stupid of the day

Granville Sewell of UD

Let me rephrase that one :

In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: “If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?” (Of course, I believe we have found thousands of such features, but never mind that.)

If the answer is yes, we just haven’t found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that “ID is not science” immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.

As you point out, you believe that irreducible complex biological features exist. And that you found thousands of them.

That’s a comforting a priori for you maybe, but it remains an hypothesis. You should start proving that IC bio features exist, then start the discussion. For the moment, your thousands of them is just a measure of your ignorance of biology.

If people believing in ghosts can find one, and propose it to tests, that doesn’t make their actual quest a scientific approach, a science. It remains as much spiritual as Intelligent Design, isn’t it ?

Why one would accept your quest as scientific and not theirs ? Or do you ? There is no the slightest part of scientific approach in ID.

And a last question for the day’s idiot. Do you believe (also) sophisms could replace scientific inquiry ? I don’t think so.

Read Full Post »

How many honorary doctorates does Judge Jones have now?

How many honorary doctorates does Judge Jones have now?:

« ID is the intellectual elite’s equivalent of leprosy. » 

write Dembski. You may just read : ID is the intellectual’s equivalent of leprosy. You don’t need scoring more then 100 90 in a IQ test to understand how IDiot ID is ;-)And other diseases of the same kind exist, say tuberculosis, isn’t Jean ?And by the way, to answer the titles question: not enough! 

Read Full Post »

picks

DaveScot:

A small group of Wikipedia admins with a grudge against ID have been running amok with no oversight performing and/or allowing hatchet jobs on ID and its leaders. It’s long past time to expose what they’ve been doing. Wikipedia is far too popular and reliable source of information, especially for school children, to let this travesty of justice continue. (emphasis mine)

Another symptom of IDioty? Considering Wikipedia as a reliable source of information?. Popular and democratic maybe, and that’s the problem with DaveScot, he doesn’t support « collective voice » in a space where moderation isn’t equal to IDiots dictatorship.

Once more, whining Dave, once more low depth.

---

Denyse O’Leary:

Now, it’s unclear to me why the ID guys, who are mostly hard math and science types, should even want to hang out with these children of a lesser god. But my friend insisted on hearing the view from O’Leary’s Point, so here goes. (emphasis mine)

Hey, that’s news, ID guys as hard math and science types! Denyse is neither, but if she believe that IDiots are science types then we have a starting point to explain why she is pro-ID. Denyse, there is evidence against this particular belief of yours.

---

Denyse O’Leary:

Beyond that, all I really want to say nowadays is that the universe is either top down or bottom up. That is, either mind comes first and creates matter or matter comes first and creates mind. The evidence for bottom up is actually quite poor but Darwinism (from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps) is the bottom-up creation story. Thus, getting Darwinism inserted in the school system, funded by the tax money of those who oppose it, is an enormous triumph for the materialist – especially when the genuine evidence base is so slender.(emphasis mine)

The evidence for bottom up isn’t poor, but let’s consider that this is the case for a moment. One have to compare with the alternatives, that is the top down, for which there is no evidence at all. That make bottom up infinitely more supported then top down, thus the better to teach to freshman.

---

Andrew Rowell:

It is a small step between calling any kind of creationist education “cultural deprivation” and “cultural impoverishment” to calling it “child abuse” as Richard Dawkins maintains.

OK then, let’s make a small step: creationist education is cultural deprivation and impoverishment and should be considered as child abuse, by law, and punished.
And let’s take another small step: if at philosophy classes the controversy is presented as an alternative to materialism why not present materialism as a controversy in religious gatherings? That should be.

---

Read Full Post »

coincidence

Pourquoi passer de l’Université Européenne de Paris à l’Université Interdisciplinaire de Paris ? (note, Jean Staune est le fondateur et secrétaire général des deux structures)

Tort nous dit :

L’UIP est créée en 1995 – pour des raisons que l’on comprend mal, car rien apparemment ne la distingue de l’association antérieure [UEP]– afin de rassembler tous ceux (« adhérents, personnalités scientifiques, décideurs du public et du privé ») qui adhèrent au projet, suffisamment flou pour être fédérateur, de la « nouvelle vision du monde » que Staune entend combiner avec la « rationalité scientifique ».

Je sais que la majorité des gens ne fait pas de relation entre 1995 et scienligions et 2468 n’évoque pas le sujet !
Or, 1995 est l’année de la publication du rapport 2468 fait au nom de la commission d’enquête sur les sectes !

Que feriez vous à la place des membres d’une association dont les objectifs étaient un peu trop proches des religions durant l’enquête de la commission ?
Vous ne monteriez pas une association toute fraîche avec des objectifs plus scientifiques juste pour le cas où ?

Mais ce n’est qu’une supposition, pourquoi Jean Staune n’expliquerait pas les motivations qui ont présidé à cette mutation ?

Read Full Post »

respected, not anymore

Via RSR, reporting on « Who Was Adam? » by Dr. Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana:

« Recent genetic and archeological (sic) findings show that human beings did not evolve from ape-like creatures, » contends internationally respected biochemist, Dr. Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana.

Maybe he was an « internationally respected biochemist », but not anymore. At least not as a biochemist.

There are choices that are difficult to make: being appreciated by fellows scientists, pairs, or be the author of a best-selling book. After all, in USA there is a majority of the clientèle believing that everything started with Adam and Eve; why not just tell them what they want to hear? It might/should be profitable 🙂

Then people do respect you, not the right ones, but a lot of them.

Read Full Post »

X is impossible

1. X is impossible.
2. I think that X has happened.

Conclusion: Jesus did it! (or whatever)

by plunge, found here

Probably you have already imagined that this is in a comment concerning … DaveScot himself! (drums roll) 🙂

Read Full Post »

Moderation vs freedom

Quite easy to moderate a blog’s comments. Thus, whatever doesn’t fit your views cans be eliminated. DaveScot of Uncommon Descent is an expert of this game.

CoComment limits his power, and the power of censure in general, as the comments of everybody can be preserved from moderation and publicly displayed, linked to the original post. All you have to do is create an account in CoComment and follow the instructions. The result is the creation of a page where your comments are displayed, whether DaveScot like them or not ! He can forget that one: Comment Policy 😉

Damn !

Read Full Post »

please, update as soon as possible

post 813 of uncommondescent, by William Dembski himself:

Here is a brief essay on design by Darwin’s contemporary John Stuart Mill. Question: are the molecular machines identified by Michael Behe as decisive evidence for design merely analogous to human-built machines or do they fully instantiate the concept of machine?

What is the meaning of this post? That Michael Behe have just a century of science to catch up?

Please, could you push the update button(s)? 🙂

Read Full Post »

On Behe’ responses to Kitzmiller #5

In remark 11 Behe set a list of points.

I’ll start with number 2:

I was given no chance to read them [ fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system], and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater.

How it comes that an expert, who present an expert opinion in front of a tribunal, declaring that the immune system is irreducibly complex, have no knowledge of every single word written on the subject? Forgetting to study one or two articles, or even a book that would be excusable. But 58 articles, and 9 books and several immunology textbook chapters ? What kind of expertise is that?

On number 3:

Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.

And that’s a nice point. The only scientific evolution theory available is darwinism. And when one talk about evolution nowadays he shouldn’t think of anything else. I had the remark of Jean Staune on this point concerning Jean Paul II. Evolution, in singular, and when referring to scientific theories may be used as synonym of darwinism, as far as there is no competition. And even if one don’t talk science, say if intelligent designists would like to use the term « evolution » they should add « Introduction » to get « Introduction & Evolution » for example as they postulate that something didn’t evolved but was produced and introduced in the biosphere.

On number 4:

In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it.

I don’t know a single biologist using the term « random mutation » except in courses and ID discussions. The you talk about mutations or evolution and that’s it. I’m one of those assuming that evolution is true as far as it explains my data and nothing comes to show that there is something that can’t be explained by it. So what ? When you talk about evolution of a system, today, you don’t have to have to specify each time « darwinian evolution of an irreducibly complex, according to Behe, system ».

Quote from « Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller »

Read Full Post »

On Behe’ responses to Kitzmiller #4

Nor do experiments exist that demonstrate the power of natural selection to make irreducibly complex biochemical systems, either directly or indirectly–proclamations of the National Academy notwithstanding.

He is perfectly right on this point. There is no experiment able to produce irreducible complex systems as those doesn’t exist 🙂

I suppose he wanted to say that: no experiments exists that demonstrate the power of random mutations and natural selection to make what he calls irreducibly complex biochemical systems.

I discussed the point at Variations

Quote from « Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller »

Read Full Post »