Navigation
Recent Comments
- steve on October 1, 2004 09:08 AM
- charlie wagner on October 1, 2004 08:34 AM
- Wayne Francis on September 30, 2004 08:34 PM
- charlie wagner on September 30, 2004 04:05 PM
- Bartholomew on September 30, 2004 11:51 AM
- charlie wagner on September 28, 2004 10:40 AM
- Stirling Newberry on September 26, 2004 11:39 AM
- Stirling Newberry on September 26, 2004 10:26 AM
- Stirling Newberry on September 26, 2004 10:12 AM
- Steve on September 25, 2004 11:49 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Yang Yang on August 24, 2004 03:14 AM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/444
Comment #6759
Posted by Wadsworth on August 24, 2004 04:05 AM (e) (s)
In reply to Wayne, comment 6750, my little tirade was against Theistic Evolution.I was suggesting that you can have one or the other but not both. Of course if God has been given (by believers), the attribute of being able to do anything at all, including the impossible and the illogical, then we can’t discuss the matter sensibly; because then the simple answer to all problems is that God-did-it, like a sort of blanket cure-all. If on the other hand, God can only do what is possible, then 1. he is not Omnipotent,and 2. As we already have genetic Algorhytms and naturalalistic Evolution,-these provide a much more intellectually satisfying explanation than a kind of Paul Daniell, or Robbie Williams in the sky.
Comment #6760
Posted by Wayne Francis on August 24, 2004 07:51 AM (e) (s)
I’ll take Steve’s place of being the first post to say Creationist suck….ok I really don’t think that way. I just feel sad that people can often be so willfully ignorant.
Comment #6761
Posted by charlie wagner on August 24, 2004 08:58 AM (e) (s)
I didn’t post it on the Bathroom Wall because the thread was too long and it would have gotten lost.
So Reed very politely moved it there…and then closed the thread to further comment!
So I’m posting it here on the new wall so everyone can see it. Like I said, now is not the time to be timid. And with all due respect, this has everything to do with your objectives. You know what’s happening in Ohio, right?
http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/…
Ohio is a battleground state and efforts to elect John Kerry might go a long way towards neutralizing these egregious attempts to sneak creationism into the schools.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRY, VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR
(Jan 31, 1971)“Mr. KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic.. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.
I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven’t had a great deal of chance to prepare.
WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the “Winter Soldier Investigation.”
(http://www.wintersoldier.com……)
The term “Winter Soldier” is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.”
Creationists are often accused of “quote mining” and this demonstrates that Republicans are pretty good at it too. In their new ad, they conveniently take Mr. Kerry’s remarks out of context.
From:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=400……
“What they have done (in this ad) is they’ve taken a piece of John Kerry’s testimony, left out the part that says he was reporting, repeating the testimony that was given in Detroit at the Winter Soldier hearings, and presented it as his. And that’s wrong.”My predictions:
1. Kerry will be elected with 58% of the popular
vote.
2. Nader will drop out and turn his people over to Kerry.
3. McCain will turn on Bush and come out for Kerry.If you want to help, copy this information and post it on every newsgroup and on every weblog that you can
Comment #6752The Fourth Estate (the journalists) have let us down. The news media is controlled by powerful interests that control the agendas of reporting and investigative journalists. One has only to look at Fox News to see the truth. But it’s more insidious when it happens on CNN or NBC
(see http://www.dailyhowler.com……)
But we have the internet and it belongs to us. No one can censor us or deceive us here. Let’s use this powerful tool to spread the truth. There are hundreds of newsgroups and blogs read by countless numbers of people. When you uncover a lie, or find an important truth, post it. Someone, somewhere will read it and maybe be informed. Post the URL’s of responsible journalistic websites like salon.com and others who don’t lie.
It is not a time for timidity, but a time for action. We changed the course of history in Viet-Nam and we can do it again today. This is a turning point in history, whether you realize it or not. Make it go the right way.
(And if you have any friends, relatives or even enemies in any battlegroud states, lean on them with the truth.)
Comment #6764
Posted by ~DS~ on August 24, 2004 09:33 AM (e) (s)
For a good time, call Ed Conrad and MurphyInOhio at 800-555-WERNUTZ.
Comment #6765
Posted by Bob Maurus on August 24, 2004 09:42 AM (e) (s)
Good morning, Charlie. Right on.
Comment #6767
Posted by charlie wagner on August 24, 2004 10:59 AM (e) (s)
Good morning, Charlie. Right on.
Thanks, Bob. You can help, you know. The key in Georgia is to get the black vote out. There’s a hell of a lot of democratic votes there. If you have any black friends or relatives urge them to vote. Georgia is becoming a very different place than it used to be, like North Carolina, and it doesn’t have to stay “red”.
Comment #6768
Posted by Wayne Francis on August 24, 2004 11:41 AM (e) (s)
I didn’t post it on the Bathroom Wall because the thread was too long and it would have gotten lost.
Too long? Sheesh haven’t you seen some of the chapters I’ve posted to the BW? How does it get lost? 99% of the posters here are highly intelligent and know how to read the comments they haven’t read yet. Regardless of what you think the BW is the most appropriate spot on this web site.
[quot=CW]So Reed very politely moved it there…and then closed the thread to further comment![/quote]
Man you have such a narrow field of view don’t you. You can’t comprehend that the BW regularly gets archived, note you can still read the closed bathroom walls, because some people don’t like waiting for 30+ seconds to load a VERY log page. No that couldn’t be the answer could it! Charlie, really think about it. If they just wanted your post to be read by no one they would have deleted it. People can post replies to this BW about comments on previous BW’s. No biggy there. I and many others have done it.
Now to your post. I’m normally republician. Your post didn’t shed anything new in my eyes. Combat is shit and I can say that with authority. I respect GW Bush for some of what he’s done but there is much more that I don’t respect him for.
The biggest problem I have is the blurring of the line of Church and State. Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils I’m hoping. Hard to tell with politicians. No matter who gets in there will not be that much of a difference. Look at Clinton. Even with a democratic majority in both houses of congress he couldn’t get many things passed. I also have a problem with him commiting purgery and even worse he was smug about it. I could care less about his sexual habits with interns. Heck let the president do what every they want to with consenting adults. Problem is Clinton had a history of sexual harrassment.
Presidents and my views on them
JFK - Overrated. He was just a pretty boy.
Johnson - shifty and untrust worthy
Nixon - Outstanding, just got caught doing what I’m sure most politicians do
Ford - Admire him for slowing down inflation and keeping the US out of a recession.
Carter - Great champion for human rights. Saddly his presidency was plagued by other issues
Regan - Brillant man for most of his 2 terms. Thankfully his wife was a very strong woman too. Any man that can walk into a hospital under his own power after being shot in a effort to keep the nation calm is pretty amazing.
GH Bush - needed to do better with the econimy
Clinton - Great president overall but very arogant and agian can’t excuse him for purgery.
GW Bush - Bad luck with 9/11. Handled many things well but far more things badly.
? - we’ll see. Hind site is 20/20
Comment #6769
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on August 24, 2004 11:48 AM (e) (s)
I remember coming across a copy of “2001 Insults for All Occasions” when I was about twelve years old.
I grew up and got over it.
Comment #6771
Posted by ~DS~ on August 24, 2004 12:52 PM (e) (s)
It’s weird to have to agree with Charlie. It’s even weirder as a Republican to have to agree Charlie is dead on right that we have to fire the current WH. I feel so…unclean…
Comment #6773
Posted by Gary Hurd on August 24, 2004 01:23 PM (e) (s)
“It’s weird to have to agree with Charlie. It’s even weirder as a Republican to have to agree Charlie is dead on right that we have to fire the current WH. I feel so…unclean…”
There is a cure for Republicanism: come over to the better party.
Comment #6774
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 24, 2004 01:24 PM (e) (s)
The irony of the Swift Boat Vet thing is that these guys are so obviously full of crap, contradicting each other when they’re not contradicting their previous statements, and yet … our wonderful media insists on presenting “their side of the story” as if their story was discovered by journalists and investigated and shown to have some merit (and not just fabricated by some vengeful vets and planted in the media’s face with the help of giant wads of Republican cash).
Does any of this sound familiar? In the context of, say, biological science, can anyone recall a similar group of hidden agenda-driven self-contradictory dissembling fakers who fabricated a bogus issue and presented it to the public as if it were a genuine controversy of great importance?
Notice how Kerry has chosen to respond to these charges: not by trying to “prove” that the incidents took place according to his version of events (can’t be done), but by demonstrating that the Swift Boat Veterans are UNRELIABLE LIARS who are PROPPED UP and funded by partisans.
Atrios posted a great transcript from the Daily Show which makes the point succinctly:
STEWART: Here’s what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry’s record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven’t been disputed for 35 years?
CORDDRY: That’s right, Jon, and that’s certainly the spin you’ll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
STEWART: Th-that’s not a spin thing, that’s a fact. That’s established.
CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.
STEWART: But that should be — isn’t that the end of the story? I mean, you’ve seen the records, haven’t you? What’s your opinion?
CORDDRY: I’m sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don’t have ‘o-pin-i-ons’. I’m a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called ‘objectivity’ — might wanna look it up some day.
STEWART: Doesn’t objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what’s credible and what isn’t?
CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well — sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] ‘Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.’ Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.
STEWART: So, basically, you’re saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end.
CORDDRY: No, Jon — in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president’s activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They’ve apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in ‘71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piņata. Jon — they just want to set the record straight. That’s all they’re out for.
Comment #6775
Posted by Bob Maurus on August 24, 2004 01:29 PM (e) (s)
Wayne,
Purgery is when you stick your finger down your throat, a reaction the current WH occupant should cause in anyone who cares about, or fears for, the future of this country. Perjury is what he may or may not have commited. And there were never more than unsupported allegations, with no corroboration, of sexual harrasment.
Comment #6777
Posted by Steve on August 24, 2004 01:54 PM (e) (s)
reposting this here.
ps—Creationists suck.
Comment #6754
Posted by Steve on August 23, 2004 10:50 PM
ID has made two big attempts to create a theory. Dembski’s Clogged Filter and Behe’s IC have been found extensively wrong. As a result, both persons have in the past promised future modified versions which would be successful. Can anyone tell me what the current “ID Theory”[sic] consists of? Have replacements been delivered? I haven’t seen it, and I would guess they know they now have enough jargon and books and technical-sounding arguments to propel the actual, political, movement which is ID. But some of you follow it a lot closer than I do, so if you know of any further attempts to come up with a theory, please let me know.
Comment #6778
Posted by ~DS~ on August 24, 2004 02:06 PM (e) (s)
<i>There is a cure for Republicanism: come over to the better party.</i>
Believe me Gary, I’ve considered doing just that. I feel the party has been sort of taken over by a neocon cabal and that if the present weak leader could be ejected there could still be hope for future admins … And there is some value in being able to truthfully Blog and honestly comment that I’m a Republican, but that I’m voting for Kerry. It’s frustrating that I sometimes get attacked, and I mean <i>viciously</i>, by either side when I do so. But I think it does some good.
Comment #6803
Posted by Wayne Francis on August 24, 2004 09:26 PM (e) (s)
Sorry Bob, I’m a self proclaimed bad speller. :/
And there were never more than unsupported allegations, with no corroboration, of sexual harrasment.
I agree there but then if your sister gets felt up by her boss when they are alone in the office that is nothing more then unsupported allegations by your sister isn’t it. It is just her word agianst his. Now if multiple people start independently accusing your sisters boss then a picture starts to get painted. Note that Clinton had complaints when he was governor.
Perjury is what he may or may not have commited
I do not see how you can say he didn’t commit perjury. He said he didn’t have sexual relations with her. He did. He lied to them about the time of the affair, as confirmed by his own book. Pretty black and white. Unless you also don’t believe that oral sex is sex. Guess that makes a lot of the priests charged with pedophilia because the priest is not having sexual relations with the chior boys.
I’m with you ~DS~. I’m a republican because I believe federal government doesn’t need to be as bloated as it is. Saddly I don’t see the republican party pushing that anymore. I don’t care what people think about my political views. They don’t have to agree with me. Agian Clinton was a good president. He shouldn’t have lied to congress.
It makes me sad when I think about the politics in the USA. So many people trying to push their religion and morality on others. While I’m a proud American I am not proud of many of the current Americans walking the face of the earth.
I’ll be voting democrat this time…maybe living in Australia has softened me a bit :)
Comment #6808
Posted by Fiona on August 24, 2004 10:53 PM (e) (s)
Hi everyone,
I’m a politics junkie, but I have plenty of places to go to read about politics — much as I love Jon Stewart, I think that you might drive away people who visit here to read about evolution theory. I myself just happened by, one night.
I recommend Columbia Journalism Review’s Campaign Desk for folks who are puzzled about how to read the news, as they are a bipartisan team who critically assess who is doing the best reporting, and who’s doing it wrong (or shallowly).
(URL: http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/cat_spin_buster.asp… for their “Spin Buster”; related sites available in the sidebar)
Surfin’ Steve was the most recent on topic:
<< ID has made two big attempts to create a theory. Dembski’s Clogged Filter and Behe’s IC … >>
NOT censoring, just a gentle suggestion that we remain on topic. My time, and maybe yours, is limited.
I have read very little about the Clogged Filter and would be amused to learn more.
Fiona
Comment #6809
Posted by Steve on August 24, 2004 11:08 PM (e) (s)
That’s ‘Scuba Steve’, to my friends (who are bigger fans of Adam Sandler movies than I am, apparently).
Comment #6810
Posted by Steve on August 24, 2004 11:11 PM (e) (s)
Instead of reading more about Dembski’s Clogged Filter, you might want to read Descartes and Aquinas instead. Their mathematical attempts to prove god, though also failures, were much more subtle and clever.
Comment #6813
Posted by Bob Maurus on August 25, 2004 01:25 AM (e) (s)
Actually, Wayne, he didn’t have “sexual relations” with Lewinsky. The term refers specifically to intercourse, which did not occur. I expect he carefully crafted that statement to avoid telling the truth without actually lying.
Comment #6817
Posted by Wayne Francis on August 25, 2004 05:22 AM (e) (s)
Exactly bob. So the next time a priest performs oral or anal acts with a choir boy we can say “well thats ok its not a sexual relation”
The actual final agreed definition was
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing
which means Clinton had to “interpret” in a manner of
For the purposes of this deposition, I W.J. Clinton, engage in sexual relations when I W.J. Clinton knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any other person, with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person ie not myself;
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing
So despite the fact that he had many incidents of direct skin to skin contact with her breasts and genitalia he can claim he wasn’t doing it with “intent to aruouse or gratify the sexual desire” of Lewinski.
I have to agree the fault is on the prosection for being vague in their questioning and definition.
I’m trying to track down the actual statements that he did lie. It has to do with the times of contact where in his autobiography he contradicts the his testimony and agrees with other testimony given at the hearings.
Personally I don’t care if he had sex with 20 willing adults at one time. I knew about Clinton’s seedy record before he became president. That doesn’t mean he was a bad president overall. Is record stands in that regard. But to defend him on points like the one above is crazy and you would not defend any man off the street the same way. Point is even the president should not be subject to different rules then the common man. If a rapeist ever gets off using the same type of defense I’d hate to think you would defend them as you did clinton, note I’m not saying he raped Lewinski.
Ah! found it
He also testified that the inappropriate relationship began not in November 1995 when Ms. Lewinsky was an intern, as Ms. Lewinsky and other witnesses have testified, but in 1996.
In Clinton book he confirms it was in November of 1995. So either he committed perjury or he’s lieing in his book along with everyone else.
Maybe you can come up with some interpretation where March 1996 = November 1995.
Agian this tap dance doesn’t paint a picture of him being creedible in the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit and actually points out that he did indeed commit perjury if the details within his book are correct.
The details are in the starr report and the Jones v. Clinton case. I’ll see if I can provide some online links to both and see if I can get the references from his book where he confirms the relationship started in November in contradiction to his testimony.
Comment #6820
Posted by Russell on August 25, 2004 07:54 AM (e) (s)
Clinton’s worst crime: justifying enough odium to get W (almost) elected in 2000.
Comment #6824
Posted by Bob Maurus on August 25, 2004 08:27 AM (e) (s)
Wayne, anything which is testified to under oath, which is untrue, is perjury. No quarrel there at all.
The “sexual relations” episode, which you pointed to, occurred at a news conference, so it wouldn’t be perjury no matter how false it was. My point was, and is, that, generally speaking, the dictionary definition of “sexual relations” is “intercourse.” Again, generally speaking, most people who point to that episode wrongly claim he said, “I did not have SEX with that woman - -.” His statement was, in my opinion, carefully crafted to leave a specific impression without lying. It should have been obvious to anyone.
Jones’ lawsuit wasn’t a Sexual Harrasment suit - the statute of limitations had run out on that avenue. Peripheral testimony from others - Trooper Danny, etc - cast some doubt on Jones’ claims. Haven’t read his book, don’t intend to, don’t know what he says about it and don’t care. It’s over. What remains is the haunting spectre of the (how many?) millions of dollars spent by that Republican witchhunt of an impeachment.
I don’t understand why you accuse me of defending him. I voted for him in ‘92 with great hopes, and was so sorely disappointed that I voted for the Libertarian in ‘96 as a protest.
My concern is more with pointing out and defending against the misuse and corruption of our language. “Nuculer” and “pundint” also come immediately to mind in this regard. As a lover of Rottweilers, I cringe every time I hear “Rockweiler.”
The bottom line is, vote Democratic in November, if only to prevent the Shrub from giving us an Inquisition for a supreme Court and naming Clarence Thomas Chief Justice. That’s my rant.
Comment #6825
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 08:30 AM (e) (s)
I love it. First we have the theory that there is a level playing field for ID in terms of publication. A theory that is manifestly false. As if to make my point for me, there is the De Rerum Natura trackback to this post, which states
It is hard to not conclude that proper peer review procedures didn’t take place with the publication of philosopher Stephen C. Meyer’s “review”
There you have it in a nutshell. The publication was a mistake. Peer review failed. After all, it’s an ID paper.
I really like Great White Wonder’s comments:
My favorite example which shows what a moron Mr. Meyer is …
Kudos to you guys for your extensive (and yet incomplete!) review, although it is far, far, far too kind to the simple-minded faker…
Does GWW review submissions, by chance?
Comment #6826
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on August 25, 2004 08:37 AM (e) (s)
I love it. First we have the theory that there is a level playing field for ID in terms of publication. A theory that is manifestly false. As if to make my point for me, there is the De Rerum Natura trackback to this post, which states … There you have it in a nutshell. The publication was a mistake. Peer review failed. After all, it’s an ID paper.
Too bad you didn’t follow the trackback. I never said that peer review failed because it is by an aideeist. In fact, I never mentioned anything about ID, creationism, the Discovery Institute, etc. I say peer reivew failed because of the poor scholarship and research that has been documented in this thread.
Comment #6829
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 08:54 AM (e) (s)
Reed, the point is that any ID paper (even this one that slipped through the cracks) will be deemed by the establishment to consist of “poor scholarship”.
Comment #6830
Posted by Russell on August 25, 2004 09:02 AM (e) (s)
David Heddle: the point is that any ID paper (even this one that slipped through the cracks) will be deemed by the establishment to consist of “poor scholarship”.
Don’t you see the irony here? You’ve just complained that all ID papers will be deemed “poor scholarship” - regardless of content. But here you’ve pre-emptively dismissed all criticism of an ID paper, with absolutely no reference to the content of that criticism!
Comment #6832
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on August 25, 2004 09:09 AM (e) (s)
Reed, the point is that any ID paper (even this one that slipped through the cracks) will be deemed by the establishment to consist of “poor scholarship”.
Notice how the criticisms in Wesley’s et al. post is about the content and not any ID sympathies of the paper. They did not “deem” it to be poor scholarship, but went into detail why it was. Probably the simplest example of the poor scholarship was Meyer’s citation of only the lower probability bounds. That is not just poor scholarship, but close to academic fraud in my book.
This paper didn’t slip through the cracks; it appears to have been snuck in the back door.
Comment #6836
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 10:00 AM (e) (s)
You are missing the boat, and that is probably my fault, because I continued arguing from the level playing field post of a while back. My point stands regardless of the level of scholarship of the ID paper, of which I haven’t had time to read. That point is the same level of poor scholarship (and I am not judging Meyer’s paper, but let’s assume you are right) will routinely make it into publication—as long as it drinks from the correct kool-aid. As I said in a previous post, I often read that organism X developed adaptaion Y in response to environmental stress Z—pure, unfalsifiable speculation. Or, in my own field, you can speculate that our good fortune is due to the fact that there are infinite parallel (incommunicado) universes and we live in a lucky one—such speculation will not be edited out—but you could never speculate (and rightly so, in scientific journals) that ID is behind it all. See for example this post which points out where this occurred in a recent Scientific American article.
Comment #6837
Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 25, 2004 10:22 AM (e) (s)
David: Your speculations as usual remain unfounded in much evidence. In this case ID submitted a paper and it seems that it has a lot of problems.
Perhaps when ID proposes its hypothesis rather than a negative argument, it may gain some respectability.
Comment #6838
Posted by AAB on August 25, 2004 10:23 AM (e) (s)
This is unrelated. I saw this article through news.google.com. I think it is full of crap. Sad thing is it is on a news paper and a lot of people will actually believe it.
Can someone please reply to this guy and set the record straight?
http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/opinio…
Comment #6840
Posted by aab on August 25, 2004 10:30 AM (e) (s)
This is unrelated. I saw this article through news.google.com. I think it is full of crap. Sad thing is it is on a news paper and a lot of people will actually believe it.
Can someone please reply to this guy and set the record straight?
http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/opinio…
Comment #6841
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 10:30 AM (e) (s)
Pim,
What speculation is unfounded? I can reference, with a little work, many tens (if not hundreds) of papers in refereed journals that speculate about parallel universes. I could reference none that speculate in ID. Both purport to explain the same thing, both fit the data, both are unfalsifiable, so why one and not the other? What evidence do you need? A signed confession?
Comment #6842
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 25, 2004 10:33 AM (e) (s)
Mr. Heddle
ID creationism is, at various times, crank science, bad philosophy and religious fundamentalism.
There is no such thing as “ID scholarship” unless you count the fraudulent creation of bogus “review articles” (which do little more than disparage the work of scientists and distort the history and literature of evolutionary biology) and the nonsense mathematics of charlatans like Bill Dembski.
It’s cute that you choose to believe that ID creationists and the inane concepts which they are trying to push into our public school system are scientifically legitimate. They are not. That is old news.
But you never answered my question to you, David, you deep thinking guy: what about erosion? Do you believe erosion is the most likely explanation for the Grand Canyon by far? The Grand Canyon is very big and very beautiful. Are you going to tell me that the same forces which cause the porcelein in my sink to wear away after a few years of being hit with water droplets carved out the Grand Canyon? Ha ha! That is absurd. Surely the Grand Canyon was designed! I mean, it seems at least as likely that it was designed and dug out by aliens. You know, the aliens who fly around in the UFOs which are as likely to exist as not, right? If only scientists weren’t so eager to suppress discussion of UFOs in their scientific journals, we’d know so much more UFOs. And the Grand Canyon. And life on earth. Because aliens designed life on earth, right, David? I mean, you can’t prove to me that they didn’t, can you? So why aren’t we teaching our kids about these intelligent aliens? If we wait to long, it will be too late to start worshipping them. We wouldn’t want the aliens to be angry with us. After all, they might decide to dig another Grand Canyon to punish us. Do you suppose they’ll take care to avoid knocking over any churches while they’re digging?
Comment #6843
Posted by aab on August 25, 2004 10:35 AM (e) (s)
This is unrelated. I saw this article through news.google.com. I think it is full of crap. Sad thing is it is on a news paper and a lot of people will actually believe it.
Can someone please reply to this guy and set the record straight?
http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/opinio…
Comment #6844
Posted by Steve on August 25, 2004 10:37 AM (e) (s)
You know Reed, turnabout is fair play—David’s just getting you back for going to Nuclear Physics blogs and calling QCD ‘not science’, demanding to see unconfined quarks, and implying that the entire nuclear physics community were a bunch of fools whose fundamental theory was a tautology.
Comment #6847
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)
GWW you make so many assumptions.
I believe erosion caused the Grand Canyon. Is there some place where I stated differently? Are you under the impression I am a young-earther?
Have you read ANYTHING I wrote? Which, for the gazillionth time, is NOT that ID is science just like evolution, but that evolution is not science, just like ID.
I am so glad that you are a spokesman for your cause. Not that my side of the debate doesn’t have its share of embarassing apologists.
Steve,
I’d be happy to debate the testability and falsifiability of QCD in contrast to evolution.
Comment #6848
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 25, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)
Mr. Heddle
ID creationism is, at various times, crank science, bad philosophy and religious fundamentalism.
There is no such thing as “ID scholarship” unless you count the fraudulent creation of bogus “review articles” (which do little more than disparage the work of scientists and distort the history and literature of evolutionary biology) and the pointless worthless mathematics of crayon-clutching creationists like Bill Dembski.
It’s cute that you choose to believe that ID creationists and the inane concepts which they are trying to push into our public school system are scientifically legitimate. They are not. That is old news.
But you never answered my question to you, David, you deep thinking guy: what about erosion? Do you believe erosion is the most likely explanation for the Grand Canyon by far? The Grand Canyon is very big and very beautiful. Are you going to tell me that the same forces which cause the porcelein in my sink to wear away after a few years of being hit with water droplets carved out the Grand Canyon? Ha ha! That is absurd. Surely the Grand Canyon was designed! I mean, it seems at least as likely that it was designed and dug out by aliens. You know, the aliens who fly around in the UFOs which are as likely to exist as not, right? If only scientists weren’t so eager to suppress discussion of UFOs in their scientific journals, we’d know so much more UFOs. And the Grand Canyon. And life on earth. Because aliens designed life on earth, right, David? I mean, you can’t prove to me that they didn’t, can you? So why aren’t we teaching our kids about these intelligent aliens? If we wait to long, it will be too late to start worshipping them. We wouldn’t want the aliens to be angry with us. After all, they might decide to dig another Grand Canyon to punish us. Do you suppose they’ll take care to avoid knocking over any churches while they’re digging?
Comment #6849
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on August 25, 2004 11:11 AM (e) (s)
That point is the same level of poor scholarship (and I am not judging Meyer’s paper, but let’s assume you are right) will routinely make it into publication—as long as it drinks from the correct kool-aid.
Prove it. Cite me some papers that feature the “speculation” flavor you disfavor AND that also engage in all of the following examples of poor scholarship (as documented for Meyer’s paper that you take as a reference) or shows other (similarly serious) problems as pervasively:
Utilizes long-abandoned methods of analysis for a field.
Repeats a favorite canard of a pseudoscience as if it were an established point.
Cites papers in support of points never touched upon in those papers.
Claims to utilize the findings of a field of inquiry, but instead references other work yet unpublished in the peer-reviewed literature.
Fails to even use the other work cited correctly.
Fails to reference relevant literature which is counter to the position taken by the authors in multiple different instances.
Displays a pattern of mischaracterization of sources cited.
Fails to accurately report ranges of values from work cited.
In discussion of a field of inquiry, cites only work that does not appear in the peer-reviewed literature.
Dismisses an entire field of inquiry based upon a superficial examination of two cases.
Fails to note counterexamples that one knows the author has heard about.
(This list is not comprehensive, just what we’ve so far identified and documented.)
No unsubstantiated assertions, please. Show your work to demonstrate that whatever you come up with is just as bad, if not worse, than Meyer 2004. Retracting the claim would be a good option. I predict abandonment of it is more likely, though.
The ball is in your court, David.
Comment #6853
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 12:02 PM (e) (s)
Wesley,
I did. The September 2004 Scientific American article entitled The String Theory Landscape by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski. At one point in their article they discuss infinite universes. They sweep our good fortune (for having just the right vacuum energy to make our universe livable) under the rug. It’s no wonder we live here, they argue, just like on a smaller scale we live in temperate climates on earth rather than in Antarctica, the Marianas Trench, or the moon.
But this is a flawed analogy and poor scholarship. It’s not because of luck that we don’t live in Antarctica, it’s by design. There was intelligence behind the gross features of human migration, not random chance. These local inhospitable regions are observable. Other universes are not.
Their argument is a common one, always accepted, and patently unscientific: We should not be surprised how lucky we are, because if we wern’t so lucky, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. Ipso facto.
Have you developed a litmus test of errors that you propose should be adopted before a paper can be declared as poor scholarship? Sorry you don’t get to impose such a test, that I must cite an example to fit “all” you points, a set that neatly fits your example.
And besides, it has nothing to do with my argument, which once again is: you can engage in wild ass speculation as long as it is the scientific equivalent of politically correct. Parallel universes? Go for it. As in the SciAm article I referenced. ID? Not a chance. The playing field is not level. But it is not skewed so that good ID research cannot get published—maybe there is no such thing as good ID research. It IS skewed so that poor party-line research can get published.
Comment #6856
Posted by Russell on August 25, 2004 12:15 PM (e) (s)
Wesley: I predict abandonment of [the claim that Heddle could identify a peer-reviewed science publication shoddier than Meyer’s] is more likely, though.
I think your prediction was just verified.
Comment #6858
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 12:31 PM (e) (s)
Russell,
Attaboys to a local guru don’t cut it.
This is fatuous and a red herring. I gave an example article. Who is to say, especially without bias from their presuppositions, that it is more, less or equally shoddy? The furthest I would go is to say what I said, that there are published articles guilty of some of the same crimes.
Please point me to where I claimed I could find a paper worse than Meyers? I believe I could, but that is irrelevant. It was never part of my argument.
C’mon Wesley, or your minions, where did I claim that I could find a paper that one could objectively compare with Meyer’s?
My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn’t belong in scientific journals.
Comment #6860
Posted by Steve F on August 25, 2004 12:38 PM (e) (s)
“My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn’t belong in scientific journals.”
Even if this is the case, why is it relevant? Are you suggesting that the existence of other poor science somehow validates ID?
Comment #6862
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 12:49 PM (e) (s)
Steve F,
Of course not. Sigh. Once again, here is my claim:
There is NO level playing field.
That’s it. I have stated nothing about ID. ID is good or bad based on its own merits, not whether it can get published.
I don’t have to find an article as bad as Meyers (assuming it is bad, I havn’t read it). I only have to show that aren’tisn’t. No level playing field.
Comment #6863
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 25, 2004 12:52 PM (e) (s)
My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn’t belong in scientific journals.
Your “point” changes as often as a baby’s diapers, Mr. Heddle. According to post 6829, above, your “point” was that “any ID paper … will be deemed by the establishment to consist of “poor scholarship”.”
Now you seem to be saying (and I use the term “seem” loosely) that ID doesn’t belong in scientific journals, period.
You had zero credibility before. Now you’re entering into negative numbers. Pitiful.
Mr. Heddle, just fyi: any speculation that that is remotely scientific has its place in scientific journals (though usually the more high-falootin’ the hypothesis, the farther down in the paper’s text it appears). ID is not remotely scientific, no matter how hard its apologists imagine it to be so. The idea that there are intelligent entities floating about the universe (in the “ether” or in spacecraft) who, from time to time, stop to “design” solar systems, planets, galaxies and life forms (how? we are told not to worry about those details by the creationists) is not a scientific theory. It is pure fantasy, to be shelved alongside the Wizard of Oz. It’s proponents are about as worthy for inclusion among the ranks of serious scientists as the Trekkie who is convinced that Leonard Nimoy really is a Vulcan and spends his life debunking the “myth of the prosthetic ears.”
Comment #6864
Posted by Russell on August 25, 2004 12:54 PM (e) (s)
David: [the] point is the same level of poor scholarship [as Meyer’s]… will routinely make it into publication
Wesley: demonstrate that whatever you come up with is just as bad, if not worse, than Meyer 2004
David: Please point me to where I claimed I could find a paper worse than Meyers
QED
Moving on now:
David: I gave an example article. Who is to say, especially without bias from their presuppositions, that it is more, less or equally shoddy? .
Wesley gave you a long list of major deficiencies in the Meyer paper. You’re simply dismissing them all as resulting from bias? That’s my whole problem with your alleged argument here.
David: The furthest I would go is to say what I said, that there are published articles guilty of some of the same crimes
No. You said such poor scholarship routinely makes it into peer-reviewed science publications, pretty clearly implying that Meyer’s piece was no worse than most. Or worse, that by your postmodernist “everyone’s biased” argument, there’s no way to judge one article as shoddier than another.
I daresay the ball is, in fact, still in your court.
(And, by the way, way-to-go, Wesley!)
Comment #6865
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 25, 2004 01:02 PM (e) (s)
My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn’t belong in scientific journals.
Your “point” changes as often as a baby’s diapers, Mr. Heddle. According to post 6829, above, your “point” was that “any ID paper … will be deemed by the establishment to consist of “poor scholarship”.”
Now you seem to be saying (and I use the term “seem” loosely) that ID doesn’t belong in scientific journals, period.
You had zero credibility before. Now you’re entering into negative numbers. Pitiful.
Mr. Heddle, just fyi: any speculation that that is remotely scientific has its place in scientific journals (though usually the more high-falootin’ the hypothesis, the farther down in the paper’s text it appears). ID is not remotely scientific, no matter how hard its apologists imagine it to be so. The idea that there are intelligent entities floating about the universe (in the “ether” or in spacecraft) who, from time to time, stop to “design” solar systems, planets, galaxies and life forms (how? we are told not to worry about those details by the creationists) is not a scientific theory. It is pure fantasy, to be shelved alongside the Wizard of Oz. It’s proponents are about as worthy for inclusion among the ranks of serious scientists as the Trekkie who is convinced that Leonard Nimoy really is a Vulcan and spends his life debunking the “myth of the prosthetic ears.”
Oh, and Mr. Heddle: I haven’t made any unreasonable assumptions about your beliefs. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you’ve read a few skanky creationist screeds. That’s my only assumption and, based on what I’ve read from you thus far, it’s a damn good assumption.
Comment #6867
Posted by Steve F on August 25, 2004 01:08 PM (e) (s)
“There is NO level playing field.
That’s it. I have stated nothing about ID. ID is good or bad based on its own merits, not whether it can get published.”
So really you aren’t saying much then, aside from a slight quibble about the review process. Anyways, we have a situation in which crap science (in your opinion) gets published. Alongside this we have an ID paper that has been published. Assuming you are correct, it sounds like the playing field is pretty (low) level.
Surely the only point here is over the quality of the science (particularly given that this paper HAS made its way into the literature). Why move from the key issues into this relatively irrelevant sideshow?
Comment #6869
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 01:24 PM (e) (s)
In the post to which you refer, I wrote
You are missing the boat, and that is probably my fault, because I continued arguing from the level playing field post of a while back. My point stands regardless of the level of scholarship of the ID paper, of which I haven’t had time to read. That point is the same level of poor scholarship (and I am not judging Meyer’s paper, but let’s assume you are right) will routinely make it into publication—as long as it drinks from the correct kool-aid.
That is consistent with my point all along, that (a) this is not an argument about whether ID should be published but (b) propositions that are just as speculative as (I assume Meyer’s is) can get published frequently. There is no Kerry-ing going on here. I have made the same simple point throughout.
I wll agree that you can force, because of my sloppiness, what was intended as a general comment (about acceptable speculation vs. ID speculation) into a statement that I claimed, point by Wesleyan point, I could find published papers comparable to Meyers. Since I have said several times (including in the quote in question) that I hadn’t read his paper, I think a reasonable person would agree that I was making a general statement not a specific one about his paper.
GWW wrote
any speculation that that is remotely scientific has its place in scientific journals (though usually the more high-falootin’ the hypothesis, the farther down in the paper’s text it appears). ID is not remotely scientific, no matter how hard its apologists imagine it to be so. The idea that there are intelligent entities floating about the universe (in the “ether” or in spacecraft) who, from time to time, stop to “design” solar systems, planets, galaxies and life forms (how? we are told not to worry about those details by the creationists) is not a scientific theory. It is pure fantasy, to be shelved alongside the Wizard of Oz. It’s proponents are about as worthy for inclusion among the ranks of serious scientists as the Trekkie who is convinced that Leonard Nimoy really is a Vulcan and spends his life debunking the “myth of the prosthetic ears.”
There are some nuggets of truth in this. Speculation is acceptable as long as it is identified as such. However, parallel universe speculation does not have to be identified (as speculation) to get published, and ID, even if the author goes out of his way to identify it as speculation, ain’t gonna make it.
No level playing field.
And GWW your attitude makes my point for me. If ID is regarded by the establishment as fantasy, then it will never be reviewed objectively. And I actually do not have a problem with that.
Oh those wacky pseudo-scientists who believed in a God that created the universe—Newton, Maxwell, … loony tunes one and all.
Comment #6870
Posted by David Heddle on August 25, 2004 01:27 PM (e) (s)
Steve,
You are the first to accurately characterize my position. It is only that the contention that the review process is even-handed is a myth.
Comment #6872
Posted by Russell on August 25, 2004 01:55 PM (e) (s)
Oh those wacky pseudo-scientists who believed in a God that created the universe—Newton, Maxwell, … loony tunes one and all.
Are you introducing a brand new topic here, or is this somehow in response to something someone else wrote?
Comment #6877
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 25, 2004 02:46 PM (e) (s)
If ID is regarded by the establishment as fantasy, then it will never be reviewed objectively. And I actually do not have a problem with that.
David, please step out of your orgone chamber for five seconds and join the real world.
ID creationism *is* regarded as fantasy by nearly ALL scientists who have reviewed it objectively (or at least, by all scientists who have reviewed one of the ever-evolving forms of ID promulgated by its lizard-like proponents). Got it? The
“controversial scientific debate” is over. Just like the “controversial scientific debate” over the existence of Bigfoot is over. Surprised? Sure you are.
I do find it strange that you wouldn’t “have a problem” with an idea being dismissed as fantasy without having been “reviewed objectively.” My guess is that your amply demonstrated inability to write coherently has struck again. You needn’t clarify.
In terms of controversies, all that is left to the ID “debate” are the “controversial” legal debates, such as whether elected school boards and administrative clowns like Kathy Martin can continue to justify spreading their religious bilk in public classrooms based on their “views” that, “Scientific discoveries made over the last decades … have proven Darwin’s theory of macroevolution not to be a plausible theory.”
Comment #6881
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 25, 2004 02:54 PM (e) (s)
Oh those wacky pseudo-scientists who believed in a God that created the universe—Newton, Maxwell, … loony tunes one and all.
Those two weren’t so looney, nor were they wacky pseudo-scientists (at least, they won’t be remembered for their pseudoscientific positions, whatever those may be).
If you want to learn what a genuinely wacky pseudo-scientist who believes in a God that created the universe has to say, read all about him at the following link:
Comment #6900
Posted by Frank J on August 25, 2004 07:13 PM (e) (s)
It’s not because of luck that we don’t live in Antarctica, it’s by design. There was intelligence behind the gross features of human migration, not random chance. These local inhospitable regions are observable. Other universes are not.
Is “design” and “intelligence” why other warm weather species (plants, etc.) avoid Antarctica too?
Although you claim that ID is not science, your above quote, plus the lack of evidence that you give equal time to criticizing ID, suggests that you might favor the ID strategy to mainstream science, philosophically, if not scientifically. Please correct me if I am wrong. In addition, you claim not to be a young-earther. Have you then criticized the young-earth arguments, either for being falsified or for being unscientific?
Comment #6903
Posted by Wayne Francis on August 25, 2004 07:56 PM (e) (s)
“The “sexual relations” episode, which you pointed to, occurred at a news conference, so it wouldn’t be perjury no matter how false it was.”
Actually not Bob. The information I pulled that from is from the Jones Vs. Clinton case.
Honestly I didn’t agree with the witch-hunt either. It is a sad fact that we are getting into a new era. Again even in the Jones trial Clinton did not perjure himself with the “sexual relations” claim as I admit the definition for that case, as outlined above, was not tight enough. He did perjure himself, if his book is correct, on the time his relationship started with Lewinski and since that was in the Jones vs. Clinton case. I leave it at that.
While you may have been disappointed with him the first terms, don’t blame you with majority control of both houses he should have been able to do so much more, he did a good job over all. Better then Bush but then there where different situations going on in the nation.
Really it is hard to compare 2 presidents because they often face different issues and some issues they inherit.
Onto David Heddle’s comments.
The September 2004 Scientific American article entitled The String Theory Landscape by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski
Correct me if I’m wrong but this is the reply to a challenge to find a peer reviewed article with the faults, or similar faults in magnitude, as Wesley points out.
Now as I understand it Scientific American while a good magazine the majority of the time is not subject to peer review.
Also doesn’t String Theory and the multi-verse have a strong documented mathematical basis, not saying it is true just that there are formulas that show it is possible given what we observe.
This is in contrast to the half baked ideas that the ID movement say it has to be. Do many scientist claim there has to be multiple universes and that is the only answer possible?
As to the “Flawed analogy” of we don’t live in Antarctica. Well David I should suspect you should try to understand what was being said a bit better. Humans and animals do migrate true but the fact is complex life is not evolving there because it is no hospitable to life. I’ll give in to it not being a perfect analogy but the only perfect analogy is not an analogy but the actual event you are trying to discuss.
ID has been around for a while yet they can’t come up with any basis for their claims. While what you site as unscientific is an off shoot of established science. They are hypotheses, they are not claimed to be theories. Here ID can’t even get to the Theory stage. I’ve read an article by Sir Martin Rees talking about the multi-verse and even the possibility that we are just a simulation. He doesn’t speak it of scientific fact but discusses it as a possibility and we don’t claim that the work is peer reviewed and accepted. The point is he would not put it in peer review because it is at the level of the article in question from the IDers. Difference again is he doesn’t claim it to be fact.
Comment #6914
Posted by David Heddle on August 26, 2004 09:12 AM (e) (s)
Frank J:
Is “design” and “intelligence” why other warm weather species (plants, etc.) avoid Antarctica too?
Although you claim that ID is not science, your above quote, plus the lack of evidence that you give equal time to criticizing ID, suggests that you might favor the ID strategy to mainstream science, philosophically, if not scientifically. Please correct me if I am wrong. In addition, you claim not to be a young-earther. Have you then criticized the young-earth arguments, either for being falsified or for being unscientific?
I’m not sure what this means — essentially I do mainstream science for a living and publish in maintream journals, but I do follow the ID arguments, especially those in cosmology—where I think the ID case is very strong. I am less interested in the biological ID arguments, probably because it is out of field. I have vigorously and forcefull attacked young earth arguments both on my blog and in talks. In fact, comsmological ID (unlike biological) is instantly at odds with young earth ideas — after all, what would be impressive about the amazing coincidences that allow nuclear chemistry to occur if no stars have ever actually exploded.
Again, it was not my intention to argue ID v. evolution, but to argue against the rediculus, naive notion that there is a level playing field. Do any of you honestly think that a reviewer, given human nature, will actually look at an ID paper with the same open mind as a mainstream paper? I don’t think so. If I ever get a article on cold fusion to review, I would be instantly biased.
Wayne:
Now as I understand it Scientific American while a good magazine the majority of the time is not subject to peer review.
I am not sure. It is certainly not a traditional peer reviewed journal, but neither is it popular science. Somewhat in a class by itself. Still, just browse any cosmology journal and you’ll find discussions on multiverses.
Yes many scientists claim that multiverses is the only answer, given the small window of physical parameters that result in a fertile universe. Unless further development shows that the amazing coincidences in cosmology, nuclear chemistry, etc. are actually not so amazing, there is no alternative other than multiple universes or ID.
As for the flawed analogy, this is what they were saying— that we shouldn’t be surprised that we live in a fertile universe—it’s just like the fact that we don’t live in anarctica. I think I understand what they were trying to say.
String Theory does have mathematics that show multiverses. But the universes cannot communicate. Something outside the realm of observation should likewise be outside the realm of science.
Comment #6918
Posted by Jim Harrison on August 26, 2004 11:09 AM (e) (s)
For all I know, cosmologists may someday establish that there is and can only be one universe. If so, it will obviously be true that it’s properties make life possible since in at least one case life did occur and if something does happen, it obviously was possible beforehand. Unfortunately, this rather sterile bit of modal logic is as far as you get. One would certainly be at liberty to be surprised at the fact that the world is friendly to life, but it would be quite illegitimate to claim that the fact implied to the existence of a transcendent creator. If you want to claim that the word “God” is simply a name for the surprising fact, that’s your business—Spinoza also spoke about Deus sive Natura, God or Nature. Inferences beyond that point, however, are exercises in mythology unless you can come up with some other basis on which to deduce the existence of a creator. There’s no cognitive gain in piling one mystery on another.
By the way, if there was a creator, he sure didn’t do much creating. After all, the universe is mostly an enormous vacant lot. God is supposed to evince an inordinate fondness for beetles, but that’s nothing compared to his obvious love for the Void.
Comment #6920
Posted by RBH on August 26, 2004 11:11 AM (e) (s)
David Heddle wrote
Again, it was not my intention to argue ID v. evolution, but to argue against the rediculus, naive notion that there is a level playing field. Do any of you honestly think that a reviewer, given human nature, will actually look at an ID paper with the same open mind as a mainstream paper? I don’t think so. If I ever get a article on cold fusion to review, I would be instantly biased. (Italics original)
Nope, no more than would a phlogiston paper be looked at with an open mind. Sooner or later bad ideas are treated as just that: bad ideas that are a waste of time and effort. The playing field is not level, and appropriately so. “Open mind” and “empty mind” are not synonyms.
RBH
Comment #6922
Posted by David Heddle on August 26, 2004 11:21 AM (e) (s)
RBH,
Fantastic! That was the simple point I have been trying to make. Only you had the cajones to admit it. Certainly not Wesley Elsbery and his minions who continue to insist that there is a level playing field.
I was getting bored with the “if the paper is acceptable then we will accept it” argument.
The truth, as RBH notes, is that most reviewers will view ID as garbage and not treat it seriously. Level. Right.
Comment #6936
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 26, 2004 01:26 PM (e) (s)
The truth, as RBH notes, is that most reviewers will view ID as garbage and not treat it seriously
David you seem to suffer from the same affliction that a previous poster here named “Navy Davy” suffered from.
That is, you pretend to be trying to find some truth, or at least a consensus, but when one reads your (mostly incoherent) text carefully, one notices that there is a shoe which refuses to drop.
You say that “most reviewers will view ID as garbage and not treat it seriously” and that this statement supports your (ever evolving) “point” that the “playing field is not level.”
The truth is that the playing field in peer review is LEVEL with respect to NEW SCIENTIFIC IDEAS. But the playing field is NOT LEVEL for OLD NONSENSE.
In case it isn’t clear to you (and you seem to be having a really really hard time digesting this): ID is OLD NONSENSE as of 2004. It was OLD NONSENSE last year too. The ID creationists and their apologists have had their say and the verdict is in: ID IS CRAP.
So, the “playing field” is level, David, at least where it counts. The reason you don’t see more papers in prestigious science journals arguing for the existence of Sasquatch, UFOs, ESP, communicating with the dead, “psychic powers,” “intelligent design”, and other pseudoscientific hogwash is because those ideas are essentially universally acknowledged by scientists to be held only by crackpots, fakers, charlatans and fundamentalist religious freaks (take your pick).
At least with ID, a smart high-schooler can point out the obvious and lethal flaws in every version of the “theory” which has been articulated in a way that is remotely comprehensible (which is to say, a couple versions). It’s not rocket science. So how old are you, David? Ten? Tweleve?
Comment #6940
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 02:39 PM (e) (s)
Mark Perakh wrote:
while each of the two components (mutations and selection) is incapable of causing evolution alone, what makes evolution working is the combination of these two mechanisms. This combination gives rise to abilities absent in each of the components separately (as becomes obvious from the success of genetic algorithms).
You cannot say that genetic algorithms model evolution as it occurs in nature. All you can say is that genetic algorithms model the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection, which is your conception of how evolution works. You cannot demonstrate that this is what actually happens in nature. So you set up a strawman model and then you say that genetic algorithms support that model. What is missing is any kind of evidence that genetic algorithms model what actually happens in nature.
In addition, you cannot demonstrate a link between random mutation and natural selection and the appearance of highly organized living systems. Living systems are composed of multiple structures and multiple processes. All of the structures support the functions of other structures and all of the processes support the functions of other processes. The structures also support the functions of the processes and the processes support the functions of the structures. All of these integrated structures and processes ultimately support the overall function of the system. This is called organization.
Your claim that “This combination gives rise to abilities absent in each of the components separately…” is totally unsupported with respect to the mechanism by which these structures and processes become integrated into a functional whole. As with any complex system, the organization and integration of structures and processes into a functional whole cannot occur without insight, and insight does not occur without intelligence. The presence of intelligent input is an absolutely essential component in the evolution of living systems, just as it is in any other highly organized system.
Comment #6941
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 02:45 PM (e) (s)
Mark Perakh wrote:
while each of the two components (mutations and selection) is incapable of causing evolution alone, what makes evolution working is the combination of these two mechanisms. This combination gives rise to abilities absent in each of the components separately (as becomes obvious from the success of genetic algorithms).
You cannot say that genetic algorithms model evolution as it occurs in nature. All you can say is that genetic algorithms model the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection, which is your conception of how evolution works. You cannot demonstrate that this is what actually happens in nature. So you set up a strawman model and then you say that genetic algorithms support that model. What is missing is any kind of evidence that genetic algorithms model what actually happens in nature.
In addition, you cannot demonstrate a link between random mutation and natural selection and the appearance of highly organized living systems. Living systems are composed of multiple structures and multiple processes. All of the structures support the functions of other structures and all of the processes support the functions of other processes. The structures also support the functions of the processes and the processes support the functions of the structures. All of these integrated structures and processes ultimately support the overall function of the system. This is called organization.
Your claim that “This combination gives rise to abilities absent in each of the components separately…” is totally unsupported with respect to the mechanism by which these structures and processes become integrated into a functional whole. As with any complex system, the organization and integration of structures and processes into a functional whole cannot occur without insight, and insight does not occur without intelligence. The presence of intelligent input is an absolutely essential component in the evolution of living systems, just as it is in any other highly organized system.
Comment #6942
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 02:47 PM (e) (s)
Sorry for the double post. The first post didn’t appear after 5 minutes, so I reposted. Unfortunately, you can see what happened…
Comment #6944
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 26, 2004 03:08 PM (e) (s)
What is missing is any kind of evidence that genetic algorithms model what actually happens in nature.
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie.
I must say that, taken as a whole, I find your arguments much more honest and coherent than those of Meyer, Dembski, Behe et al.
But still deeply flawed. :P
You say “any kind of evidence” is missing which supports the idea that “genetic algorithms” model “what actually happens”.
What about if a computer algorithm modeling an allele frequency in a biological population turns out to accurately predict the frequency of that allele (where the algorithm was run before the allele frequency is measured)? Would that count?
Note — Offhand, I am not aware of a piece of published research which meets my description.
Comment #6945
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 03:18 PM (e) (s)
GWW wrote:
What about if a computer algorithm modeling an allele frequency in a biological population turns out to accurately predict the frequency of that allele (where the algorithm was run before the allele frequency is measured)? Would that count?
Yes. Changes in gene frequency under selection pressure are real, and in many cases predictable. However, I am not talking about changes in gene frequency, I’m talking about the appearance of highly organized structures, processes and systems. Now all you have to do is connect the dots. Demonstrate that changes in gene frequency can be linked to the appearance of highly organized structures, processes and systems. Then, pack your bags for Stockholm…
Comment #6946
Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 26, 2004 03:29 PM (e) (s)
Charlie shows that his ID ‘thesis’ is little more than the typical appeal to ignorance. Many resources exist which show how evolutionary can lead to appearance of processes and systems.
Charlie hinted that Meyer’s paper hardly representative of the quality of ID hypotheses but his own hypothesis seems to be not much different from the usual lack of details and appeal to ignorance. Combine this with an appeal to an unsupported ‘law’ and you have all the makings of poor science. IMHO of course. If Charlie wants to present his argument, let him do so on a suitable thread. This is not for discussions of Charlie’s ideas.
Comment #6948
Posted by Frank J on August 26, 2004 03:46 PM (e) (s)
Do any of you honestly think that a reviewer, given human nature, will actually look at an ID paper with the same open mind as a mainstream paper?
I am in fact biased FOR the general notion of ID, if not the ID strategy. I also have a weak spot for underdogs who like to challenge the status quo. For example, if Kenneth Miller submitted a paper that speculated on his notion of quantum indeterminacy as a possible route where intelligence may be involved in biology, I would be inclined to view it more favorably than a typical Richard Dawkins paper with its “blind watchmaker” connotation. OTOH, I’d reject anything, multiple universe etc., that goes out of its way to misrepresent the currently accepted theory. Even if an IDer used a pseudonym, and a code word for ID, like “self-organization” for example, it would be his misrepresentation of evolution, not his identity or belief in design, that would cause me to rate his paper unfavorably.
Note that I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I am not likely to be called to review any biology manuscript, but I’d wager that many, possibly even most, biologist reviewers would be either unbiased or share my “pro ID” bias.
Comment #6954
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 26, 2004 04:25 PM (e) (s)
I also have a weak spot for underdogs who like to challenge the status quo.
Ah, a fellow Deaniac! Welcome!
Comment #6961
Posted by Frank J on August 26, 2004 05:15 PM (e) (s)
Ah, a fellow Deaniac! Welcome!
No way. Unless you mean John Dean.
Comment #6963
Posted by Jim Harrison on August 26, 2004 05:19 PM (e) (s)
Scientific inference is Bayesian, which is to say we properly assess the likelihood of a hypothesis in the light of what we already know. We have an immense amount of knowledge about natural processes, none of which supports the notion of intelligent design. Under the circumstances, an unlevel playing field is quite appropriate.
The ID folks have there own version of probability, a sort of pseudo-Bayesian inference that assesses probabilities not in the light of prior knowledge but in the light of prior faith. Their freedom of action is severely limited because they already know what conclusion they must come to. They are apologists, not discoverers, and doomed to the endless elaboration of increasingly baroque defenses of arbitrary mythological notions.
I reminded of an old joke: “Mommy! Mommy! Why do I keep running around in circles?” “Shut up, Billy, or I’ll nail down your other foot.”
Comment #6966
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 05:34 PM (e) (s)
Wesley wrote:
A few more comments have been shifted to a more appropriate place.
You have a strange notion about what is “appropriate”.
My post, which you moved was a reply to Mark Perakh’s post (which you did not move) addressing Meyer’s claim that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain evolution.
I also note that no one was either willing or able to answer my assertions.
Comment #6967
Posted by Great White Wonder on August 26, 2004 05:37 PM (e) (s)
I also note that no one was either willing or able to answer my assertions.
What am I? Chopped liver?
Comment #6970
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 06:14 PM (e) (s)
GWW wrote:
What am I? Chopped liver?
Sorry man, no dis-intended ;-)
I was referring to Wesley and Mark primarily. Wesley had enough energy to move my post, but not enough energy to respond to it. To me, that says something.
BTW, I was just celebrating the truce in Najaf.
1. Al-Sadr gets to go free.
2. We leave and take all our guns with us.
3. We pay reparations for all the damge we did.
What a deal!!
Comment #6972
Posted by charlie wagner on August 26, 2004 06:21 PM (e) (s)
GWW wrote:
What am I? Chopped liver?
Sorry man, no dis-intended ;-)
I was referring to Wesley and Mark primarily. Wesley had enough energy to move my post, but not enough energy to respond to it. To me, that says something.
BTW, I was just celebrating the truce in Najaf.
1. Al-Sadr gets to go free.
2. We leave and take all our guns with us.
3. We pay reparations for all the damage we did.
What a deal!!
Comment #6758
Posted by Wadsworth on August 24, 2004 03:57 AM (e) (s)
In reply to Gav, comment 6747, I must admit that as an atheist I am somewhat underwhelmed by Matthew 10:29