Would the Real “Michael Egnor” Please Stand Up?

| 47 Comments

Over the weekend, another “Egnor” post appeared on the Discovery Institute blog. This one addresses a post I wrote two weeks ago discussing the “Framing Science” article. In his “response,” “Egnor” manages to completely distort pretty much everything about my article, in a way that is so ham-fistedly inept that it is simply impossible for me to continue to believe that the “Michael Egnor” articles are being written by a real person who really believes what he (or she) writes.

(For the record, I’m neither a “prominent Darwinist” nor a “prominent scientist.” Also, there are only two possible ways that someone could claim that “find a way to get people who aren’t interested in the science behind an issue to care about the issue itself” is the same thing as “recruit people who don’t care about science to the cause of Darwinism.” The author either has a level of respect for honesty that falls below the Roveian, or he has the reading comprehension skills of a repeatedly concussed chipmunk. In either case, I have real problems believing that it’s coming from a reportedly well-respected neurosurgeon.)

It’s been fun while it lasted, but the game’s over now. Would whoever is really writing this stuff please take this opportunity to own up to it? Please? Come on, I know it’s got to be someone who is a regular here.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

47 Comments

There are techniques in linguistic analysis to determine authorship. Even computer programs to do it for you.

While you don’t obtain certainty this way, strong likelihood is possible. This was done decades ago now to assign authorship of each of the The Federalist Papers.

It is the classic “20 post” syndrome that many creationists exhibit at TO. They realize that they have blown it, but they can’t bring themselves to admit it so they ramble on and on making themselves look even worse.

All he had to do was just say, “darn, I messed up that one.” How many posts ago? That is all that it would have taken to keep from doing what he has to resort to, now.

My guess is that the other scam artists at the Discovery Institute are trying to figure out a way that they can pull the plug on him without looking more like idiots themselves.

Wow, “subroveian.” That’s lower than a snake’s belly in a ditch.

Mike Dunford Wrote:

In his “response,” “Egnor” manages to completely distort pretty much everything about my article, in a way that is so ham-fistedly inept that it is simply impossible for me to continue to believe that the “Michael Egnor” articles are being written by a real person who really believes what he (or she) writes.

There is a real Michael Egnor, so ther’s no reason to think that this is a ghost writer. But whoever wrote that nonsense, why does everyone strain so hard to think that they honestly believe it, then act so surprised whan the alternative seems more likely? Sure, they have good reason to want their audience to believe it. But every indication is that they know that they are peddling nonsense.

The link didn’t work. Try this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html

Mike,

Look at it another way. after all the shellacking Egnor’s ideas received in the science blogosphere, first the fig-newton of IT(D) and then the DI quacks themselves have now had to admit that eugenics is an application of ID! Actually Egnor gave the game away (dancing down the pitch forgetting where his leg stump was) and now the junior quacks are tryin to pick the pieces. As someone commented here earlier, with enemies like these who needs friends!

Frank J From your link: “Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe.”

A recent book?

Of course Intelligent Design Creationists also claim ID isn’t out to prove Gods existence. The remainder of your link shows otherwise.

This is all the same claptrap I’ve been reading from IDiots for the last 10 years. “Evolution is dying”, “Waterloo”, “We have 600 engineers, lawyers and philosophers who say evolution is dead, along with 100 biologists, mostly chemists”.

But enough. I’m about to say something that’ll make a law abiding citizen scratch the Darwin fish off my car.

“Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe.”

A recent book?

The linked article was written in 1997.

I more or less lost any sense that Bork might have sound judgment or a reasonable mind when I read the bit in his book about how science was finding reasonable doubts about “Darwinism”—based on Behe’s nonsense.

It seems to me that Behe really thinks that he’s hit on something important in his completely false analogy of the mousetrap and biological complexity. Because, like all IDists I’ve encountered, he thinks complexity is complexity is complexity, he takes the essentially unevolvable and obviously (rationally) designed, and fairly simple, mousetrap as an analogy with biological complexity. Because it can’t evolve (as is the case with many rational designs) he stupidly assumes that much more complex, but obviously derived, biological organisms cannot evolve.

It is a shame that he’s aided and abetted by many who want to argue how evolvable mousetraps “could be” if they reproduced, or some such thing. But no, the mousetrap is at the least difficult to evolve (intermediates are difficult to conjure up), while a cat or a virus to kill the mouse evolves rather readily, given enough time.

Behe does one thing with his mousetrap “analogy”, he points out how essentially different designed things are from evolved things. And because designed things would not readily evolve, he assumes that machines in biology would be equally difficult to evolve, despite the fact that they have clearly evolved (with no obvious design help) and are materially and “in design” very different from actual designed machines.

The upshot being that neither Bork nor Behe should be allowed to think (for others) about matters where they can’t even conceive of how these might differ from engineering solutions.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

I believe that Kitzmiller, as well as the overall response of scientists, indicates just how much the IDists “care about science”. Not to mention Egnor’s own flailing about in the science issues of which he evidently knows so very little.

Yet it should be noted that many of us still didn’t like the Nisbet-Mooney piece, nor Nisbet’s subsequent interview. The greatest defect in their approach is, in my opinion, how they conflate the approach (or approaches) we might take toward engaging the public with global warming, with the approach (or approaches) that we would take toward a fight over the soul of science itself (notably, empiricism), in the fight against ID.

I wrote about it here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]mment-407428

One thing I’ve noticed at UD and in Egnor’s piece is that the number of people who disagree with Nisbet and Egnor appear to be completely non-existent in the IDist response to same. I don’t know what Dunford actually thinks about framing (from what I can see, he thinks we should be effective in engaging the public), but I doubt that he’d agree with the following by Nisbet (where it is in re the evolution fight, that is), or at the least would think it ought to be stated differently:

You start recasting the issue in ways that are still true to the science but, in fact, actually you’re not talking about the science.

There probably is a kernel of undeniable truth in Nisbet’s and Mooney’s recommendations, though I suspect that no one ever really doubted that “framing” is useful, but the muddle they have made of the matter has not assisted the fight against IDist pseudoscience. It’s absurd to equate a fight over the nature of empiricism and the worth of the rules of evidence used in science and in the judiciary (if in different ways), with the fight against those who deny the causal inference of the highly correlated increase in temperature with the increase in greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse denialists are denying a very probable causation in roughly the way that cigarette companies denied results that they didn’t like, but they’re not trying to overthrow science in general to make way for their “conclusions”. The evolution denialists have to deny or twist everything in the standards of science, from the need to find evidence in favor of hypotheses (instead of simply trying to pick apart the reigning theory), to the very meaning of inheritance markers (that is, we’re supposed to believe that evident inheritance may be due to similar authorship, without there being a plausible author, nor unambiguous marks of authorship).

We don’t fight the two sorts of pseudoscientists in the same way, no matter that there is a strong correlation of ID with certain other types of pseudoscience (they’re particularly vulnerable to the cigarette company-type denial thanks to the fact that they don’t believe in proper inference in the first place). There can be no intelligent framing when, apparently, Nisbet and Mooney don’t know the difference between those two levels of denial.

Glen D

A vast conspiracy of Discovery Institute plants under the pseudonym of Michael Egnor is a helluva lot more parsimoniuos then Michael Egnor actually holding a degree in neuroscience.

I wonder if Egnor has a brain tumor.

It is entirely possible that the real Egnor started out posting editorials as part of his committment to the DI. It is also possible that he then tried to defend himself against the onslaught of rebuttals, possibly even in good “faith”. It is then possible that he realized that this approach would leave him no time for his real job, (which probably pays more), so he might have allowed the DI to let several other people post using his name for “prestige”. If this is the case, he may now regret the entire incident. Or not. Just a possibility.

As far as “if evolution is true then there is no God”, I am sure that Ken Miller and millions of others would desagree. One Who Knows should know that. If you agree, then I guess you have to choose. I would recommend spending a life time studying the evidence carefully in order to make an informed choice.

David B. Benson Wrote:

There are techniques in linguistic analysis to determine authorship. Even computer programs to do it for you.

You mean computers can be used to detect design? Don’t tell the IDists! Why, they’ll set up their labs and start working on real research and… Oh, never mind.

One Who knows: This whole site can be summed up thusly,

Science=evolution.

Evolution is true.

Therefore there is no God.

NO! That is the standard lie of the creos. Like you. Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true. BTW, creo dude, ever hear of the Ten commandments? How about the one about NOT LYING?

Evolution is neutral on the subject of supernatural beings.

So is science. Naturalism only studies that which can be observed and tested.

We are many faiths, and none. It is not relevant to this board and no one bothers to ask or care.

Sigh! Once again, if you want to go back to the dark ages fine. Try Afghanistan or Somalia. No electricity, running water, short life expectancy, and they often kill each other. But they are very religious.

This whole site can be summed up thusly,

Science=evolution.

Evolution is true.

Therefore there is no God.

Isn’t that what all this is really about?

Given that some of the contributors are themselves theists; no, it quite obviously isn’t.

This whole site can be summed up thusly,

Science=evolution.

Evolution is true.

Therefore there is no God.

Isn’t that what all this is really about?

Dear “One Who Knows”,

You are deeply mistaken. While there are certainly a number of people who oppose creationism because they’re hostile to religion, you’ll find a much larger number of people who oppose creationism because it’s bad science. Many of the participants here– including me– are devoutly religious.

If science and science education aren’t what it’s “really about”, then how do you explain the lengthy arguments about science? How do you explain the threads about the recent PNAS paper on flagellum evolution? I don’t see any mention of religion in those threads, do you?

What you’re doing is looking through this site, picking out the bits that seem antireligious, and telling yourself that you understand it all. You do not understand. What you’re “seeing” is mostly your own biases and preconceptions, not the way that things actually are.

B. Spitzer

Has anyone tried to compare Egnor’s latest writings with those of “realpc?” He’s been trying to “defend” Egnor by pretending to understand (and by blatantly misrepresenting) what he “really” meant, so it’s quite possible that he simply decided that he could be a better Egnor than Egnor himself. Sort of like Mark David Chapman trying to take John Lennon’s place.

Hopefully realpc won’t go so far as to shoot Egnor, but with that lot, one never knows…

Now that we are on the subject, has anyone ever noticed how exactly one troll shows up in an attempt to derail every thread? They always have a different handle, but as soon as one disappears another takes his place. Could it be possible that someone is paying these guys for some reason? Now what could anyone possibly gain by repeating often refuted nonsense in every thread regardless of the thread topic? Maybe someone is afraid of something.

Its like the Kansas Citizens for Science site; the point over there is not science education, there is precious little of that, but constant ranting about religion.

Do they rant about Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Zoroastrianism? Jainism? Hinduism? No, they rant about fundamentalist Christians trying to pass off their beliefs as science. I’m sure if members of those other religions tried as hard as the DI to insert religion into science class, KCFS would rant against them too.

One Who Knows -

You may know something, but you don’t seem to know much about the role of the theory of evolution in biomedical science, or about “intelligent design”.

I agree with all corrections that have been applied to your erroneous statement so far.

I will simply add the fact that ID is essentially a cynical political creation. It would be foolhardy to debate its merits without acknowledging the the political dimension.

My point here is not to endorse or condemn any political ideology. Lysenkoism was a politically motivated position masquerading as “science”, and the fact that all of its adherents were Soviet Communists was an important part of understanding the issue. The siutation with ID is analagous.

Evidence -

1) ID books, such as the latest Jonathon Wells book, are published by Regnery Press, a self-identified right wing publisher. The latest book is part of a whole “Politically Incorrect Guide” series by Regnery. 2) The Discovery Institute is funded by figures such as Howard Ahmanson, well-known for right wing political views. 3) Funding for or support of ID from “liberal” or “moderate” religious groups is markedly lacking. Pious figures like James Carter or the Dahli Lama have spoken out in favor of mainstream science. The differentiator appears to be politics, not religion. 4) The well-known “Wedge Document” outlines political concerns and aims. 5) ID advocates shun peer-reviewed technical journals, defensible thesis development, and other means of developing or defending a legitimate scientific position, but constantly make statements to the media - and when they do, as mentioned in “1)”, they are likely to be featured in Regnery or on “conservative” cable channels. 6) ID advocates have manipulated school board elections in an effort to have ID taught as science in public schools. 7) The Thomas More Legal Center, who represented the losing ID effort in Dover, is a self-described “very conservative” activist group. 8) The overwhelming majority of legislative efforts to have ID taught in public schools were introduced by conservative Republicans. 9) Of course some conservatives have denounced ID, George Will being the ever-touted example. 10) However, the bottom line is, “support for ID” is massively associated with one particular political ideology.

You’ll note that I haven’t tried to guess why. I have my hypotheses - pandering to fundamentalists who may not benefit economically from, or entirely agree with, the overall right wing platform, and anger at science for “not cooperating” - but no matter why, the data is the data.

With some discussion of politics, which itself always gets back to the eliminati…er, separation, of the church form the state.

By deliberately confusing “separation” with “elimination,” you have just exposed both your ignorance and your own religious bigotry.

Dr. Engor has challenged the Global Darwinian juggernaut and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man’s apparent flip-flops.

The entire purpose of keeping religion out of public schools is not to eliminate religion, but to allow parents to raise their children as they see fit, without interference from the government. If you force the schools to teach creationism because you’re a fundamentalist Christian, you’d better be prepared when you kid comes home from school and asks, “How come Mrs. Pappas makes us cross ourselves the opposite way from what Miss McCarthy taught us?” Or, “Mr. Mohammed says Jesus is just a prophet,” or, “Our new teacher is a Rastafarian. What’s ganja?” If you’d be happy answering those questions, go ahead and push creationism. If not, you might want to leave the science teachers alone.

harold Wrote:

but no matter why, the data is the data.

Unfortunately, even though the grammatical quibbling is happening on another thread, I can’t resist because it’s a pet peeve of mine.

Actually, the data are the data.

Bill Gascoyne -

Guilty as charged. Each datum is a datum.

Pumpkinhead said:

“Dr. Engor has challenged the Global Darwinian juggernaut and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man’s apparent flip-flops.”

Gee, you’d think a world famous neurosurgeon would have tenure by now, what with all his publications and all. Of well, if he can lose his job for making stupid arguments, I guess he’ll be a real martyr. Either way, flip-flopping back and forth on certain issues probably won’t help.

Pumpkinhead Wrote:

Dr. Engor has challenged [a pathetic caricature of evolutionary biology] and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man’s apparent flip-flops.

To add to David Stanton’s comment, now that he has the backing of a world-famous pseudoscience outfit, he can safely quit his day job. Who needs the stress of neurosurgery when peddling pseudoscience is so much easier, and possibly just as financially rewarding? Besides, if Michael Behe is any indication, Egnor should be able to have his cake and eat it too. If I didn’t have a conscience, that’s the kind of “martyr” I’d like to be.

Most regular PT posters object to ID because it fails to meet the criteria for science (repeatable, peer reviewable, publishable and making unique predictions about experiments/observations not yet done). It is not beyond the concievable boundaries that in the future a mechanism of action of supernatural power could be proposed and tested. (We’re waiting patiently for the Biologic Institute to publish its double secret research). I object to ID because it is lousy theology. It makes God (and don’t equivocate on the identity of the designer) a glorified person. Human beings are intelligent designers. God is transcendent and Christianity traditionally focuses on his compassion, love, mercy, forgiveness, purpose, and redempton. ID makes God the great Gepetto in the sky designing all these living puppets whose strings he gets to pull but never quite getting them right and constantly having to wipe them out and start all over again when He’s not having to birth a million to get one or two to survive. He becomes the ultimate cosmic micromanager moving all the quarks and leptons around making everything happen and appear to be empirically discoverable for what purpose?? to fool us into believing that when events seem to be really happening naturally, its all phony? Why is science so useful if all that is happening around us is that some inscrutable supernatural superpower is just messing with our little minds?

Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man’s apparent flip-flops.

Lots of men have approached REAL martyrdom – i.e., unavoidable violent death – with more courage, honesty and consistency than I’ve ever seen from the ID camp, most of whom – particularly Cordova – can’t even stomach a mere grownup debate, and run away and hide in a fog of lies and self-pity the minute they start to lose an argument.

So what sort of “persecution,” exactly, is causing poor Egnor to quake in his boots? If you can’t describe a specific incident, I’ll have to conclude that you’re lying about the whole “martyrdom” thing.

Egnor Quote:

Notice the difference in strategy between proponents of Intelligent Design and proponents of Darwinism. Intelligent Design scientists are energetically seeking public and academic forums to debate the science. They fight censorship from Darwinists in universities and federal lawsuits from Darwinists in public school science classes.

Just wanted to see if anyonw wanted to defend this deluded statement.

Egnor seems to have missed the fact that the ID scam artists have been trying to hide their foibles under a rock, and they now admit that they never had any science to put forward worth talking about. Why does Egnor think that teaching ID is now “premature?” What is there to debate when the ID guys have to admit that they haven’t even been trying to test their ID notions when they are under oath, but they seem to forget this when they run their dog and pony shows in “academic” forums that they have to rent space to perform in. What did Behe claim? Didn’t he claim that he didn’t think that it was up to him to test his ID junk? What kind of science debate can you possibly have with someone like that?

The real kicker is that the ID scam artists are the ones that came up with a replacement political scam back in 1999 (probably before that). A scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed, a scam that just uses ID as smoke to make the new scam look legit, and has as its only purpose to blow smoke over the issue using the same lame creationists arguments that haven’t amounted to anything, ever. If ID were worth debating why did the ID scam artists like Meyer and Dembski go with a replacment scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed? What did they ever have to debate if they knew that they needed such a replacment scam that long ago?

No one can deny it. Meyer wrote up the legal ramifications of the dishonest replacement scam back in 1999, and Dembski concluded his essay on what the IDiots wanted to teach in the public schools by claiming that the Clarion call was to teach the controversy before the ID scam artists had to run the bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes in 2002. These guys knew that they were going to have to run the bait and switch on the rubes that they had conned with ID, because they knew for a fact that they didn’t have jack to support ID. If ID were an honest effort how does anyone explain the need for a replacement scam? Since the new scam doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed, what do the “honest” ID supporters think there is to debate about ID at this time?

Is there any ID proponents that know the difference between running a dishonest scam and fighting censorship? About the best that you could possibly claim is that the ID scam artists believed that they still had a chance of coming up with something worth teaching about ID even as they were preparing to run the bait and switch scam because they knew that they didn’t have anything worth teaching. Why would anyone continue to support such people? Is there anyone that doesn’t realize that they ran a bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes? What was it? The creationist rubes obviously bought the ID scam, but what did they end up with? They didn’t even demand a raincheck. They just took the replacement scam from the same guys that had lied to them about ID. How sad is that? When the scam artists can’t come up with the “science” when they need it, what is being censored? It looks like self censorship to me.

The saddest thing is that the Dover rubes wouldn’t take the replacement scam and we all know what happened there. So what is left for guys like Egnor to support?

When the scam artists can’t come up with the “science” when they need it, what is being censored? It looks like self censorship to me.

Just you wait until they find and publish the Darwinists’ Wedge Document.

You know, that whole plan to change the rules of science so that they’d rely solely upon “materialism”, and not upon the intelligent design, purpose, and explanatory filters that biology, physics, geology, and chemistry had relied upon until the time of Darwin. That Wedge has been successful beyond the wildest dreams of Darwinists, so that all of science now demands “observation”, actual “evidence” in favor of a proposed explanation, and other panty-waist nonsense.;)

I think I’ll come up with some sort of algorithm like the EF in order to find the Darwinists’ Wedge Document. Then we’ll see who the real censors are.

Glen D http:tinyurl.com/35s39o

So what sort of “persecution,” exactly, is causing poor Egnor to quake in his boots?

Don’t you know? He says things, and he’s asked to back them up, or he’s shown to be wrong.

How can that be fair? Doesn’t everyone and everything have the same right to be praised as being correct as everyone and everything else?

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Don’t you know? He says things, and he’s asked to back them up, or he’s shown to be wrong.

How can that be fair? Doesn’t everyone and everything have the same right to be praised as being correct as everyone and everything else?

Well, according to the presuppositions of the Darwinian faith, Engor is wrong. The presuppositions of the Christian faith are different. According to this country’s inherently dishonest first amendment, the government has no business establishing a religion, yet it is the religion of evolutionism that has been established. It’s presuppositions are assumed in all the discourse in officialdom.

According to this country’s inherently dishonest first amendment…

This premise alone should serve as proof that Punkinhead neither knows nor cares what he’s talking about, and does not share any common moral ground with mainstream America on which to base any adult dialogue.

Of course, since he began his presence here by calling evolutinists “sodomites,” this should not surprise anyone…

Pumpkinhead wrote:

Well, according to the presuppositions of the Darwinian faith, Engor is wrong. The presuppositions of the Christian faith are different. According to this country’s inherently dishonest first amendment, the government has no business establishing a religion, yet it is the religion of evolutionism that has been established. It’s presuppositions are assumed in all the discourse in officialdom.

Just think if this had any basis in reality. Would the ID creationist scam artists have wasted a decade lying about being able to teach something about ID if they could simply establish that biological evolution was a religion? Would they have had to run the bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes or suffer such an ignoble defeat in Dover if this line of reasoning had even the slightest chance of bearing any semblance to reality?

This kind of fractured reasoning probably accounts for a large portion of why there are still ID supporters when even the ID creationist scam artists are pushing a replacement scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed.

Is there any ID supporters that wish that there was some other explanation other than incompetence or dishonesty for continuing to support what was obviously a dishonest politcal scam. If there is anyone that wants to claim otherwise, just explain why it was necessary to run the bait and switch scam in Ohio instead of teaching the “science” of ID?

If Pumpkin head is correct why not just demonstrate it and get evolution out of the science class honestly? Why run obfuscation scams if you don’t have to?

let’s change the Egnor quote a bit to make it more germane to his actual field of specialty: Notice the difference in strategy between the proponents of psychic neurosurgery and the proponents of traditional invasive neurosurgery. Psychic neurosurgeons are energeticaly seeking public and academic forums to debate these techniques. They fight censorship from invasive neurosurgeons in medical schools and lawsuits from board certified neurosurgeons in state medical boards. Certainly if anyone at Stonybrook made such a remark he would be up in arms over it. Regardless if scientific or even medical scientific issues could be solved by debate there would be no need for costly labs or medical trials and he knows that.

My point here is not to endorse or condemn any political ideology. Lysenkoism was a politically motivated position masquerading as “science”, and the fact that all of its adherents were Soviet Communists was an important part of understanding the issue. The siutation with ID is analagous.

Evidence -

1) ID books, such as the latest Jonathon Wells book, are published by Regnery Press, a self-identified right wing publisher. The latest book is part of a whole “Politically Incorrect Guide” series by Regnery. 2) The Discovery Institute is funded by figures such as Howard Ahmanson, well-known for right wing political views. 3) Funding for or support of ID from “liberal” or “moderate” religious groups is markedly lacking. Pious figures like James Carter or the Dahli Lama have spoken out in favor of mainstream science. The differentiator appears to be politics, not religion. 4) The well-known “Wedge Document” outlines political concerns and aims. 5) ID advocates shun peer-reviewed technical journals, defensible thesis development, and other means of developing or defending a legitimate scientific position, but constantly make statements to the media - and when they do, as mentioned in “1)”, they are likely to be featured in Regnery or on “conservative” cable channels. 6) ID advocates have manipulated school board elections in an effort to have ID taught as science in public schools. 7) The Thomas More Legal Center, who represented the losing ID effort in Dover, is a self-described “very conservative” activist group. 8) The overwhelming majority of legislative efforts to have ID taught in public schools were introduced by conservative Republicans. 9) Of course some conservatives have denounced ID, George Will being the ever-touted example. 10) However, the bottom line is, “support for ID” is massively associated with one particular political ideology.

You’ll note that I haven’t tried to guess why. I have my hypotheses - pandering to fundamentalists who may not benefit economically from, or entirely agree with, the overall right wing platform, and anger at science for “not cooperating” - but no matter why, the data is the data.

Here we have four-layer Devils’ food cake of ad hominem abusive topped with frosting of dishonest guilt by association. Evidence must stand on its own independent of anybody’s political perspective. In addition, its worth noting the seminaries of Darwinism are scarcely free of politics themselves. The difference is that in order to have access to many decent jobs you must pay them through the nose to have your face shoved in their ideological cat box, but I digress. Getting back to your comparison of Christians to Lysenkoists, its worth noting the Soviet Marxists were some of the world’s deepest believers in the scatological anti-Gospel of Darwin. The way they treated Christians would make Daniel Dennett proud!

Here we have four-layer Devils’ food cake of ad hominem abusive topped with frosting of dishonest guilt by association.

using random word expressions to try to express a point only makes you look like what you are, completely insane.

Was it hard to come up with that first line, or does that kind of gibberish just roll off your tongue on a daily basis?

well, at least it’s humorous, in a John Davison insane-in-the-membrane kinda way.

only two choices here:

you’re simnply trolling for effect, and doing a rather poor job of it.

you really are mentally ill, in which case you need treatment immediately.

since I don’t think someone could really be as ill as what your words express, you can only be simply trolling.

the real question is, why on earth would you insist on using such gibberish in your attempts? Surely you’ve seen better trolling from Cbass and others recently.

Pumpkinhead:

Here we have four-layer Devils’ food cake of ad hominem abusive topped with frosting of dishonest guilt by association.

You are in no position to accuse anyone else of being abusive.

Soviet Marxists were some of the world’s deepest believers in the scatological anti-Gospel of Darwin.

People like Vavilov (one of the top geneticists of his day and still remembered for his work on the evolution of crop plants) died in prison camps in Siberia because of their support for the theory of evolution. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

BTW: Why ‘scatological’? Do you even know what scatological means? Which reminds me, was my diagnosis of raging teenage hormones correct?

Either raging hormones or else trolling insanity

ID advocates play the ad hominem card as if it were some type of shield. It never seems to matter to them that the bad things about the intelligent design movement are true. If they were really serious about playing the ad hominem card shouldn’t they have all their ducks in a row and be able to demonstrate that the stupid and dishonest things about ID are rectified? What are the ID scam artists doing today? Has anything gotten any more competent or honest? Why are the same guys that ran the ID scam running a new scam? Why is it that the new scam doesn’t make any sense unless they dishonestly keep lying about the old scam? What controversies are they talking about teaching that their supporters want taught, if ID can’t even be mentioned among the scientific controversies?

An ID advocate playing the ad hominem card is like a thief claiming that just because you caught me stealing the money, doesn’t mean that I’m a thief. If the shoe fits wear it, or if you don’t like the shoes get some new ones. The last thing that you should do is white wash the stupidity and dishonesty with the stupid claim that refering to reality is an ad hominem. Change the reality if you think that reality is bad enough to cry ad hominem.

Doesn’t it make any ID advocate think twice when they are offended by the “ad hominem” statements, but they know that the statements are true? What good is claiming ad hominem when that doesn’t change the veracity of the statements?

ID advocates play the ad hominem card as if it were some type of shield. It never seems to matter to them that the bad things about the intelligent design movement are true. If they were really serious about playing the ad hominem card shouldn’t they have all their ducks in a row and be able to demonstrate that the stupid and dishonest things about ID are rectified? What are the ID scam artists doing today? Has anything gotten any more competent or honest? Why are the same guys that ran the ID scam running a new scam? Why is it that the new scam doesn’t make any sense unless they dishonestly keep lying about the old scam? What controversies are they talking about teaching that their supporters want taught, if ID can’t even be mentioned among the scientific controversies?

An ID advocate playing the ad hominem card is like a thief claiming that just because you caught me stealing the money, doesn’t mean that I’m a thief. If the shoe fits wear it, or if you don’t like the shoes get some new ones. The last thing that you should do is white wash the stupidity and dishonesty with the stupid claim that refering to reality is an ad hominem. Change the reality if you think that reality is bad enough to cry ad hominem.

Doesn’t it make any ID advocate think twice when they are offended by the “ad hominem” statements, but they know that the statements are true? What good is claiming ad hominem when that doesn’t change the veracity of the statements?

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true. To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true.

I notice you only said that after you realized that what we said about you is true, and you can’t escape it. (Is this an admission that your own name-calling posts are irrelevant?)

To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

It speaks volumes about the trustworthiness of ID’s advocates. (Funny how you mentioned “corporate kingpins,” not “religious demagogues.” Avoiding something, are we?) And when coupled with their blatant lies, and their total lack of any actual science, it does indeed speak to the falsehood of ID itself.

When listening to conflicting stories about an issue of which I myself am not fully informed, I have no choice but to believe the person who speaks honestly, and ignore the person who’s been a well-known liar for decades.

Pumpkinhead wrote:

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true. To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

Only in your reality. What does the dishonest politics have to do with the “science” of ID? Well, for one thing they lied about the science of ID to perpetrate their dishonest political scam. Do you deny that they lied about the science of ID? The ID scam artists don’t deny it, guys like Philip Johnson are even admitting that there never was any ID science comparable to what they didn’t like. Nothing equivalent to teach at this time. Johnson didn’t admit it until Dover forced the admission, but Nelson admitted that there had never been a scientific theory of ID right after they had to run the bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes. Why didn’t they all come out and admit the obvious? Why wait and let Dover happen? Why is Meyer claiming that teaching ID is now “premature?” So what does that say about the truth or veracity of the ID claims? Take any claim that the ID scam artists made before Dover and try to justify it based on what you know today. These are the guys that didn’t start the Biologic Institute until after they had to admit in Dover that they had never even attempted to test their ID notions in any meaningful way. What were they doing for the last decade? These are the guys that didn’t start ARN or ISCID until after they had decided that they neeeded the teach the controversy replacement scam. What does that tell you about the worth of their ID arguments before or since? ID obviously didn’t get any better or they wouldn’t have had to use the replacement scam, right?

Why isn’t the Wedge document relevant when it tells exactly why they were lying about ID, and why they continue to run dishonest creationist scams? If they were not lying about the science of ID, why did they have to run the bait and switch scam in Ohio? Any ID proponent have an answer for that question? Is there some honest reason why they had the ID science to back up their claims, but they just didn’t want to teach it at that time? Remember it is the ID scam artists themselves that gave up on their ID science to go with a replacement scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed, so what would that tell any thinking human being about the value of their ID arguments?

I admit that the fact that they lied about ID for a decade and even gave up on it long before Ohio doesn’t negated the possibility that some designer may exist, but unless you live on another planet you are stuck with the junk that the dishonest clowns are putting up to defend the notion. Junk that they even admit isn’t good enough.

If you are just worried about the veracity of ID you should be as against the dishonest political scam as anyone else. It turns out that ID is far from being verifiable, that is all that needs to be agreed on. People can discuss ID all they want to, but as long as it is stuck with the worthless arguments that the scam artists have concocted to date it doesn’t even come up on the scientific radar, and definitely is not warrented to be taught as science.

If you think that the current ID scam is about something else, prove it. You might want it to be about something else, but what is the reality of the situation?

Some guy once tried to defend the ID scam artists by claiming that they were just exaggerating and not lying. What do you call exaggerating for a decade, or continuing to exaggerate after you have decided to go with a replacement scam?

Isn’t that what all this is really about?

No, it’s what you thought it was about before coming here and reading and comprehending it. And you still think that precisely because you didn’t read or comprehend it, being the sort of stupid and morally bankrupt person that you and your ilk are.

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true.

Listen, you moron, you haven’t a clue. Like many people, you have heard that “ad hominem is a fallacy” but, having no understanding or grasp of logic, you don’t understand what that means or the context in which it applies. ad hominem comments about X are only irrelevant to the logical validity of statements made by X, but that does not make them “irrelevant” in some free-floating absolute universal sense – which would be obvious to you if your head contained a functioning brain rather than a mass of pulp and seeds. Unless a person’s claims are purely deductive, such that their logical validity can be deduced solely from their content, they bear some empirical, testimonial nature, in which case their validity rests in part on the reliability of the person making them, and the facts about the person then become quite relevant.

The ad hominem fallacy – when the ad hominem statement is a fallacy – is a subcategory of ignoratio elenchi – “irrelevant conclusion” or, more accurate in translation “ignorance of refutation”, a failure to understand what would count as a refutation. And your claim that relevant ad hominems are irrelevant, without even addressing their content, is just that sort of fallacy (as is the whole body of anti-evolution argumentation, for that matter).

Oh, and here’s the strawman:

To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

Indeed, but that’s not the argument that was made. It’s quite clear, for numerous other reasons, that ID is not a scientific theory and has no evidential support. The question then is, why does it hold the prominent position that it does, why do so many people believe it, and so on. Why do morally bankrupt gits like pumpkinhead come here and troll, even after their erroneous claims have been repeatedly refuted with relevant argument? Why do they display their morally bankrupt hypocrisy so transparently, going on about “ad hominem” and irrelevance after an initial post such as

Dr. Engor has challenged the Global Darwinian juggernaut and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man’s apparent flip-flops.

which is purely ad hominem and has no relevance to the truth or falsity of ID? Since these are questions about persons, the facts about those persons and their environment are relevant.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on April 23, 2007 5:06 PM.

Uncommon Despair was the previous entry in this blog.

Flagellum evolution kerfluffle continued 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