Comment #7034

Posted by RBH on August 27, 2004 06:38 PM (e) (s)

To be fair, the nominations are on the basis of

As a public service, and as a resource for students, I will maintain a list on this web-site of faculty who have spoken in favor of creationism [i]either in its traditional form or as intelligent design[i].

So Dembski still has not committed.

OTOH, if he takes exception to the nomination it will confirm his inability to maintain a single position on much of anything.

RBH

Comment #7053

Posted by Paul A. Nelson on August 28, 2004 11:23 AM (e) (s)

Would someone here please nominate me for the Hall of Shame?  I’m serious.  I’ve asked Sahotra to add me to the list (we’ve known each other since the mid 1980s, when we shared Bill Wimsatt as a dissertation advisor), but so far, he hasn’t.

Use this listing:

Paul Nelson, Visiting Faculty, Master of Arts Program in Science & Religion, Biola University.

Comment #7058

Posted by RBH on August 28, 2004 02:00 PM (e) (s)

Paul wrote

Would someone here please nominate me for the Hall of Shame?

C’mon, Paul.  If Dembski can nominate himself, surely you can too.

BTW, remember that response to questions about actually calculating Ontogenetic Depth that you were going to post “tomorrow” a couple of months ago?  How’s it coming?

RBH

Comment #7059

Posted by RBH on August 28, 2004 03:25 PM (e) (s)

Paul Nelson wrote

Would someone here please nominate me for the Hall of Shame?

C’mon, Paul.  If Dembski can self-nominate surely you can, too.

BTW, remember that response to questions about the calculation of “Ontogenetic Depth” that you were going to post a response to “tomorrow”?  Will we see that one of these days?

RBH

Comment #7060

Posted by PZ Myers on August 28, 2004 03:33 PM (e) (s)

Oh, I’d be willing to nominate you. But how about saving me a little effort, and polling your fellow Fellows at the DI CSC and finding out which of them also meet the criteria, so I can nominate the whole grand gang in one swoop?

Comment #7061

Posted by Paul A. Nelson on August 28, 2004 04:48 PM (e) (s)

I nominated myself yesterday, and Sahotra told me he would include my name.  But maybe he had second thoughts when he saw that my academic rank at Biola (which he requested) was only visiting faculty.  In any case, I’ll be dismayed if I can’t find a spot in the Hall.  Koons, Budziszewski, and Dembski getting all the attention — when I’ve actually called myself a creationist in print?  That’s not right.

About ontogenetic depth.  I said here some weeks ago, when I posted my reply to PZ’s critique of the Nelson/Ross SDB poster, that it’s proved much hard than I expected to make the concept work.  As I wrote, “It’s easy to name an idea; hard to make it work.”  I still think ontogenetic depth has merit, but that’s a bit like saying, before it was actually constructed, “Well, a canal right about at this spot in Panama would be a good idea.”  I’ll explain why in the response, which I was (far) too hasty in promising by the dates I mentioned originally.

Comment #7063

Posted by Jack Krebs on August 28, 2004 04:59 PM (e) (s)

I commend Paul’s honesty and straightforwardness about the difficulty in moving his concept of ontogenic depth to a viable, empirically-based measure.  Would that some others that we know would follow his example.

Comment #7064

Posted by RBH on August 28, 2004 05:11 PM (e) (s)

A brief review of Ontogenetic Depth claims:

In ISCID’s Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy:

Developmental biology has mapped the ontogenetic depth of a handful of species, in the so-called “model systems” of the discipline, such as the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans or the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster.

And again, in a live chat on ISCID:

The ontogenetic depth of a handful of extant animals (from the model systems of developmental biology) is known with precision.

Now Paul tells us that

About ontogenetic depth.  I said here some weeks ago, when I posted my reply to PZ’s critique of the Nelson/Ross SDB poster, that it’s proved much hard than I expected to make the concept work.  As I wrote, “It’s easy to name an idea; hard to make it work.”

In the light of that, will we see the retraction of claims of ontogenetic depth being “known with precision”?

Jack is too kind.  The claim was very definite and repeated: The ontogenetic depth of some organisms is “known with precision.”  That is at very best a gross exaggeration; at worst it is simply and flatly false and has been since it was first made.

RBH

Comment #7065

Posted by PZ Myers on August 28, 2004 05:24 PM (e) (s)

Oh, I don’t know. I don’t think we should be at all discouraging to creationists who are willing to retract erroneous claims.

Comment #7066

Posted by Steve on August 28, 2004 06:25 PM (e) (s)

Try to make it work? Why not take the easier route: come up with a new Capitalized Creationist Term, and maintain that it’s the new proof for awhile. How do you think we got IC, EF, and the various CSIs?

Hmm. For this one, I suggest…Non-Evolutionary Information Content. That should be good for 5-10 years. And when the evolutionists break that one, maybe try Irreducible Specificity. That’s 20 years right there, then you can retire.

Comment #7068

Posted by Mark Perakh on August 28, 2004 06:30 PM (e) (s)

I concur with PZ (comment 7065). I am not acquainted with Paul Nelson and cannot say I am sufficiently familiar with his work (which is why I have never written anything about his work) but I have gained the impression that he differs favorably in various respects from many other ID advocates like, say, Dembski and Koons. If that is the case, we better treat him with respect and perhaps those of us who possess requisite qualifications may have a reasonable discussion of substance with him. {I guess I am not one of those).

Comment #7069

Posted by steve on August 28, 2004 06:38 PM (e) (s)

The claim was very definite and repeated: The ontogenetic depth of some organisms is “known with precision.”  That is at very best a gross exaggeration; at worst it is simply and flatly false and has been since it was first made.

RBH

Nevertheless, it did its job, which was to be a foot soldier in an army of pseudoscience.

Comment #7087

Posted by Great White Wonder on August 29, 2004 09:35 PM (e) (s)

I don’t think we should be at all discouraging to creationists who are willing to retract erroneous claims.

Hmm.  Maybe.  Has Paul Nelson retracted any of his erroneous claims about creationism to date?

Is he willing to admit that ID is a bogus game to wedge anti-science pro-religious philosophy into public school science classrooms?

Comment #7089

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 29, 2004 09:49 PM (e) (s)

GWW, your bullying behavior is becoming boring and counter productive.

Comment #7128

Posted by Great White Wonder on August 30, 2004 02:09 PM (e) (s)

GWW, your bullying behavior is becoming boring and counter productive.

Pim, is this you?  Is your email really “”?

Comment #7136

Posted by Great White Wonder on August 30, 2004 02:28 PM (e) (s)

Pim (I think) admonished me thusly:

GWW, your bullying behavior is becoming boring and counter productive.

Okay, one at a time.

Bullying?  You insist at every turn that none of the ID creatists are liars and then you accuse me of being a “bully”?  C’mon ‘bro.  If responding directly and frankly to thinly veiled assaults on the credibility of genuine scientists is being a “bully,” then yeah I guess I am a “bully”.

Counter-productive?  Counter-productive to what exactly?  To facilitating fake “intellectual” discussions between informed and honest people like myself and pretenders like David Heddle and Robert O’Brien?

Boring?  The irony of this accusation coming from someone who insists on writing 1000 word responses to facially bogus creationist claims is not lost on me.  But I won’t hold it against you.  You must have had a rough night.  Perhaps you miss the diamond-edged verbiage of Jerry Don Bauer.  ;)

Comment #7139

Posted by pim on August 30, 2004 02:34 PM (e) (s)

There are many ways to discuss these issues. I prefer dialogue rather than namecalling. Call me old fashioned. I find my discussions with Heddle far more productive and intellectually stimulating that listening to your insults and name calling.

During my flirtations with YEC what convinced me that YEC was wrong was not the assertions that YEC scientists were xxx but rather a well reasoned and documented rebuttal of their claims.

Comment #7169

Posted by Great White Wonder on August 30, 2004 06:43 PM (e) (s)

I find my discussions with Heddle far more productive and intellectually stimulating that listening to your insults and name calling.

Pim, it’s too late to claim the high ground.  You’ve name-called and insulted plenty of creationists here (and at least one molecular biologist).

Please please take me to task for erroneous statements that I make about creationists in a fraudulent effort to advance my hidden agenda.  I urge you to do that at every opportunity.  I also beg you to obliterate every uninformed dissembling utterly self-serving post that I write with a direct no-prisoners-taken rebuttal of my dissembling allegations.

During my flirtations with YEC what convinced me that YEC was wrong was not the assertions that YEC scientists were xxx but rather a well reasoned and documented rebuttal of their claims.

Fascinating.  During my flirtations with YEC (which ended when I was 10 or 11), what convinced me that YEC was wrong was the realization that YEC scientists were paranoid uninformed Christians attempting to defend their faith at any price against a perceived “attack” on their beliefs by scientists. 

The facts about evolution are publically available for all educated people to accept or to ignore or to spin.  Many people accept the facts because they trust that the majority of scientists are correct.  Many people don’t accept the facts because their pastors tell them not to.  Many people don’t accept the facts because they have been LED TO BELIEVE that a “controversial debate” about the validity of “evolutionary theory” is currently taking place.

Pim, is it your opinion that there is a “controversial debate” taking place?  If so, can you please tell me what scientific principle relating to the validity of “evolutionary theory” has been thrown into question?  Can you tell me who are the credible scientists who are engaged in this debate?

I have a hunch that the number of scientifically illiterate evangelical (or otherwise “serious”) Christian fence-sitters who can be persuaded by scientific facts that evolutionary biology is the real deal is miniscule.  I also have a hunch that the number of *non-evangelical* scientifically illiterate fence-sitters who will recognize the obvious issues of bias and gamemanship on the part of the “marquee club” of ID creationists is substantially greater.

I don’t dispute the importance of ripping creationists’ arguments apart.  But to do so in the same “spirit of intellectual pursuit” which one would take to ripping into the work of a genuine scientist whose goal is not to expressly misrepresent and trash the work of others for the purposes of promoting some dubious “worldview” is a mistake.  Why is it a mistake?  Because it blurs the lines between genuine scientists who deserve our respect and pseudoscientific fakers who lower the bar for all of us.

Hence, I can not promise to stop my “boring” “insults” of pseudoscientists and their “skeptical” apologists.  I will try to make my posts less “boring” and less “insulting”, Pim, if you make your posts less “interesting” and less “encouraging.”  Deal?

Comment #7171

Posted by Pim on August 30, 2004 07:08 PM (e) (s)

Sigh..

Comment #7837

Posted by Ambrose on September 22, 2004 08:51 AM (e) (s)

Would someone please tell Sarkar that he’s been taken in by the spoof OBJECTIVE Ministries, brought to you by the same folks as Landover Baptist Church.

By the way, the Kidz page really is worth a visit.

Finally, though someone on Panda’s Thumb must have seen this already, OBJECTIVE Ministries covered the Meyer fiasco, with a nod to this site.

Comment #13524

Posted by Tim Scriven on January 13, 2005 05:41 AM (e) (s)

Pim, you sure do get around, as far as I can tell you participate in every disscusion on the internet about the anti evolution movement ( note to all ID advocates, creationists and self organziation theorists, lets do the in your face reversal so common in lanuage and call ourselves anti evolutionists, using our own opponets taunt on our selves will leave them so shocked that they won’t know what to do.)

You post on virtually every disscusion at ISCID and post at many on panda’s thumb, why are you so intrested in the origns debate and the, “intelligent design movement”?( another  reversal, lets put inverted comma’s around our own movements name, just like the NSCE!)

PS sorry about the grammar, message written in a rush. Until next time keep using “speech marks” at every “chance”

Comment #13525

Posted by Tim Scriven on January 13, 2005 05:45 AM (e) (s)

Pim, you sure do get around, as far as I can tell you participate in every disscusion on the internet about the anti evolution movement ( note to all ID advocates, creationists and self organziation theorists, lets do the in your face reversal so common in lanuage and call ourselves anti evolutionists, using our own opponets taunt on our selves will leave them so shocked that they won’t know what to do.)

You post on virtually every disscusion at ISCID and post at many on panda’s thumb, why are you so intrested in the origns debate and the, “intelligent design movement”?( another  reversal, lets put inverted comma’s around our own movements name, just like the NSCE!)

PS sorry about the grammar, message written in a rush. Until next time keep using “speech marks” at every “chance”

Post a Comment