A “Robust” Theory? April Fool!

| 25 Comments

I sure wish these IDists would get their act together. In a posting on the Center (for the Renewal of) Science and Culture Media Complaints Division PR man Rob Crowther whines that a recent story in the Seattle Times disses Intelligent Design “theory” by saying

… an opportunity for the Discovery Institute to promote its notion of intelligent design, the controversial idea that parts of life are so complex, they must have been designed by some intelligent agent.

The Media Complaints Division objects

Never mind the demeaning way she describes it as a “notion” – this definition is just flat out inaccurate. Her description –one commonly used by the ACLU and other such Darwinian groups– treats the theory of intelligent design as if it were an argument from ignorance. Things are so complex, they must have been designed, or so they posit. In actuality, it is a positive and robust scientific theory based on what we do know, that examines the natural world for empirical evidence of design.

A “robust” theory? Not a bad PR phrase. But then on the other hand we have C(R)SC Fellow Paul Nelson, who says

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design. (In Touchstone Magazine, July/August 2004, quoted here)

Lemme understand this. Nelson refers to “notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’, there’s “no general theory of biological design”, and “Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus.” What does ID philosopher and C(R)SC Fellow Nelson know that DI PR flack Crowther doesn’t? Is Crowther’s complaint the DI’s version of an April Fool’s joke?

RBH

25 Comments

They say “notion,” not “theory”! Very, very good! Someone knows what they’re talking about.

Nifty.

Fascinating how the ID proponents seem to not even understand their own ‘theory’ which is solidly founded in ignorance and exhibits a lack of scientific relevance.

That ID is an argument from ignorance has been clearly established. So why the farce has to be continued on a site claiming to focus on correcting misconceptions about ID seems particularly ironic. But perhaps the site is meant to be ‘tongue in cheek’?

ID has become victim of its own rethoric…

There is no “notion” or “theory” for them to stay consistent with. Intelligent Design a vacuous catch-phrase for “anti-evolutionism, carefully hidden religious undertones.” This latest post is further proof that, in the end, they have absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative to the established theories in science. It must always be April 1st at the Discover Institute, they seem to only produce foolishness and idiocy.

You gotta love his last line:

Apparently he is not as afraid as some others to debate the issues.

Followed immediately by their intentionally disabled trackback and comments sections.

Yup, I put the appropriate trackback info in the post, and it’s not showing up over there.

No, no, you just don’t understand the idscientific definition of “notion”–it means exactly what is convenient at any particular time, especially if repeated often enough.

Intelligent Design is in no sense anti-evolutionary. Quite the contrary, without Intelligent Design there could have been no origin or origins of life and no subsequent evolution of that life. Chance, the antithesis of Intelligent Design, never had anything to do with either the origin of life or its subsequent history. Everything that occurred in a past evolution resulted from the impetus of forces from within the evolving genomes which were expressed on schedule or before in order to anticipate the next step in an ascending and now fully realized evolutionary scenario.

Others, long before me, shared some of these views.

“The laws of the organic world are the same, whether we are dealing with the development of an indivdual (ontogeny), or that of a palaeontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.” Leo Berg, Nomogenesis or Evolution Deteremined by Law, page 134

“In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic series no evidence whatever, to my knowledge, has been brought forward by any palaeontologist, either of the vertebrated or the invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous.” Henry Fairfield Osborn

“The entire process of evolution may be regarded as an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present.” William Bateson

John A. Davison

Without chance, how can anything be intelligent? Without randomness, then everything is deterministic. Thus without randomness/chance, there is no free will. How is a deterministic program intelligent?

John seems to be confused about the concept of chance in evolution. In fact, as many evolutionists have already pointed out evolution is ‘constrained’ by physical laws and this may give the impression of teleology. Ruse and Ayala are good resources to consult. Some people however remain stuck in their dogmatic views and refuse to familiarize themselves with that which they oppose, leading to such silly notions as seen expressed by our dear friend Nosivad. Nosivad is expressing a clear example of what is wrong with ID, namely that ID cannot exclude deterministic processes (regularities) as the Intelligent Designer. Once again I have to thank my dear friend for his contributions to the demise of ID.

“Without randomness, then everything is deterministic. Thus without randomness/chance, there is no free will.”

If everything is determined, there is no free will. That’s not a consequence those who long for a Designer will be happy with.

AntiDesign

Your handle defines your biases and your comment.

That is the whole point. Evolution HAS been deterministic just as has everything else in the universe. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny exactly as Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse insisted. They were not alone in their conviction. There is also a serious question as to the reality of a free will as well.

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” Albert Einstein

I see that Pim finds it necesary to refer to me a Nosivad again, a typical shabbly tactic when everything else fails. Since he issists on that sort of thing I will just remind everyne that PvM is the most notorious sockpuppet in cyberspace. He was instrumental in the demise of “brainstorms” and is no longer welcome at ARN. As far as I know this is the only forum that tolerates him anymore. He is the quintessential atheist naysayer claiming to be a Darwinian Christian to boot. In short he is a hypocrite.

I have expressed nothing which would lead anyone (except Pim of course) to believe what I have said has in anyway demonstrated what is wrong with ID because there is nothing wrong with ID in the first place. Intelligent Design WAS mandatory for not only the creation or creations of all life but all of life’s subsequent evolution. To deny Intelligent Design is to deny evolution. Without the former, the latter would never have occurred and it most certainly did occur.

As far as attempting to communicate with others of different persuasion, Einstein once again reminds us that too is also determined.

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”

John A. Davison, not Davision, not Nosivad, not Nosy and not Salty either. I don’t hide behind a veil of anonymity and never have. The use of handles is just a convention as far as I am concerned and if some choose to hide thir identity, I couldn’t care less. At Panda’s Thumb my name is John A. Davison and if that is not used to refer to me I will respond in kind. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

I see that Pim finds it necesary to refer to me a Nosivad again, a typical shabbly tactic when everything else fails. Since he issists on that sort of thing I will just remind everyne that PvM is the most notorious sockpuppet in cyberspace. He was instrumental in the demise of “brainstorms” and is no longer welcome at ARN. As far as I know this is the only forum that tolerates him anymore. He is the quintessential atheist naysayer claiming to be a Darwinian Christian to boot. In short he is a hypocrite.

Salty, aka Nosivad, aka Davison is well known for his presence on a variety of boards, quickly overstaying his welcome at science boards, or plainly ignored at creationist boards such as ISCID or ARN. I am not sure why Nosivad consider me refering to him by this name to be a shabbly (sic) tactic… I wish I had been instrumental in the demise of “brainstorms” but its demise was caused by the lack of scientific contributions to intelligent design. As I have explained before, I am not an atheist which makes Davison’s claims once again unsupported by fact. I am only a hypocrite in the eyes of those who create such a strawman.

I once again thank my friend for exposing the intelectual vacuity of intelligent design.

May I also point out that Nosivad still seems to be misunderstanding the meaning of chance in Darwinian theory. His contributions continue to serve as a reminder of what is wrong with intelligent design. By conflating intelligent design with deterministic law, Nosy ends up confusing the matters.

Behold my handle, which shall define my bias and comment:

Indeed, I am quite open to randomness / indeterminancy as real causal agents. But you cannot, because to admit randomness by any minute amount would render your golden calf to absolute irrelevance.

How do you like them apples?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 13, column 2, byte 524 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

God makes a good point namely that randomness and indeterminancy are likely a requirement for free will to exist. Of course, there are some who confuse randomness as used in evolutionary theory…

Pim continies to demonstrate the sort of thing that has characterized his behavior wherever he has posted using denigrating names, masquerading as a Christian and using insult instead of reason when confronted with views that differ from his own. He is a credit to Panda’s Thumb, probably the only forum left that will still tolerate his tactics.

There is no need for theory when dealing with naked undeniable facts such as Intelligent Design and a purposeful universe. Theories are verified hypotheses. There is nothing hypothetical about Intelligent Design and a prescribed, predetermined evolution. Those are self evident and serve as the mandatory basis for any further understanding of the great mystery of organic evolution. Until that is accepted you but not I will remain mired in blind ideology and intellectual stagnation.

John A. Davison, stll enjoying his undiminished capacity to make his adversaries perform beautifully for all to see and recognize for what that means for the status of the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.

Yawn… Not only is Nosy confused about the meaning of random when used in evolutionary theory but he also seems to hold the faith position that ID and the prescribed, predetermined evolution is ‘self evident’. John suggests, contrary to the facts, that I am masquerading as a Christian. How sad to hear John make these continuous fallacious assertions. Keep up the good work my dear friend.

@nv@ It is not Nosy. It is professor John A. Davison.

So random now has a new meaning when applied to evolutionary theory does it. I would ask you to explain that but I know you can’t so I won’t.

Intelligent design is self-evident to all but retarded, atheist ersatz Christian Darwimps like yourself. So is a prescribed evolutionary scenario. I am right and you are wrong. I am a winnner and you are a loser and always have been, just as have been all the other thousands of Darwimpian mystics. You clowns go right on insisting on a mechanism that cannot be demonstrated. It boggles my mind.

I am not your “dear friend.” I am your enemy and always will be. Bank on it.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Nosy Wrote:

It is not Nosy. It is professor John A. Davison.

Okay Salty…

Salty Wrote:

So random now has a new meaning when applied to evolutionary theory does it. I would ask you to explain that but I know you can’t so I won’t.

I would be more than happy to explain to you the meaning of random. Let me first point out that random does not have a new meaning, but rather that your understanding of the term is in error. Having established this, let’s focus on the meaning of the term random. Random in evolutionary theory means that the variation is not exclusively beneficial to the present environment but rather that the variations are distributed among neutral, detrimental and beneficial.

I am not your “dear friend.” I am your enemy and always will be. Bank on it.

Thank you my dear friend.

John A. Davison, not Davision.

Come on, guys! John has no “vision”. Says so himself.

By the way, what happened to the devowelinator? At the very least the Doc’s halucinations should come with a mental health warning. Seriously, the guy cracks me up!

Pim van Meurs is one of the best devowelinators here at Panda’s Thumb and one of the powers in its management. That is why Panda’s thumb is doomed as a rational venue for the discussion of anything dealing with the mystery of evolution. Panda’s Thumb deserves Pim van Meurs. They mutually sustain the groupthink that Panda’s Thumb so obviously really is.

John A. Davison

Pim van Meurs is one of the best devowelinators here at Panda’s Thumb and one of the powers in its management. That is why Panda’s thumb is doomed as a rational venue for the discussion of anything dealing with the mystery of evolution. Panda’s Thumb deserves Pim van Meurs. They mutually sustain the groupthink that Panda’s Thumb so obviously really is.

John A. Davison

I cannot take the credit for the devoweling Nosy’s posts. Others were responsible for most of the devoweling and surprised by how much more sense Davison’s postings made with the vowels removed, I used the technique on a few of his postings. However I found that the bathroom wall was a much better place for Nosivad’s ‘contributions’ I wish I was ‘one of the powers in the management’ but I am merely a contributor to a blog which is attracting significant internet traffic. As a group, PT provides for many excellent articles but PT also allows its detractors and critics to freely post, and when critics refuse to stick to the topic of the thread, they end up on the bathroom wall. Compare this policy with those found at ID friendly sites… I am proud to be a contributor to a site which has attracted so much attention from both the internet community as well as the media and who scooped the review of Meyer’s (abysmal imho) paper on the Cambrian explosion. I even take pride in contributing to the education of Salty who seemed to be somewhat confused about the term ‘random’ as it applies to evolutionary theory. Much has changed since the early/middle 1900’s…

I agree with Doc Bill though that Nosy does provide from some interesting entertainment. Which is why I refer to him as my dear friend. John A Davison, honorary friend of (Neo)-Darwinism

Pim van meurs is one of the chosen few at Panda’s Thumb because he can introduce threads and rule them with an iron hand. I can’t do that, DaveScot can’t do that. Can any antiDarwinian do that? I don’t know but I would like to know because that would seem to be the problem here.

All I see here is what I have seen before at “brainstorms” (what a misnomer) and EvC and FringeSciences and to a lesser extent at ARN. I see one-sided faith-based bigotry presented with what Grasse called “Olympian assurance.” No one asks questions and everyone has ready made explanations which require new definitions of such words as random, chance and probability, words that never had anything to do with evolution anyway.

I see Pim still finds it necessary to deprecate with such names as Nosy, Salty and Nosivad, the earmarks of a mindless bigot and ideologue. Panda’s thumb is rapidly becoming the laughing stock of cyberspace and I and DaveScot are seeing to it with nothing more than simple unvarnished truths that can never be denied no matter what Pim van Meurs or anyone else says.

The entire Darwinian scheme was dreamed up out of thin air by a Victorian mystic who was totally unaware of the great strides that were being made on the continent during his own lifetime. Nothing in the Cell Theory of Schleiden and Schwann (1838) ever even penetrated Darwin’s feckless mind because by his own admission he couldn’t read German. To his dying day he never accepted reproductive continuity because he admitted that he didn’t know where cells came from since he “was not an histologist.” Believe it or not, it’s a fact and I am prepared to prove it.

It is no wonder that someone observed that Weismann was more Darwinian than Darwin and poor Darwin was actually more Lamarckian than Lamarck. What a screw up. You see on the continent they accepted the cell theory but not in merry old England. It was not until Bateson came along that British biological science even started to exist. Even today they elect clowns like Richard Dawkins to the Royal Society. Can you imagine such a travesty? It is for real. They also produced dreamers like Sir Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane, those stalwarts of Darwinian mysticism neither of whom ever did an experiment in their lives. They were too busy fooling around with simple algebraic expressions and frantically snatching black and white beans of of bags. Even that idiotic old tyrant Ernst Mayr accused Fisher of being a “bean bag geneticist” but only after Fisher was dead. What a bunch of losers all, pots calling kettles black with gay abandon. Its frightening isn’t it but not for that good old Christian Darwimp Pim van Meurs. He stands by all of it, loyal as they come to the biggest farce in all of science. And he accuses me of living in the past and not understanding the word “random” as it “applies to evolutionary theory.” Of course he is absolutely right because there never was any place for randomness in evolution and there isn’t even any evolutionary theory either. How wrong can a person be? And he is a devout Christian to boot.

Yet Pim van Meurs keeps right on telling us what a great mind Darwin was. It is hard to believe isn’t it? Panda’s Thumb deserves Pim van Meurs just like “brainstroms “ did and ARN did. The latter two finally saw the light and got rid of him. Panda’s Thumb will do the same. It is simply a matter of time. Mark my words.

Well I hope you all find this entertaining although that was not my intent. It was meant to expose the whole damned forum for what it so obviously is, nothing but a fraternity of atheist bigots, dominated and led bravely on by a few intractable homozygous religious hypocrites like Pim van Meurs.

Thanks for not listening. You never do.

John A. Davison

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on March 31, 2005 9:53 PM.

Nature: Apollo bacteria spur lunar erosion was the previous entry in this blog.

I recant! ID works is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter