|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 14:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Ah... I didn't research theBrites.org site, I just came to it through the click, and took it for face value: what I perceived it to be a satire site.
I didn't check close enough to realise that it was an underground creationist site failing so much at satire it is funny.
If there is a real possibility that Dembski did it himself, then I stand corrected, and amazed at the dishonesty of linking the image to a site clearly meant to disguise his own involvement.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 18:34:51 [Permalink]
|
| I do enough parody, including (especially?) bad parody, that I wince when someone consistently does it really badly. That someone in the case of "The Brites" site seems to be Dr. Dr. Bill Dembski Himself. The same Bill Demski who brought us fart sounds in his spoof of Judge Jones (after Dembski chickened out on perjuring himself at Dover). The most hilarious thing about his latest "parody" is his inclusion of himself and his fellow IDiots along with real scientists. That part, at least, is funny. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2008 : 07:01:06 [Permalink]
|
Well, I finally posted a comment in the UD thread where Dembski lists some "predictions" about ID. No one has responded to my comment, and i wonder if they ever will. I'm #99, but by the time my comment had been "approved" they were already into the 100's. Now they're at 135, and it's easy to imagine that my comment has been missed.
Oh well.
What's stunning to read (even though I guess I'm not THAT surprised) is the general sentiment of the pro-ID crowd. For instance, one guy says:| atheistic “science” has finally reached a dead end, and the traditional mores of science just won't answer the big questions anymore. ... scientific naturalism is inherently ineffective, immoral, and absurd. |
And then DaveScot replies| I think it's premature to say atheistic science has reached a dead end. A road block which may or may not have a way around it is more apt. The only real “dead end” I'm willing to accept without protest lies at the bounds of the observable universe in space and time. That appears to be a dead end for methodological naturalism. There's a whole heck of a lot of time and material between the beginning of life on the earth and the beginning of the observable universe. We've barely scratched the surface of that so far. All one has to do is consider the current popular view in cosmology that only 5% of the “stuff” that makes up the universe is described by current theory. Some 25% is an unknown substance called “dark matter” and another 70%, even more mysterious, is called “dark energy”. We don't know what this stuff is. All we know is that it interacts with the universe we know about through the force of gravity acting on very large objects over very great distances. The visible tip of an iceberg is 10% of it. So we can't even say we can see the tip of the iceberg yet. We can only see the tip of the tip. If that doesn't humble people who think they have all the material explanations for the universe well-in-hand then I don't know what could possibly humble them. |
I wish there were a [Super-WTF?] smiley, because that's the look on my face. Who the hell thinks that they "have all the material explanations for the universe well-in-hand"?!?! I mean, I guess I missed the news that the MIT Department of Physics and Astronomy shut down!! What an utterly idiotic argument!
Anyhow, the bulk of the thread (at least following my comment) is like this. It's creepy to think that these people exist. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/18/2008 07:02:02 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 08:14:58 [Permalink]
|
DaveTard does lay it on heavy, doesn't he?
I especially was puzzled by this comment by that self-admitted genius:| There's a whole heck of a lot of time and material between the beginning of life on the earth and the beginning of the observable universe. |
Yes, and on the same wavelength, my back yard has a lot of weeks and weeds to go through between now and the year America was first discovered. But it'll get there, if we stay humble enough.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 14:52:16 [Permalink]
|
| I wonder if BillScott and DaveScot are related. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 19:35:30 [Permalink]
|
The IDists are still chatting over at UD, and the discussion has turned to the recent ID-sounding article that was pulls from a peer-reviewed journal.
After a few comments that hinted at some grand anti-ID conspiracy among mainstream science, I noted that| there were numerous instances where said authors lifted passages from other articles without citation. Thus, the article was pulled. It's that simple. There's no reason to be skeptical of this action and posit some grand, evil Darwinist conspiracy. |
To this, someone replied| It's not that the editor's choice of retraction is proof of an Athistic Conspiracy in science. Simply put, in a larger context of the culture of atheist dogma in science, it confirms what would be observed if there were a grand conspiracy. |
This doesn't make any sense to me. None at all. Is he saying that if there were an atheist conspiracy against ID, it would involve retracting pro-ID articles when there is clear proof of plagiarism? Or what? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/18/2008 19:36:10 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 19:42:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This doesn't make any sense to me. None at all. Is he saying that if there were an atheist conspiracy against ID, it would involve retracting pro-ID articles when there is clear proof of plagiarism? Or what? |
I think he's saying that if IDers got to call the shots, plagiarism in pro-ID articles would be overlooked. Remember, they aren't constrained by such atheistic morals as "honesty," intellectual or otherwise.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 21:25:45 [Permalink]
|
In a larger context of intellectual honesty among the editors of science journals and among authors, the pulling of the article is just what one would expect.
So, intellectual honesty results in the same outcome as a grand atheistic conspiracy.
It's important to note that one of the authors asked for the paper to be retracted. It means the author was either in on the conspiracy or feeling pressured by the conspiracy. The author, of course, will deny both - and that would be evidence that there is a conspiracy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 21:37:14 [Permalink]
|
Funny that UD even allows that paper to be discussed. After all, it wasn't even presented as evidence of ID. It was merely some plagiarized science, with "mighty creator" and similar such phrases thrown in randomly and out of context. If I were part of that UD lot, I would not want the paper even mentioned.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 10:03:14 [Permalink]
|
So now it's just getting strange. DaveScot replied to my comment with a rather odd defense:| If you can't prove or disprove the design hypothesis then it follows you can't prove or disprove the non-design hypothesis. Thus ID and MET are equally pseudo-scientific. Objectivity (no double standards) would then compel us to reject both. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. |
I'm really speechless. But he's hit at the crux of the ID problem. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, but it seems to me that to an extent, he's right. But even if he's right and we cannot prove or disprove the non-design hypothesis, we can still say with confidence a number of things about the designer, namely that he works within naturalistic means so that things like common descent and so on actually happened. In other words, we're left with a designer who is indistinguishable from nature. And then... well, it's obvious what we can do with the "designer"... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 11:40:42 [Permalink]
|
In reality, the only way that "it follows" is if MET is simply a contradiction of ID, but it's not. MET has positive hypotheses that depend upon no alternative theory for the same phenomenon. It is ID that's nothing more than a contradiction of another theory, but it relies upon a false dichotomy ("not MET" equals ID). Thus the logical chain is unsound and the non-falsifiability of ID has no implications for MET whatsoever.
By analogy, DaveScot is saying that because you can't prove or disprove the hypothesis that invisible angels push the planets around in their orbits, it means that you also cannot prove or disprove General Relativity. The fact is that the angels hypothesis makes no predictions whatsoever, testable or not, because we are ignorant of the angels' intentions. General Relativity, on the other hand, makes numerous testable predictions about how the planets should behave, predictions verified by observation.
Unfalsifiable crackpot theories don't get to make ruin of useful science just because they're unfalsifiable crackpot theories. DaveScot wants that to be true, however, because otherwise he's left with nothing more than his admission that ID is pseudoscience. Don't forget that the goal is not to prove that ID is science, the goal is to destroy materialism and reinstate God. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 12:35:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
In reality, the only way that "it follows" is if MET is simply a contradiction of ID, but it's not. MET has positive hypotheses that depend upon no alternative theory for the same phenomenon. It is ID that's nothing more than a contradiction of another theory, but it relies upon a false dichotomy ("not MET" equals ID). Thus the logical chain is unsound and the non-falsifiability of ID has no implications for MET whatsoever.
By analogy, DaveScot is saying that because you can't prove or disprove the hypothesis that invisible angels push the planets around in their orbits, it means that you also cannot prove or disprove General Relativity. The fact is that the angels hypothesis makes no predictions whatsoever, testable or not, because we are ignorant of the angels' intentions. General Relativity, on the other hand, makes numerous testable predictions about how the planets should behave, predictions verified by observation.
Unfalsifiable crackpot theories don't get to make ruin of useful science just because they're unfalsifiable crackpot theories. DaveScot wants that to be true, however, because otherwise he's left with nothing more than his admission that ID is pseudoscience. Don't forget that the goal is not to prove that ID is science, the goal is to destroy materialism and reinstate God.
|
Right. Well, I did reply to DaveScot, saying I'm not sure I agree. As an example, endogenous retrovirus (ERV) sequences serve to confirm common descent. Moreover, what we understand about common descent and primate relationships allows for some predictions about ERV sequences. If humans and orangutans shared an ERV sequence not seen in chimps, it would be a blow to modern evolutionary theory.
Conversely, I'm still not sure how Dembski's prediction I noted above could be falsified. It may be possible, even if I don't see it. That's why I'm asking. |
Obviously, I don't think it's possible. But if the big proponents of ID can't do it, then what do they have? Besides the rather sloppy argument DaveScot made above. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 05:24:21 [Permalink]
|
| Well, I'm going to bow out of this discussion over at UD. I asked three times about the validity of one of Dembski's predictions, and got nothing. Dembki himself, of course, never replied. His attack dog DaveScot failed twice to do so. The first time, as Dave noted, was a weak dodge. He replied again, this time calling me out for being a "victim of the Darwinist disinformation campaign" and side stepping my initial question to instead argue that "[i]f random mutation is somehow confirmed as the mechanism driving all descent with modification then that will falsify the intelligent design hypothesis," which seems to be to be a fairly lame prediction. If I take position X and you take position not-X, and X turns out to be right, then not-X will be wrong. Fairly obvious, no? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 21:51:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No. And that just shows that creationists such as Dembski don't understand that when biologists say "vestigal," they mean "has lost a function it once had." |
He DEFINITELY does not understand what vestigial means:
| Vestigial structures, after all, are structures that have lost their function. |
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 21:54:33 [Permalink]
|
Dembski follows on from the quote in my post above by stating the following (emphasis added):
Vestigial structures, after all, are structures that have lost their function. If all of evolution proceeded in this fashion, we'd quickly descend to a world of nonfunctionality.
But vestigiality need not evolve by purely material means — it can also be designed. |
So much for ID predicting something about junk DNA. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
