tastes and preferences may play out. Those who covered up Gosnell will play any game gambit they think they can get away with. b --> In particular, the evolutionary materialist worldview that likes to wrap itself in a lab coat and fly the flag of science and progress, is such a view. If unchecked, in the end, it will further any misrepresentation, it will outright lie if it can get away with it, it will suppress any unwelcome truth by any means deemed advantageous, it will slander and besmirch any who dare cry out NO. c --> And this is the world we now live in; a world dominated by such. Welcome to a foretaste of hell, that is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, IF it can be turned around. d --> Labels and iconic cases are important, as they will allow us to describe and explain what we are dealing with. let us start with Provine's vision (which he tries to pretend is an improvement):

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .

e --> See the consequences of turning from God, the one who is the IS who is inherently good and so grounds OUGHT, calling us to the standard so ably summed up by "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker" and cited by Locke in his 2nd essay on Govt when he set out to ground liberty and justice? f --> Let me cite the contrast, as Hooker speaks foundationally to liberty, justice and genuine freedom in the community:

. . . 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 . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]

g --> What then follows from Provine's vision taking the place of that of Locke and Hooker? Much, pivoting on the rejection of our freedom and responsibility to act based on moral choice. Here is how I recently summed it up:

Without freedom of choice, however, our ability to think and decide reasonably and to the good collapses, crash. Duty, now overwhelmed by inability to think and the force of impulses driving our feelings follows, crash. Morality, having no supporting foundation, now becomes a matter of the push and counter-push of the factions in the community, leading to radical relativism and "might makes right" nihilism a la Nietzsche, crash. Civility and civil society follow in the collapse, crash. Anarchy and chaos follow, crash. And, then the magical political messiah appears to save us from our woes amidst a media halo, and we end up in veiled or open tyranny, crash. Those who retain principles or the memory and feelings of principles soon find themselves isolated and scapegoated then persecuted, crash. Freedom is now gone -- and to recover such is always a long, arduous and costly, likely bloody, process -- crash. Our civilisation has been lost to a new barbarianism, crash. A LOT is at stake.

h --> It is obvious from the above that the process is well underway. i --> And, we have a label that -- courtesy Wikipedia testifying against interest -- will work for the people who have thus been morally benumbed and endarkened in heart, and in mind by destructive, manipulative ideologies now running riot across our civilisation:

Machiavellianism (or machiavellian mask) is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) and other works. The word has a similar use in modern psychology where it describes one of the dark triad personalities, characterised by a duplicitous interpersonal style associated with cynical beliefs and pragmatic morality . . . . In the 1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism. Their Mach - IV test, a twenty-statement personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism. People scoring high on the scale (high Machs) tend to endorse statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4), "There is no excuse for lying to someone else," (No. 7) or "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11). Using their scale, Christie and Geis conducted multiple experimental tests that showed that the interpersonal strategies and behavior of "High Machs" and "Low Machs" differ.[6] Their basic results have been widely replicated.[7] Motivation A 1992 review described Machiavellian motivation as related to cold selfishness and pure instrumentality, and those high on the trait were assumed to pursue their motives (e.g. sex, achievement, sociality) in duplicitous ways. More recent research on the motivations of high Machs compared to low Machs found that they gave high priority to money, power, and competition and relatively low priority to community building, self-love, and family concerns. High Machs admitted to focusing on unmitigated achievement and winning at any cost.[1] Abilities Due to their skill at interpersonal manipulation, there has often been an assumption that high Machs possess superior intelligence, or ability to understand other people in social situations. However, research has firmly established that Machiavellianism is unrelated to IQ. Furthermore, studies on emotional intelligence have found that high Machiavellianism actually tends to be associated with low emotional intelligence as assessed by both performance and questionnaire measures. Both empathy and emotion recognition have been shown to have negative correlations with Machiavellianism. Additionally, research has shown that Machiavellianism is unrelated to a more advanced theory of mind, that is, the ability to anticipate what others are thinking in social situations. If high Machs actually are skilled at manipulating others this appears to be unrelated to any special cognitive abilities as such.[1] Relations with other personality traits Machiavellianism is one of the three personality traits referred to as the dark triad, along with narcissism and psychopathy. Some psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be essentially a subclinical form of psychopathy,[9] although recent research suggests that while Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap, they are distinct personality constructs.[1][10] Machiavellianism has been found to be negatively correlated with the Agreeableness (r = -.47) and Conscientiousness (r = -.34) dimensions of the Big Five personality model (NEO-PI-R).[10] However, machiavellianism correlates more highly with the Honesty-humility dimension of the six-factor HEXACO model than with any of the Big Five dimensions.[1] Machiavellianism has also been located within the interpersonal circumplex, which consists of the two independent dimensions of agency and communion. Agency refers to motivation to succeed and to individuate the self, whereas communion refers to motivation to merge with others and to support group interests. Machiavellianism lies in the quadrant of the circumplex defined by high agency and low communion.[1] Machiavellianism has been found to lie diagonally opposite from a circumplex construct called self-construal, a tendency to prefer communion over agency. This suggests that people high in machiavellianism do not simply wish to achieve, they wish to do so at the expense of (or at least without regard to) others.[1]

========= Welcome to the brave new evolutionary materialist world. Alcibiades -- as Plato warned 2350 years ago -- rides again. KFkairosfocus

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

12:51 PM

12

12

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan Fox: Regarding CSI, kf has given you a calculation that helps with the complexity side of the determination. As you yourself have noted, this is very basic and straight forward. As for your demand for a mathematical calculation of the function/specification side of the determination, please answer the following: 1. Does a piano have a function? If so, what is the mathematical calculation that demonstrates that function?* 2. Does a computer have function? If so, please provide a precise mathematical calculation for that function.* 3. Does the ribosome have a function? If so, please describe for us the mathematical calculation that led you to this conclusion.* After you have thought about this for a while, there are two possibilities: 1. You will recognize that, unlike the Shannon bit calculation that can often be used to confirm complexity, it is rarely, if ever, possible to provide a mathematical calculation to prove that something has function. Yet, we regularly recognize function nonetheless. If you get to this point, then we can press forward and have a rational discussion about the design inference. 2. You will continue to refuse to accept that anything has function if there is not a rigorous mathematical calculation of the function -- notwithstanding that you cannot provide such a calculation (indeed, cannot even articulate why any such calculation should be possible or required) for objects that you know have function from objective observation. In this case, you will have demonstrated your lack of objectivity and refusal to consider the evidence and follow it where it leads, in which case, further attempts at discourse are likely futile. I trust you will seriously consider the above, if you are sincere in your desire to learn about intelligent design and engage in productive discourse. ----- * Note: We are not looking for a physical description of the object and its various pieces (although in some cases an object's physical description may give us clues about its function). Rather -- as you have demanded -- we are looking for a precise mathematical calculation that will yield a conclusion of function.Eric Anderson

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

12:47 PM

12

12

47

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan Fox @409:

Mutations to not cause changes during the lifetime of an individual. It is when genes containing mutations are passed on and affect the development of the offspring that the changes in alleles that selection can work on occur. Genomes, as far as the lifetime of any one organism is concerned, are fixed.

Alan, you missed the point of my thought experiment, as well as the broader issue. The evolutionary story is that mutations can build complex functional structures. The primary element here is time, as you acknowledge in referring to the lifetime of one organism. When thoughtful individuals express skepticism about the powers of mutations to produce novel biological systems, a very common retort from evolutionists is that once you have a self-reproducing organism then anything is possible, it changes the game. kf has given a very thoughtful and detailed response. In addition to kf's points, I am simply noting the additional fact that the self-reproducing aspect does not mean that somehow the improbable now becomes probable. And reproduction is not, as often portrayed, an answer to thoughtful questions about the source of biological novelty. 1. If asexual reproduction were to occur with complete fidelity, then the only difference reproduction would make is adding more time. That is why I highlighted the time aspect. 2. If reproduction occurs without complete fidelity, then you have time, plus potential mutations due to the reproduction process. 3. If reproduction also occurs sexually, then you also get to add to the mix things like recombination. Yet the only thing those latter two forms of reproduction do is add more opportunities for mutations to do something (or to mess something up). They do not in any way change the fundamental proposal: that random mutations in the molecules of an organism can change the organism into a different functional organism. The only things imperfect and/or sexual reproduction do is (i) add a few more ways for mutations to arise and (ii) keep the organism alive (in the sense of a line of descendants) for long enough for some wonderful biological novelty to eventually arise. Thus, reproduction itself is not any kind of answer to how functional complexity can actually arise. All it says is, "Well, we're increasing the number of possible chances." Unfortunately, any increase in odds due to reproduction-related mutations, recombination and the like are but a rounding error against the awful probabilities that beset the theory.Eric Anderson

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

11:30 AM

11

11

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AF: Thanks for letting us all know that in your twisted books, invidious association with Nazis on subjects where such outrageous guilt by association accusations are being used to try to shut down serious principled discussion, and accusations without evidence of intent to carry out witch hunts is fair comment. (The very same, who on seeing that I pointed out to such invidious associations was demanding retractions, it is there just scroll up folks. Double standards indeed.) You have explained to us all we need to know to see why you have behaved as you did in this thread and in others. Well did Plato warn us of the likes of such, with Alcibiades in mind as Exhibit A. As in might and manipulation make 'right.' Good day GEM of TKI PS: With the direct corrections just a scroll up above, you are back to trying to pretend that joint criteria of specificity and complexity as a basis to infer design, amounts to "counting bits." Your respect for truth is about as high as your respect for others. I would suggest to you that if you are down in a hole and care to get out, stop digging in further for a start. PPS: And if you want to debate points, this thread and others are open. But as at now you hold two strikes against you: you have a track record of disrespect for truth and you have a track record of disrespect for others. I trust that sensible onlookers will therefore have a yardstick for calibrating the credibility and/or soundness or otherwise of what you say. kairosfocus

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

11:02 AM

11

11

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan Fox:

So, Kairosfocus seems to be agreeing with my take that a CSI calculation for a protein sequence merely depends on a count of nucleotides residues. This is an analysis that results in two sets of proteins; shorter or longer than an arbitrary threshold. This would seem to be trivial and useless, merely telling us one thing we already know.

We already know that living organisms were intelligently designed? Then why all of the fuss? And just how is determining living organisms are designed "trivial and useless" when even Richard Dawkins says it would change everything? That's right Alan. Saying something is the result of agency involvement is an investigation changer.

And as Elsberry has emphasized with the now apparently redundant explanatory filter, you can’t rule out unknown possibilities and default to “design”.

And Alan is STILL having issues with the word "default". We do NOT default to design, Alan. All known non-design mechanisms are given thorough consideration. Not only that the design criteria still has to be met. THAT is the opposite of "default". So agin- we have Alan A) holding up double-standards B) refusing to grasp that CSI is something he uses every day C) not understanding the meaning of words and D) making a mess just because he can.

I agree with Elsberry and Shallit. There is no valid concept known as complex specification that can be used to distinguish designed from undesigned entities.

Thankfully neither of you three stooges conducts investigations that require your two piles.Joe

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

10:12 AM

10

10

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Alan Fox:

Promote the thread, open comments and let’s argue your case.

Yes Alan. We know we will never be arguing your case because you are too afraid to even make one. However you are very good at rejecting other people's arguments just with your say-so. So what's the point?Joe

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

09:59 AM

9

09

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The comment that offends you so much is still there, plain to see. There is nothing there that is not fair comment, in my view, especially in contrast to some of the name-calling and other bad behaviour that you condone on this site. But I am prepared to argue the case if you want to promote and open the thread to comments.Alan Fox

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

06:54 AM

6

06

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AF: You are upholding wrongdoers in evil, and as usual you are dismissing devastating facts with an epithet. The screen shots, links and citations do not lie, and they go back to the TSZ thread, which I assume has not been taken down. between OM and RTH, I was plainly invidiously associated with Nazism, and with an alleged right wing theocratic agenda for our civilisation that wants to bring back witch hunts and worse. Which, BTW are very familiar-sounding, in the context of some of your allusions and tactics I corrected above. I have already pointed out the facts,and can rest content that no fair minded person will see me as wrong to call out OM and RTH for what hey did, and the TSZ crowd for enabling behaviour in the face of uncivil conduct. I find this sudden concern for your own reputation and those of your ilk very interesting, also in the teeth of the above where you have indulged in willful misrepresentation, insisted on continuing it in the teeth of repeated well-warranted correction, and compounded it all with an outright accusation of fraud that at minimum would at first level involve Wm Dembski, Stephen Meyer and others. And in the immediate circle of discussion, it would directly imply that I am at least an accessory to the fact to fraud. Where it is patent that the accusation is false, is mischievous, is sustained in the teeth of calls for correction and retraction, and indeed is utterly without merit. I think there is a need on your part to stop and do some serious reflection on what you have been doing, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

06:53 AM

6

06

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ah! Your link is to one of your "comments-are-closed" diatribes. Tell you what. Promote the thread, open comments and let's argue your case.Alan Fox

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

06:31 AM

6

06

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AF: It seems that if you think the shoe is on the other foot, you know how it pinches. That incident of invidious association with Nazis happened at TSZ at the hands of OM with RTH coming up in rapid support, as I discussed here. (I guess you have ever so soon forgotten the "tour of shame" issue I raised in a post of April 2nd here, in objection to what was being harboured at TSZ. For sadly good reason, I have not. Remember, I have he screen shots posted here at UD.) So far as I am aware there has been no retraction only a pretence that nothing was done that was uncivil and improper. Multiplied by the further pretence that I am being obscure or worse in speaking about it. (Your subtext in trying to suggest garbling on my part, is duly noted.) FYI, I am pretty sure that when one is explicitly associated with nazis on a matter where there is a matter of principled opposition to a questionable socio-cultural agenda on the part of a quite broad range of people and movements, that is a case of invidious association intended to tar through the well known fallacy and psychological effect guilt by association. Methinks, on evidence laid out above and elsewhere, it is you who need to apologise and retract some pretty serious false accusations and willful misrepresentations sustained int eh teeth of step by step correction and before that corrections from many sources for a quite long time. KFkairosfocus

April 26, 2013

April

04

Apr

26

26

2013

06:25 AM

6

06

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link