Dueling Blurbs: Collins vs. Coulter

| 292 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Some years ago Bill Dembski wrote that “Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.” The italics were in the original. Thursday Dembski reinforced that assertion while commenting on Ken Miller’s new book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. Dembski’s post is titled Theistic Evolutionists Close Ranks: Let the Bloodletting Begin!

It turns out that Dembski also has a new book coming out called Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language. His co-author is Sean McDowell, the head of the Bible Department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools. (Nope, ain’t no religion here!)

What caught my eye in Dembski’s post was his juxtaposition of blurbs for Miller’s book and his own.

Miller’s book is blurbed by Francis Collins:

In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.

Not surprising – Collins is the former head of the Human Genome project and an evangelical Christian who has written his own (in my opinion, weak) attempt to reconcile science with his religion.

Dembski’s book, on the other hand, has a laudatory blurb from … wait for it … science writerpublic intellectual … um … strident harpy Ann Coulter:

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism…. Liberals respond to critics of their religion like Cotton Mather to Salem’s “witches.” With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design.

The Dick Butkus of intelligent design? I laughed out loud when I read that. The Fig Newton of information theory (to adapt to reality Rob Koons’ sycophantic characterization of Dembski) is one thing, but Dick Butkus?

One thing seems clear: Dembski has wholly abandoned any pretense that ID is not a religiously motivated enterprise. As I wrote 20 years ago, if the creationists (of any stripe) win the war, the next day blood will be flowing in the aisles and between the pews. Dembski has a particular affinity for violent imagery – recall his vice strategy for squeezing the truth out of “Darwinists.” Recall also that Dembski published that strategy just one month before he ran like a deer from his deposition for the Kitzmiller trial, where he was scheduled to be an expert witness. Dick Butkus wouldn’t have run away from no good ol’ boy appointed-by-Dubya conservative Pennsylvania judge. But the Fig Newton did.

1 TrackBack

Ok, so I’m not exactly the Onion when it comes to headlines. But what else to make of this post on Uncommon Descent, where Dembski basically demands that all Christians swear loyalty to his partisan movement, or else be labeled as traitors and a... Read More

292 Comments

Just finished Miller’s book. Incredible piece of work. He is relentlessly civil while intellectually flattening the creationists. I think one of the best points of the book, he takes very complex material and presents it in a way that will be comprehensible to anyone. As an aside, on his Science Friday interview, Miller mentions the term, “intellectual welfare”, when describing the actions of the creos in trying to get the “strengths and weaknesses” into the classroom. I think we need to slam them with that term.

Dear Richard,

You can read at Bill Dembski’s Design Inference website (www.designinference.com) where he demonstrates daily the strong religious ties between the so-called “theory” of Intelligent Design and the Fundamentalist Southern Baptist Protestant Christianity which he espouses. Bill’s frequent denials to the contrary remind me a lot of Yasir Arafat’s “versions” of “peaceful co-existence” between a Palestinian entity and Israel; for Western audiences he pledged “peaceful co-existence” while also promising to his Palestinian “believers” that they would drive the “Zionist Entity” into the sea. So there’s nothing new in Bill Dembski’s latest embrace of religion with respect to Intelligent Design. Back in 1999 or 2000, he admitted to a friendly audience that Intelligent Design was the LOGOS from Saint John’s Gospel - or something to that effect - cast in terms of modern information theory.

Regards,

John

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism….

Wait a minute. Wasn’t the Darwinism stuff in her book fed to her by Dr. Dr. Dembski?

Liberalism is a religion? What is it with these people trying to define everything they don’t like as a religion? How long before they define homosexuality as a religion?

Speaking of Ken Miller’s “Only A Theory”, its two main points are:

1) The current battles with ID creationists mean that we are engaged in a battle for America’s soul, which could well determine what a future America will resemble, not only scientifically, but also culturally and politically.

2) Is ID a scientific theory that can explain better the structure and history of Planet Earth’s biodiversity? How can we test its principles? Does existing data support them?

There are three reviews of it currently posted at Amazon.com; only mine grasps fully Ken Miller’s reasons for writing this book (It should not be viewed as a mere sequel to his excellent “Finding Darwin’s God.) by noting explicitly Ken’s two major points and discussing them at length.

You can view these reviews here:

http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-E[…]0&sr=8-1

Regards,

John

Dear angst,

Yes, you are absolutely right:

angst said:

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism….

Wait a minute. Wasn’t the Darwinism stuff in her book fed to her by Dr. Dr. Dembski?

Liberalism is a religion? What is it with these people trying to define everything they don’t like as a religion? How long before they define homosexuality as a religion?

In the acknowledgements section of “Godless” Ms. Coulter thanks profusely the “scientific” assistance rendered by Dr. Dr. Bill Dembski, the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design Movement.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Ann Coulter is so far into shock jock land that even ultra-fundamentalist authoritarians like Mike S. Adams have publicly “distanced themselves” from her.

So when she calls Dembski the Dick Butkus of ID, it’s pretty much an admission that he’s the Ted McGinley of ID.

” … wait for it … “

Funny in 2002. Lame in 2008.

“Everything You Need to Know”?

I trust, then, that this book covers the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of “Intelligent Design”.

I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism…. Liberals respond to critics of their religion like Cotton Mather to Salem’s “witches.”

It’s always amusing how Coulter tries to flip the script. The reality:

A violently Christian Ann Coulter (“we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity”) demonizes liberals and Darwinism, then tries to play the victim card by pretending that her side is the witches being victimized by violent religious people on a witch hunt.

I like how Coulter praises her own book first, then moves on to Fig.

As for witches, at least Coulter has that part down pat.

TomS said:

“Everything You Need to Know”?

I trust, then, that this book covers the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of “Intelligent Design”.

Want to bet a copy of the book, Wildlife of Gondwana: Dinosaurs and Other Vertebrates from the Ancient Supercontinent that Bill Butkus, er, Dembski will attempt to cover the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of “Intelligent Design” by making haughty faux criticisms of “Darwinism” [sic] using grotesque untruths and repeatedly debunked creationist lies, while conveniently forgetting to actually demonstrate how Intelligent Design “theory” is a science?

As a relatively liberal person, I very much want it declared a religion. Then you cannot persecute liberals, tax them, etc. Moreover, you have to give us faith-based l00t. Zomg, this is the wrong country to object to being labeled a religion in! Ann Coulter is my friend.

My sacraments, in no particular order: taxing, spending, hot tubs, smoking dope, making fun of fundamentalists, integration, civil rights, diplomacy, free speech, separation of church and state - even mine, being nice to gay and nonwhite people, equal rights for women, a social safety net, health care, etc.

Any infringement of these sacred activities will be sued into next Thursday.

I wonder if Dembski’s book will explain to the creationist rubes that fell for the teach ID scam why they have to accept the bait and switch scam that Dembski and the DI et al are perpetrating. These are the guys that for around a decade got together and claimed that they could teach the science of intelligent design. Dembski even was betting that ID would pass the constitution test. So why are they running in a switch scam on any creationist stupid enough to still try to teach the science of intelligent design? The last example were the rubes in Florida. How does Dembski explain the fact that the switch scam doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed in it’s public face, while the guys like Dembski that perpetrated the teach ID scam are still claiming to be working on ID theory?

You’d think that, at least, one of the guys at the Discovery Institute would explain why it is necessary to run a bait and switch scam instead of teaching the science of ID that they claimed to have. Shouldn’t that be part of any discussion about just what ID was and is? Why run a dishonest bait and switch scam if you really have the science to teach?

Tom S Wrote:

“Everything You Need to Know”?

I trust, then, that this book covers the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of “Intelligent Design”.

Only if he finally takes the bait.

Ron Okimoto said:

I wonder if Dembski’s book will explain to the creationist rubes that fell for the teach ID scam why they have to accept the bait and switch scam that Dembski and the DI et al are perpetrating.

Not if Dembski wants them to continue giving him and the Discovery Institute money with no questions asked.

The post above by “angst” raises the question of homosexuality as a new breed of religion, which certainly changes the image I have of what happens when the congregation leader says “get on your knees and pray”.

Or would it be “get on your knees, prey!” ??

I trust, then, that this book covers the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of “Intelligent Design”.

Who - Dembski, Behe, etc.

What - replace evolution with anything they can.

When - whenever it looks like they might get away with it.

Where - Kansas, Florida, Texas, etc.

Why - money, power.

How - buy my book.

LOL!

Billy Dembski, the Dick Butt kiss of ID theory!

Ann Coulter said:

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century

Sorry, Ann, but Darwin never made it to the 20th century, much less to the 21st.

Hi all (A re-post with additions from elsewhere here at Panda’s Thumb),

Bill Dembski is acting as a cheerleader again, asking his IDiot sycophants to strike at their delusional version of Ken Miller at Uncommon Dissent. His ongoing actions really bring home what I observed in my Amazon.com review of Ken Miller’s “only A Theory”.

In the second and third paragraphs of my Amazon.com review, I noted this:

“What is America’s ‘scientific soul’ and why its survival remains in jeopardy from Intelligent Design’s ongoing, vigorous - or perhaps more accurately, fanatical - assault, are among the most important, most compelling, themes examined by Miller in his elegant, terse tome. As Miller eloquently notes in the opening chapter, his recognition of a ‘battle for America’s scientific soul’ is one he has discerned only recently, in the aftermath of recent legal battles against Intelligent Design and other creationist foes. And, regrettably, it is a battle that goes well beyond shaping the future course of American secondary school science education. Miller passionately believes that our ‘scientific soul’ is exactly the very essence that makes us Americans; a healthy disdain for authority, but one which does respect pragmatism, and demands results, in short, the very cultural environment that has been embraced, and sustained by mainstream science for centuries. A cultural environment whose revolutionary nature arose in little more than a decade during the American Revolution, according to Miller’s distinguished Brown University colleague, eminent American historian Gordon Wood, when Americans transformed their society from ‘one little different from the hierarchal societies of European monarchies to one that took up the truly radical notion that individuals were both the source of a government’s legitimacy and its greatest hope for progress.’”

“In many respects, not only is Intelligent Design an idea that is ‘un-American’, since its very principles are antithetical to America’s defining cultural values of practicality, pragmatism and disrespect of authority, but, in its key objective of ‘overthrowing methodological naturalism’, Intelligent Design, argues Miller, is a far more serious and dangerous threat to mainstream science than traditional creationism, since it is a revolutionary assault against the very fabric of scientific methodology (‘methodological naturalism’, or rather, what is commonly recognized as the scientific method comprised of hypothesis generation and testing) employed by science for centuries, transforming science into an unrecognizable entity that is as rife with relativism as the leftist-leaning social sciences criticized by philosopher Allan Bloom in his landmark tome, ‘The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Impoverished America’s Young and Failed Its Students’. Indeed Miller observes astutely that Bloom’s analysis was not a conservative-leaning attack on leftist Academia, but instead, one warning how a relativistic ‘openness’ - an uncritical embrace of all ideas - was detrimental to the survival of rational thought on college and university campuses, and, not surprisingly, Bloom contended that the sciences were the only realm of Academia unaffected by the politics of openness. However, if Intelligent Design successfully gains further acceptance amongst a sympathetic American populace, then, Miller warns, American science would be susceptible too to the same political plagues affecting the arts, humanities and social sciences (Ironically the same plagues that have been the subjects of ample discourse, mostly hysterical ridicule, from leading Intelligent Design advocates like Philip Johnson, David Klinghoffer, and Ann Coulter.). This is a warning which should be heeded by anyone who reads or hears of Miller’s message, since the very essence, the very future, of American science is at stake.”

(Incidentally mine is one of three currently posted at Amazon.com and the only one which covers the two main points of Ken’s book:

1) The current battles with ID creationists mean that we are engaged in a battle for America’s soul, which could well determine what a future America will resemble, not only scientifically, but also culturally and politically.

2) Is ID a scientific theory that can explain better the structure and history of Planet Earth’s biodiversity? How can we test its principles? Does existing data support them?)

For more of review, then please look here:

http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-E[…]0&sr=8-1

Regards,

John

P. S. Those of you who do read the entire review and like it, then please vote accordingly. I don’t know how the other reviewers missed the most important points in Ken’s book (In the interest of full disclosure, I assisted Ken in his very first debate against a creationist years ago as an undergraduate at our undergraduate alma mater. I am grateful to Ken for renewing my interest in this issue.).

I just came back from Quest for Right. I read as much as I could from the samples. That part of the discussion belongs on another thread.

Behe is Beavis.

Dembski is Butthead.

Hey, didn’t Butthead have this too-large grey cardigan?

I recall that in June 2007, after Ann Coulter denigrated John Edwards, the Edwards campaign enjoyed a significant increase in donations.

Perhaps Ann could do this again by denouncing Ken Miller’s book, which should lead to a big increase in sales.

OT stuff (read Parsons) off to the Bathroom Wall.

Please people … “VISE strategy” … I suppose there might be a basis for a “vice strategy” as a play on words but it would be kind of weak.

Forgive the nitpick … y’know, Dembski isn’t the most easy-going person most of the time, but he *really* comes unglued over theistic evolutionists like Miller. Reminds me of what was said about General Sherman when anyone mentioned the word “reporters” to him: “Foams at the mouth.” Outspoken atheists like Dawkins are so much more conveniently easy to demonize.

MrG

On Dembski’s website he originally revealed the strategy as the “Vice Strategy.”

Yes, he had a vise gripping the head of a little Darwin doll, but the title was “Vice Strategy.” Of course, we all howled with laughter at his stupidity. Not the first time, either.

So, MrG, perhaps you need to get a grip. And if you need help I’m sure Dembski has a vise.

In (British) English, the workshop tool is called a “vice”. So the whole vice/vise thing totally lost me until I twigged that it’s not the same in the Americaland.

Remember that Newton was also a failed alchemist. As for Ann Coulter, she actually did science a great favor when she wrote Godless

“What is America’s ‘scientific soul’

It is often said that Britain and America are two nations separated by a common language.

I do know that when I visited the US (Florida) a number of years ago I suddenly realised that I felt very European (something I really didn’t expect). I found the American people (and there were visitors from all over the US at the resort) quite loud, very brash, very forward, and very unforgiving (ignorance was no excuse in the eyes of the law for example). However, they were very friendly (English folk are very reserved, as are most Europeans), sociable, and much more eager to be friendly than my European counterparts. I did find myself having a much stronger bond with my non-English speaking European neighbours though (i.e. Germans, French, Swedes, Dutch etc.) and this was something I really hadn’t expected.

So in a lot of respects I feel that the English don’t really understand YECism (or ID) in the US. Ken Ham calls it a “culture war” but I don’t think the English really understand that either. To some extent I can understand what’s going on since Northern Ireland has a very similar problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF2AxlQsYE

In some ways it’s worse here than in the US but in others it’s not as bad (we have to abide by the national curriculum as in the rest of the UK) so the YEC’s can’t impose their views in school science class for example (despite the fact that new chair of the education committee in the NI assembly is a YEC).

Similarly I don’t think the English really understand the culture of NI. The YEC’s are not political extremists akin to groups like the Taliban or Al-kida but ordinary people going about their daily lives (as it probably is in the US).

This so called battle is one that US science really cannot afford to lose. Such an outcome would have far reaching consequences, not only in the US but throughout the world.

Ahh, Shalizi is a first rate blogger and statistician (in my eyes), but I didn’t know he was researching biology and evolution. He is a veritable gold mine for me, and I wish I had time to really learn this by examples from all his references.

But FWIW my impression of what he and his references claims is this:

- Adaptive systems are self-organizing (but self-organization doesn’t necessary mean adaptation). *
- Adaptive systems can even so be simple. **
- Self-organizing systems can be reversible.
- One can distinguish between self-assembling and self-organizing systems by their TD and their dynamics. ***

In summation it seems to me that Moran and Shalizi could imply that organisms live near-equilibrium by their balanced metabolism, grow and evolve irreversibly, but that they also use far-from-equilibrium processes to set up self-organizing structures for example during segmentation.


* This is about the only point I don’t immediately get - if indeed it is Shalizi’s point; he also notes that adaptation “probably connects somehow” with self-organization.

AFAIU adapting fitness results in adapting functional traits, not organization as such. Both of which of course can evolve to and from in degrees from, say, parasites to independent organisms. But simple organized parasites can have highly functional life cycles through various hosts, and complex organized independent organisms can have relatively low functional (sedentary) life styles; not a satisfactorily example though.

** Finally someone else who reacts to “complex adaptive systems”! Shalizi: “I say we call them adapters, and send “complex” home to get some rest, but no one listens to me.”

*** Self-assembling systems are (after some kinetics of assembly) in equilibrium. Szostak’s fatty lipids vesicles again.

[Btw, Shalizi also notes on self-organization that:

Many writers conflate the notion of self-organization with that of emergence. Properly defined, however, there can be self-organization without emergence and emergence without self-organization. There is a link between them, but it’s fairly subtle.

Splendid! Exactly what I was forced to figure out the other day on a Pharyngula thread in response to a commenter, from scratch; I hadn’t much in the way of definitions of either, which is why I find his material so illuminating and reference/bloviate worthy. (Even the TD stuff, which is neither here nor there on the biology, but a creationist crackpot subject.)

So I got that right, perhaps.]

The ability of the butthead crowd to distrort, restate with distortion, illustrate a form of science alien to the common understanding of the original developers, engage in double speak and of course outright intellectual dishonesty is this group of psychotics.

Let’s clarify:

1) No one can answer the abiogenesis and first replicator question and part of the difficulty is of course the SLOT considering both the chemical,configurational, and information aspects. Not one cogent argument has been presented.

2) The current state of life is of course consistent with SLOT because the requirements were met and enabled and preserved as in all the mechanisms, information, energy conversion processes are extant and thus SLOT is observed in the proper interpretation.

3) The statistical nature of SLOT in its broadest interpretation as above presents cosmic improbability to the abiogenesis issues and further to the extensibility of RM and NS to account for the proposed macroevolutionary events.

Anyone acquainted with the literature on the full expression of slot since 1940 would be appraised of same.

As for the Brit butthead language expert you might find a review of the cybernetics literature, works by linguistics people who disagree violently with your simplistic analysis.

Any if you can’t grasp sarcasm it’s due to your limited and narrow view of literature… as in moron.

Your team is the group in all of academia that is so psychotically warped as to be encapable of admission of any imperfection in their theory , their thought, or their interpretations. Never in two decades have I encountered a more mentally ill group.

keith said: … Let’s clarify:

1) No one can answer the abiogenesis and first replicator question and part of the difficulty is of course the SLOT considering both the chemical,configurational, and information aspects. Not one cogent argument has been presented.

2) The current state of life is of course consistent with SLOT because the requirements were met and enabled and preserved as in all the mechanisms, information, energy conversion processes are extant and thus SLOT is observed in the proper interpretation.

3) The statistical nature of SLOT in its broadest interpretation as above presents cosmic improbability to the abiogenesis issues and further to the extensibility of RM and NS to account for the proposed macroevolutionary events.

Anyone acquainted with the literature on the full expression of slot since 1940 would be appraised of same.

As for the Brit butthead language expert you might find a review of the cybernetics literature, works by linguistics people who disagree violently with your simplistic analysis. …

“Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age.” — Olson Johnson in Blazing Saddles

I rest my case.

keith wrote:

As for the Brit butthead language expert you might find a review of the cybernetics literature, works by linguistics people who disagree violently with your simplistic analysis.

Really? Got a reference for any of this BS?

keith wrote:

Any if you can’t grasp sarcasm it’s due to your limited and narrow view of literature… as in moron.

Because it’s simply not possible that keith is just a bad writer; it must be that everyone who reads his stuff is stupid.…

The ability of the butthead crowd to distrort, restate with distortion, illustrate a form of science alien to the common understanding of the original developers, engage in double speak and of course outright intellectual dishonesty is this group of psychotics

Don’t be too hard on yourself my dear confused friend.

3) The statistical nature of SLOT in its broadest interpretation as above presents cosmic improbability to the abiogenesis issues and further to the extensibility of RM and NS to account for the proposed macroevolutionary events.

That of course is total nonsense.

Par for the course again

Because it’s simply not possible that keith is just a bad writer; it must be that everyone who reads his stuff is stupid.…

Can I resist giving the obvious punchline to that… :p

PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

Your pride in giving up Biblical authority, YEC, and such is simply running up the white flag of surrender and joining arms with the demoniac community that dominates the evo crowd.

Are you next to tell us that Jesus was a great moral teacher like Plato, Buddha, and Confucius.

Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions.

One of my teachers is a fellow who after some 10 weeks in his class has made a substantial impact on me as an OE progressive creationist who sees scientific merit in ID. Of course he is merely a PhD Nuclear Physicist of world reknown with accomplishments in particle physics, QM, and related research.

As for the Brit linquist, I suggest a reading of “How We Became Post Human” might be enlightening or you could explain why I should take counsel from the people who threw away an empire in 50 years, became a socialist welfare state dependent on the US for its survival, and who run around bootlicking some fat squab Queen and her degenerate family.

Popularity among a highly biased group is hardly a logical position to adopt, I would be quite worried if I were to be in agreement with the major posters in this cult of sychophantic true believers.

Does heat flow from cold resevoirs to hot ones spontaneously in those open far from equilibrium systems…does time flow backwards.…geez you’ve discovered perpetual motion machines.

I suspect Blazing Saddles is the most intellectual movie most of you have watched in years. Of course that excludes documentaries on tractor pulls, mud wrestleing, and cock fights.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 28, column 2, byte 1972 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

keith said:

PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

As opposed to those who use gratuitous insult, are unfamiliar with scientific issues and refuse to be educated? I am sure that such people would be allergic to common sense.

Your pride in giving up Biblical authority, YEC, and such is simply running up the white flag of surrender and joining arms with the demoniac community that dominates the evo crowd.

I am not giving up Biblical authority, just YEC which is scientifically speaking flawed and theologically speaking unnecessary. Instead of giving up however I have found renewed faith while maintaining a solid scientific footing.

Are you next to tell us that Jesus was a great moral teacher like Plato, Buddha, and Confucius.

I am not sure if I want to compare Jesus to these people, but yes, Jesus was a great moral teacher.

Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions.

One of my teachers is a fellow who after some 10 weeks in his class has made a substantial impact on me as an OE progressive creationist who sees scientific merit in ID. Of course he is merely a PhD Nuclear Physicist of world reknown with accomplishments in particle physics, QM, and related research.

Wow, a wonderful appeal to authority. After all what better authority when it comes to evolution than a PhD nuclear physicist. I must obviously surrender to such wonderful logic.

PS: Hanging out with well informed crowds is no guarantee to become well informed oneself. In fact, your comments on SLOT suggest quite the opposite.

Your team constantly excuses all aspects of evolution from thermodynamic considerations , particularly the efficacy of reactions and processes in consideration of entropy relationships or equivalently Gibbs free energy considerations in origins discussions by noting that the earth is open to the energy of the sun in the form of radiant energy.

Of course essentially every process conceivable on the earth is open to the suns energy yet no one has successfully built a perpetual motion machine, say a heat pump that warms ones home and consistently always returns excess energy back to the power company for a profit. All the heat pumps I see sit right outside in the open where the sun’s energy is constantly available…what’s the problem?

Or maybe just permitting the heat outside in the winter atmosphere to flow through the glass windows and warm my home for free…it’s a process open to the sun’s energy after all.

I know, picture a warm little pond where all the amino acids of life form spontaneously and polymerize right up to proteins and enzymes spontaneously and neatly separate themselves into distinct levo and dextro forms exclusively for enzymes, and sugars as appropriate…no problem since it’s obviously an open system …right? And that rna and dna just spontaneously forming as well..no problem there.

Perhaps a bit more specificity as to the definition and particularity of the boundary conditions for the claim is required, perhaps more than some hackneyed phraseology committed to memory or carried about on cue cards is required.

Oh and for the record there’s a bit of sarcasm here.

Your team constantly excuses all aspects of evolution from thermodynamic considerations , particularly the efficacy of reactions and processes in consideration of entropy relationships or equivalently Gibbs free energy considerations in origins discussions by noting that the earth is open to the energy of the sun in the form of radiant energy.

That is a misrepresentation of fact. But you have already shown yourself to be utterly clueless on what research exists regarding abiogenesis.

Another vacuous non-answer in the form of a dumb assertion. Is that your best shot?

How many one liner quotes on the open to the sun system would you like, 50 or 100?

You are just an intellectually dishonest quisling for Myers and Dawkins.

keith said:

PvM, …

Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions.

PvM has not lectured to keith on keith’s personal positions. With great restraint PvM has merely pointed out that it is possible to both hold to evolution and believe in God. He hasn’t lectured that all other positions are impossible, he hasn’t tried to convert anyone to his position, he has not told others that their faith is phony — he has merely pointed out that his position exists.

keith said:

Your team constantly …

Note the “us vs. them” team mentality coming in here. “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” It makes for bad public policy and bad science.

Wow, I had no idea that I was in a competition with you for vacuous one liners. However your statements often deserve nothing more that a simple rejection as the facts speak for themselves.

I am sure that you have many one liner quotes, however if you had spent even a fraction of the effort and time familiarizing yourself with origin of life research, you would not have to rely on quote mining.

keith said:

Another vacuous non-answer in the form of a dumb assertion. Is that your best shot?

How many one liner quotes on the open to the sun system would you like, 50 or 100?

You are just an intellectually dishonest quisling for Myers and Dawkins.

keith said: … I suspect Blazing Saddles is the most intellectual movie most of you have watched in years…

I’m still waiting to hear about those History of Science courses you plan on enrolling in at OU.

Chuck,

So far I have completed 15 hours toward the 38 required for the MS in Liberal Studies. Not all of the classes are dedicated to the HOS but most are.

The current one has as required reading The History of Art History, The Truth About History, Beyond Ethics, and How We Became Post Human.

I enjoy the reading and paper writing quite a bit.

Dan says: “Bigbang is the ultimate materialist, because to him/her, if the evidence for God isn’t material, then that evidence doesn’t exist.”

.

Hmmm, you have mucked it up a bit—-well, more than a bit—-but perhaps you really are trying … think of it this way: bigbang is the ultimate realist b/c to bigbang, if God isn’t real, then God isn’t, well, real.

And of course if something obviously isn’t real, e.g. IPU’s, or PvM’s “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” then it isn’t real—-it’s nonsense.

keith said:

Another vacuous non-answer in the form of a dumb assertion. Is that your best shot?

How many one liner quotes on the open to the sun system would you like, 50 or 100?

You are just an intellectually dishonest quisling for Myers and Dawkins.

Preferably ones that have not been quote mined(Even your link has a disclaimer on their site warning about it) or debunked.

Dan,

I’m sure your approach to making your moral choices, as in every other expressed position, is quite “nuanced”. LOL!

Gravitas is your middle name…puke!

keith said:

PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

I’ll bet Keith is a blast at parties.

Welp, I think this thread has sunk beneath the waves. That’s all, folks.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on June 14, 2008 12:40 PM.

De novo origination of a gene encoding a functional protein was the previous entry in this blog.

Download Firefox and Set a World Record 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 4.361

Site Meter