"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[T'ai Chi]

An interesting article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3739&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage&printerFriendly=true) titled

Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?: Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design

over at http://www.discovery.org

For those that have read Mooney's book

[CFLarsen]

Why is it interesting?

[T'ai Chi]

Just read it, then get back to us.

[Cleon]

Just read it, then get back to us.

Heh. "Us." Must be the royal "us."

[CFLarsen]

Just read it, then get back to us.

Why should I read it?

There are many, many books I would like to read. Why should I consider this one?

[Nick Bogaerts]

I assume that by 'interesting' you mean it as an example of what a sophist ought to avoid. I must admit such a density of logical fallacies and outright lies is impressive.

Let us begin with the second paragraph of the introduction:

Mr. Mooney always adopts scientific consensus as the gospel truth (...) Because it goes against consensus opinion, Mr. Mooney thinks that intelligent design is waging a “war” on science.

Bold assertion.

While intelligent design may be a persecuted minority viewpoint within the scientific community, it is nonetheless receiving increasing levels of scientific support and its proponents continue to publish their research in scientific publications which develop and extend the theory.

Lie.

Let us continue: Error #1:

It is a simple task to find quotes from scientists or scientific organizations saying evolution is crucial or key to all of modern biology. Over twenty years ago an Australian anthropologist explained in a secular journal why he thinks this is true

Quote-mine.

This explains why Mr. Mooney’s statements about the grandeur of evolution are unlikely to impress those who are not already convinced of the accuracy of Neo-Darwinism.

Non sequitur.

Writing in The Scientist, Philip S. Skell, member of the National Academy of Science and Emeritus Professor at Pennsylvania State University

Quote-mine.

If evolution won’t save the world, can it yield commercial benefits? In August, 2006, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote in an article entitled “Selling Darwin” in Nature, explaining that the answer is again, “No”:

Quote-mine.

Only two logical fallacies and four counts of intellectual dishonesty thus far. I still have thirteen 'errors' and one concluision to go. Does it get any better?

[thomps1d]

An interesting article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3739&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage&printerFriendly=true) titled

Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?: Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design

Interesting, indeed. Interesting how many outright deceptions and logical fallacies can be crammed into such a small space. Another poster has gone into the details of some of the problems found in "Error 1" (though it's not a comprehensive listing of the errors/lies/fallacies in that section alone), so I won't go any further into it. Suffice it to say I made it through the first four "errors" and had to close the page before I laughed so hard that I snorted milk through my nose.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Too much BS to read and too little time. I've just started Mooney's book and it's a very good book. This however is just mumbo jumbo.

[T'ai Chi]

No good critique so far. Keep trying. :)

[quixotecoyote]

No good defense so far. Give up.

[CFLarsen]

No good critique so far. Keep trying. :)

This is reminiscent of when Albert Knabe - much better known here as "King of the Americas" - called Howard Stern on his show.

Albert wanted to promote one of his lengthy tracts, where he expanded on one of his many crackpot ideas. Howard Stern did not want to spend time on something he didn't know what was, so he asked Albert if he could give a brief summary of what he had written.

Albert refused. He insisted that Howard Stern read the whole thing, and then get back and discuss it. After some back-and-forth, Howard Stern simply hung up.

If you won't explain what you mean, then we won't understand what you are saying, T'ai.

If you can't explain what you mean, then you don't understand what you are saying.

Why do you write reviews on Amazon?

[MRC_Hans]

No good critique so far. Keep trying. :)No, that is not the way things are done.

First, you present yout point. You did that by simply referencing an article and demand we read it. That is basically bad style, but it will somewhat defeat your own purpose, since it allows your opponents to pick whatever they like to critique.

Now, some have done just that, and delivered a rather heavy critique of the article.

You now have two options:

1) Counter the critique given.

2) Say something like "No, that was not the part I wanted to discuss", followed by a specification of what you wanted to discuss (of course, now the cat is out, you will have to accept that people continue discussing other parts as well).

Your present display, however, is arrogant and non-constructive. Serious and relevant points have been brought up in a debate you started yourself. You have to address them.

Hans

[Zep]

Yes, I do have a summary critique of it, T'ai, as requested: It's all crap.

Now...

What's your response to that?

[Darat]

An interesting article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3739&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage&printerFriendly=true) titled

Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?: Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design

over at http://www.discovery.org

For those that have read Mooney's book

Doesn't look interesting.

[Lothian]

Not meaning to descend into ad hominem territory here, but does T'ai Chi remind any else here of a slightly more adult version of the kid that used to clap his hands over his ears and sing "la la la la la la, I can't heeeeeaaaar you" when you said something he doesn't want to hear?
No, I see nothing more adult in T'ai Chi’s behaviour.

[Mojo]

First, you present your point. That would require him to have one.

[ponderingturtle]

That would require him to have one.

He has one, he just will not present it in any way that would make him say anything definite enough to be demonstrated wrong. His point is that the article makes some points he concidered interesting. But he will not say what they are, because he will not commit himself to anything where he can be shown to be wrong.

That is why he just dismisses detailed rebuttals of his interesting paper, actualy refuteing them is something he knows he can not do.

[Mojo]

He has one, I see no evidence for this... ...he just will not present it in any way that would make him say anything definite enough to be demonstrated wrong. ...and that's why.

[Dr Adequate]

One obvious howler is their claim that ID does not rely on God-of-the-gaps reasoning. The quotes they use to try to substantiate this show the very opposite.

"Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation."

"Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. Given that neither standard neo-Darwinism, nor co-option has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest, one might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. ... Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms."

You will also notice that they have to lie about the existence of the "gaps".

[Dr Adequate]

For more dishonesty, consider their Dembski quote.

"Thus, leading ID-theorist, philosopher and mathematician William Dembski, explains that intelligent design does not try to address questions about the identity or nature of the designer:

By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature, nor does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this intelligent cause had to act. . . . Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the remit of science."

Well, he did indeed say that. But he also said:

"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

The fact is that ID is religious, but that in order to smuggle it into schools, ID proponents such as Dembski are prepared to lie about this.

[Foster Zygote]

He has one, he just will not present it in any way that would make him say anything definite enough to be demonstrated wrong. His point is that the article makes some points he concidered interesting. But he will not say what they are, because he will not commit himself to anything where he can be shown to be wrong.

That is why he just dismisses detailed rebuttals of his interesting paper, actualy refuteing them is something he knows he can not do.

I agree. T'ai seems to prefer to be on the attack. He wants others to make detailed statements so he can try to poke holes in their arguments but he won't detail his own position for fear of being refuted.

There are a few others like him in this forum as well.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

One obvious howler is their claim that ID does not rely on God-of-the-gaps reasoning. The quotes they use to try to substantiate this show the very opposite.

Well you weren't supposed to actually read it. You were supposed to just dismiss it so T'ai could lean back and close his eyes in his best Master Po impersonation and offer up some minimal syllabic wisdom like "interesting" or "I'm using this new shampoo".

Odds that T'ai will actually address the points in your post: <0

Steven

[delphi_ote]

For more dishonesty, consider their Dembski quote.

"Thus, leading ID-theorist, philosopher and mathematician William Dembski, explains that intelligent design does not try to address questions about the identity or nature of the designer:
I spotted the lie.

[Piggy]

I read it, and it is interesting as a piece of propaganda. Of course, no one who is already familiar with the Modern Synthesis will fail to spot the distortions and outright lies. But that audience will never be swayed to ID anyway -- not because they're brainwashed, but for the same reason that people who have seen Marx Brothers films cannot be convinced that the Marx Brothers were a mime troupe, no matter how many clips of Harpo they are shown -- so this piece does not need to address that audience.

Here is another "interesting" link, in which you'll find many of the same dodges and deceptions described, as used by Duane Gish (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html).

[bjb]

This is reminiscent of when Albert Knabe - much better known here as "King of the Americas" - called Howard Stern on his show.

Albert wanted to promote one of his lengthy tracts, where he expanded on one of his many crackpot ideas. Howard Stern did not want to spend time on something he didn't know what was, so he asked Albert if he could give a brief summary of what he had written.

Albert refused. He insisted that Howard Stern read the whole thing, and then get back and discuss it. After some back-and-forth, Howard Stern simply hung up.

Thanks for the info on King of the Americas. I was dealing with him on the recent shuttle debris incident, which he wanted to call a UFO encounter. I responded because I have some experience in the shuttle program and I thought he simply wanted to know more about how the shuttle worked. Unfortunately it turned out he was unwilling to listen or learn anything that didn't support his opinion (sound familiar?). What a waste of my time.

[T'ai Chi]

People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.

[Piggy]

People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.
Why, when the OP consists of "this is interesting" + link?

Do you not see the parallels in the Duane Gish site? Or have you failed to read it?

You really should read it. It's very interesting.

[Nick Bogaerts]

People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.

That's very nearly true. Someone so intellectually dishonest as to knowingly and purposefully misquote scientists three times in one paragraph should not be worthy of notice. Unfortunately, there are those sycophants who will stoop so low as to pretend to offer such rubbish for debate.

[CFLarsen]

People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.

Where is your critique? All you have said is that it is "interesting". You have offered absolutely nothing.

[Mid]

Well you weren't supposed to actually read it. You were supposed to just dismiss it so T'ai could lean back and close his eyes in his best Master Po impersonation and offer up some minimal syllabic wisdom like "interesting" or "I'm using this new shampoo".

Odds that T'ai will actually address the points in your post: <0

Steven

People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.

Foster Zygote you must be psychic, ever thought of applying for the $1million? :D

[T'ai Chi]

Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?

[Piggy]

Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?
See posts 6, 19, and 20. Also see the link to the site regarding Gish, which exposes many of the same errors made in the "paper". Did you read it? It's interesting.

And I hate to have to say this, but when a poster behaves irrationally and unreasonably, as you consistently do, there's no way to meaningfully discuss anything, so the flaws of the irrational person himself inevitably have to be addressed.

[Lothian]

Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?I got as far as the 4th word in the into before spotting a blatant error. While intelligent design scientists...


Intelligent design scientists; oxymoron

[Mid]

Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?

All I noted was that Foster Zygote accurately predicted your response, but if it will make you feel better I beg Foster Zygote's forgiveness for singling him out.

[Cleon]

Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

Tried that. You decided to be a schmuck instead. Cope.

[Chaos]

Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?


How about YOU present something that's worth commenting on, instead of the endless meaningless drivel. If I wanted meaningless drivel, I'd watch the HP hearings on C-SPAN.

[T'ai Chi]

So no rebuttal then.

[Jono]

I assume that by 'interesting' you mean it as an example of what a sophist ought to avoid. I must admit such a density of logical fallacies and outright lies is impressive.


Then you haven't been to Stormfront :p

[ponderingturtle]

So no rebuttal then.

You don't seem to be makeing one. As for rebutting the artical, there has been plenty of that.

[Jono]

So no rebuttal then.

Luskin goes on and on and on about how mistaken Mooney is about what ID really purports, for example that they are not naming, identifying the designer and so forth.

For crying out loud, it's a cat walking around a hot meal, waiting for it to cool off. If the premise is that there is a designer (Creator, ring a bell?) and no evidence whatsoever to support such a premise, which is the base assumption of the "empirical" science purported therein, then how is not not supernatural??

Mooney wasn't making the illogical assumption that the ID premise base foundation is that to circle around A DESIGNER, neither does Luskin's quotes disprove that this is what it's all about.

Luskin wrote;
Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator.

Which is another way of saying "we are going to continue beating around the bush of semantic diatribes, pretending to be about actual science and not a "designer".

Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.[

So the Designer is therefor the first "bottleneck"?

I mean come on!?!?!

[Chaos]

So no rebuttal then.

If you present something that's worth rebutting, you will get a rebuttal. If not, then not.

[bjb]

So no rebuttal then.

You've already seen the rebuttal. The paper is based upon logical fallacies and purposeful misquoting of real scientists. It also contains lies about science and what scientists do. It is easy to overthrow the established scientific view, all you have to do is present sufficient evidence and your ideas will become the new established scientific view. This has happened many times times before and it will continue to happen.

The problem with the current theory of intelligent design is that it is not a scientific theory. There are gaps in our current scientific knowlege and there always will be. The evolution deniers attempt to fill these gaps by proclaiming 'Goddidit'. This is a textbook example of arguement from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Evolution deniers say evolution is "just a theory", implying that it hasn't been proven so it must be false. Similarly, intelligent design hasn't been disproven so it must be true. Unless the evolution deniers can come up with some convincing evidence, they will never be taken seriously by real scientists.

In any case, I'm sure my counter-arguement does not matter to you. I expect you to react by saying "That's not a (good) criticism." But, T'ai Chi, you don't seem to respond to my posts anyway, so all I'm expecting nothing from is more dodging.

[Nick Bogaerts]

So no rebuttal then.

Post number 6, which you have decided to ignore.

[Steve]

A little bit of a derail here, but I need to get this "off my chest".

The term "intelligent design (or designer)" is meaningless unless there is also a "creator".

I work in an engineering office. We design buildings and I am a mechanical designer. (further derail - Giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I am also [somewhat?] intelligent - am I an intelligent designer?). At the end of the design process what we have is a set of detailed instructions, on how to build something. The thing designed does not actually exist until the design is given to competent tradesmen to execute (create).

For those who would try to avoid engaging religion by using the term "intelligent design", what do they suggest happens when the "design" process is completed?
How, and by who or what, is the design executed?

[Mojo]

Probably something to do with those pesky turtles.

[Steve]

Probably something to do with those pesky turtles.

:D

T'ai Chi - care to comment?

[ponderingturtle]

Probably something to do with those pesky turtles.

On behalf of turtles everywhere I resent that idea.

[T'ai Chi]

You've already seen the rebuttal.


It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.

[Piggy]

T'ai Chi, have you read the article on Gish? It's very interesting.

[bjb]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.

OK, then. What points in the article did you think were important? I didn't see anything important in that article. They were numbered so just give me the numbers you thought were good.

[Chaos]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.

It didn't "fail to address import points". It pointed out clearly that there are no important points in the fart you've linked to.

[thaiboxerken]

Tai Chi is hilarious. Is he the JREF jester?

[Grimoire]

Tai Chi is hilarious. Is he the JREF jester?

Yes. He is completely immune to logic and reason. He never, ever reads responses. His MO is to make a short, one or two line post, and say "What do you think?", and then completely ignores all responses, and then says "What, no responses?". Take a look at this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64528) for an excellent example of his "tactic". It's basically a carbon copy of this thread, but with a different original post.

Oh, and at some point in the thread, he will start to mention the "organized skeptical movement".

[CFLarsen]

Complaining that "important points" have not been rebutted, while refusing to say what the points are?

Is that a joke, T'ai? Or do you really think you are terribly clever?

[Mojo]

Yes. He is completely immune to logic and reason. He never, ever reads responses. His MO is to make a short, one or two line post, and say "What do you think?", and then completely ignores all responses, and then says "What, no responses?". Or alternatively, responds to posts he hasn't bothered to read, perhaps (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1948584#post1948584)?

[delphi_ote]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.
I picture you there sitting with your arms crossed and your nose up in the air when you say this. "Harumpf! Not a good enough rebuttal for me! I want an Oompa Loompa now, daddy!"

[Grimoire]

I picture you there sitting with your arms crossed and your nose up in the air when you say this. "Harumpf! Not a good enough rebuttal for me! I want an Oompa Loompa now, daddy!"

Ohhh....I didn't know they were giving out Oompa Loompas....can I have one too?

Happy birthday, BTW...

[Grimoire]

Or alternatively, responds to posts he hasn't bothered to read, perhaps (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1948584#post1948584)?

<expletive deleted>!

I always suspected that he ignored many of the responses to his posts, but to respond to posts he hasn't even read is just plain almondy...er, cashewy? Hmmm...that's not quite it either...Anyway, you get the idea...

[thomps1d]

It didn't "fail to address import points". It pointed out clearly that there are no important points in the fart you've linked to.

I hate to say it, but I find myself in partial agreement with something that T'ai Chi said. Fallacy spotting does not, in and of itself, render an argument invalid. If that were the case, a single logical fallacy would be enough to render an entire article null and void.

In this case, however, genuine (not perceived, as T'ai Chi seems to wish) fallacies and outright deceptions are so pervasive that a rational person has no choice but to discard the article as useless.

Now, if there were reason to believe that our perceptions regarding the fallacies/outright lies were incorrect, T'ai Chi could certainly bring such a reason to our attention...if he were genuinely interested in honest debate. Since, despite point-blank prompting from multiple forum members, he has failed to do so, the natural conclusion is that he has little such interest on this particular subject.

[delphi_ote]

<expletive deleted>!

I always suspected that he ignored many of the responses to his posts, but to respond to posts he hasn't even read is just plain almondy...er, cashewy? Hmmm...that's not quite it either...Anyway, you get the idea...
Picany. Definitely pecany. Though walnutty sounds pretty good, too.

[Mojo]

Pistachioid?

[Grimoire]

Pistachioid?

I was thinking adjective, rather than noun. Pistachioey is nice...

[Piggy]

I was thinking adjective, rather than noun. Pistachioey is nice...
Oy! Oids were adjectives before they got nouned. Oy vey!

[T'ai Chi]

I have little interest in continuing to point out that such illogic doesn't interest me.

[Piggy]

I have little interest in continuing to point out that such illogic doesn't interest me.
What illogic are you refering to, T'ai Chi?

And why should anyone in the world care what interests you?

[Foster Zygote]

I have little interest in continuing to point out that such illogic doesn't interest me.

In other words, he has little interest in what doesn't interest him. Wow! That's really deep!

Steven

[Spektator]

Oompa loompa doompa-de-dee,
If you are wise you will ignore T'ai Chi.

[Piggy]

I have little interest in continuing to point out that such illogic doesn't interest me.
Wait a minute... are you talking about the illogic in the article you cited in the OP?

[Mojo]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. What were the "important points" that it failed to address? You assert that there are some, so presumably you know what they are.

[ponderingturtle]

I have little interest in continuing to point out that such illogic doesn't interest me.

Could you please be more clear as to what is illogical, other than questioning a white christain god or some such thing?

[Hastur]

Fallacy spotting does not, in and of itself, render an argument invalid.
It DOES, however, put the burden on the proponent to either:
A. Rephrase the argument to avoid the fallacy
B. Explain why there is no fallacy (i.e. show the work more clearly, not merely repeat the argument)
C. Concede the argument if the argument cannot exist without the fallacy.

[delphi_ote]

I have little interest in continuing to point out that such illogic doesn't interest me.
"You're a rotten, mean father. You never give me anything I want. And I won't go to school until I have it."

or...

"I want a party with roomfuls of laughter,
Ten thousand tons of ice cream,
And if I don't get the things I am after,
I'm going to scream!"

[Hellbound]

Actually, delphi, it's more like trying to figure out what my 14 month old daughter wants:

Daughter: WAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! pointing in general direction of one wall of room

Me: What? Your sippy-cup? gets cup, gives to daughter

Daughter: turns head away from cup, holds up handsWAHHHH!!!!!! points vaguely in the same direction

Me: Your noisy, annoying, light-flashin toy? picks up NALFT, gives to daughter

Daughter: grabs NALFT, throws NALFT away WAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! points vaguely in the same direction

Me: The teddy bear? Is that what you want?

...repeat endlessly until she exhausts herself and falls asleep, or the cat walks by and she loses interest...

[Mojo]

...or the cat walks by and she loses interest...I wondered why pictures of them tended to turn up in this sort of thread. Is your daughter also interested in recipes?

[Hellbound]

I wondered why pictures of them tended to turn up in this sort of thread. Is your daughter also interested in recipes?

No, no recipes...yet.

Her cooking tends to be of the "whatever I find on the floor" variety.

[Foster Zygote]

No, no recipes...yet.

Her cooking tends to be of the "whatever I find on the floor" variety.

Before I became a dad I never pictured myself asking someone "are you going to eat that or just smoosh it into the carpet?"

Steven

[Piggy]

Before I became a dad I never pictured myself asking someone "are you going to eat that or just smoosh it into the carpet?"
Wow. You apparently wasted your youth doing all the wrong drugs.

[Foster Zygote]

Wow. You apparently wasted your youth doing all the wrong drugs.

Actually I suffered from the munchies a lot during my early twenties.:D

Steven

[delphi_ote]

Wow. You apparently wasted your youth doing all the wrong drugs.
:dl:

[T'ai Chi]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

[CFLarsen]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

Why do you think the article rebuts Mooney's points fairly well?

[Brainache]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

Not in your post.

[Piggy]

I believe this site (http://www.educate-yourself.org/) refutes Darwin completely.

You should read it. It's very interesting.

What? No rebuttal?

[Mojo]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. What were the "important points" that it failed to address? If you can't say what the "important points" were, it is reasonable to assume that you have failed to identify any.

[Foster Zygote]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

T'ai, the reason it seems to you that there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here seem to be that you have placed quite a few people on ignore. I call that intellectual cowardice.

Steven

P.S. If someone does post this for me please don't put him/her on ignore too.

[CFLarsen]

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

T'ai, the reason it seems to you that there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here seem to be that you have placed quite a few people on ignore. I call that intellectual cowardice.

Steven

P.S. If someone does post this for me please don't put him/her on ignore too.

Done.

We all know that T'ai Chi reads each and everyone of my posts.

[Grimoire]

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.
Is there anyway to see if someone has you on ignore? In other threads, I've made responses which he has completely ignored. It would be interesting to see if he was reading and ignoring my responses (or possibly not understanding them), or if he had me on his ignore list.

It would explain why a thread with T'ai Chi sometimes reads like a discussion with a doorknob.

[Mercutio]

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

T'ai, the reason it seems to you that there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here seem to be that you have placed quite a few people on ignore. I call that intellectual cowardice.

Steven

P.S. If someone does post this for me please don't put him/her on ignore too.
Done again. We know he can't ignore my posts, although he would like to.

[delphi_ote]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.
I've come to my senses at long last. The scales have fallen from my eyes! You're right about everything. The light is so beautiful! Everything is so clear to me!

I agree with you completely, T'ai Chi! Let's show the organized skeptical movement what fools they all are! We will charge bravely together head on into the cowardly JREF army on our mighty steeds of truth and scatter our enemies far and wide! Our foes will tremble at our very approach. This is it! Their last stand!

:OHIO:UNITE UNDER OUR BANNERS, OR FALL AT OUR FEET, COWARDS!:FLORIDA:

P.S. Can you tell me just what it is we believe again?

[Foster Zygote]

I've come to my senses at long last. The scales have fallen from my eyes! You're right about everything. The light is so beautiful! Everything is so clear to me!

I agree with you completely, T'ai Chi! Let's show the organized skeptical movement what fools they all are! We will charge bravely together head on into the cowardly JREF army on our mighty steeds of truth and scatter our enemies far and wide! Our foes will tremble at our very approach. This is it! Their last stand!

:OHIO:UNITE UNDER OUR BANNERS, OR FALL AT OUR FEET, COWARDS!:FLORIDA:

P.S. Can you tell me just what it is we believe again?

You forgot the bit about lightning from your arses. :D

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Is there anyway to see if someone has you on ignore? In other threads, I've made responses which he has completely ignored. It would be interesting to see if he was reading and ignoring my responses (or possibly not understanding them), or if he had me on his ignore list.

It would explain why a thread with T'ai Chi sometimes reads like a discussion with a doorknob.


From a few thing he's written in the past I'm lead to believe that anyone who annoys him by asking for clarification of what he means, or has the audacity to show that his "interesting" links are demonstrably full of buckets of crap, gets put on ignore. He makes me think of some pudgy guy stepping out of the crowd just in front of the lead runner in a marathon so as to break the tape a few seconds before the actual winner. The imaginary pudgy guy then pumps his fists in the air triumphantly and convinces himself that he's won. I don't know if T'ai is actually pudgy of course but his posts are to critical thought what a pudgy couch-potato is to a competitive runner. 'Tis a silly analogy I readily confess.

Steven

[delphi_ote]

You forgot the bit about lightning from your arses. :D

Steven
I forgot nothing, cowardly skeptical zombie!

ph33r!

[CFLarsen]

Is there anyway to see if someone has you on ignore? In other threads, I've made responses which he has completely ignored. It would be interesting to see if he was reading and ignoring my responses (or possibly not understanding them), or if he had me on his ignore list.

It would explain why a thread with T'ai Chi sometimes reads like a discussion with a doorknob.

T'ai Chi has nobody on ignore.

There is not a chance in hell he would want to miss out on someone speaking to him or about him.

[T'ai Chi]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.

[Mojo]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.Some criticisms of the article have been posted. You have claimed that they were not good criticisms because they "failed to address important points". You have been asked several times what these "important points" are, and have so far failed to identify any of them. What conclusion should we draw from your apparent inability to identify these "important points"?

[delphi_ote]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.
Oh, I'm all over the insolent pseudoskeptics that dare to question you, T'ai Chi. Just tell me what it is we believe, and I'll whip them from start to finish!

[Piggy]

First of all, the term "Neo-Darwinism" is itself a misrepresentation. Rather, it would be more intellectually honest to refer to the Modern Synthesis. To choose the term "Neo-Darwinism" is to suggest that Darwin's model is somehow fundamentally flawed and had to be overhauled, when in fact, Darwin's model was roundly confirmed by the modern studies of genetics and embryology. For a complete explanation, see Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135/sr=8-1/qid=1160312984/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5472508-1763229?ie=UTF8&s=books). It's interesting.

More to come....

[Piggy]

Because it goes against consensus opinion, Mr. Mooney thinks that intelligent design is waging a “war” on science.
This is a lie. Mooney has never claimed that ID is wrong "because it goes against consensus opinion". Rather, Mooney points out that ID is not valid science.

Luskin seems very enamoured of Kuhn, whom he cites at the top of the article:

No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; in deed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others.

This citation by Kuhn is somewhat accurate, but not completely.

The process of "normal science" can be credited with discovering all manner of previously unknown phenomena, such as the CMB, DNA, accelerated universal expansion, QM, etc etc etc. All these were the result of "normal science".

While it's true that scientists are often blinded by their assumptions (not seeing what doesn't fit in the box), science itself provides the remedy. Although it had been long assumed that the rate of universal expansion was slowing, the process of "normal science" discovered otherwise... and, in fact, did so when not actually looking for any such phenomenon.

If Kuhn were correct, then Hawking and Hertog would not be proposing a quantum cosmology.

It's true that scientists do not frequently propose new theories. It would be a very poor reflection on the state of the art if it were possible to toss out new theories every few weeks.

And it's true that new theories meet a great deal of skepticism. This is how science works. You have to pony up. You have to show the money. So far, ID doesn't have a chip to toss in the pot. And that is Mooney's complaint about ID.

[Piggy]

While intelligent design may be a persecuted minority viewpoint within the scientific community, it is nonetheless receiving increasing levels of scientific support and its proponents continue to publish their research in scientific publications which develop and extend the theory.
This is simply a lie. There's nothing else to call it. Luskin has made this up out of thin air. Note that he provides no citations here. The reason is, there are none to offer.

[Piggy]

In the section Error #1, Luskin makes the following claims:

First, Luskin admits that "it is a simple task to find quotes from scientists or scientific organizations saying evolution is crucial or key to all of modern biology."

Here is how he attempts to counter this fact:

Over twenty years ago an Australian anthropologist explained in a secular journal why he thinks this is true:

[M]any scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences.

This explains why Mr. Mooney’s statements about the grandeur of evolution are unlikely to impress those who are not already convinced of the accuracy of Neo-Darwinism.

Dr. Walker's statements from Quadrant (81) do not, in fact, explain why evolutionary theory is unlikely to impress people who are not already convinced of its accuracy.

First of all, thousands of students every year are indeed convinced of the truth of evolutionary theory.

Second, it is simply not true that scientists generally support evolution merely because it is Godless. There are many scientists who understand the Modern Synthesis and who also believe in God. And even if this were not the case, it would not explain why the MS, rather than some other Godless theory, is the only game in town. Darwin's theory came to dominate over other evolutionary theories (most famously, that of Lamarck) because it is verifiable. It works.

Next, Luskin cites some scientists who state that they would have been able to achieve their discoveries without direct reference to MS.

These include the discovery of the DNA double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries.

He chooses his battles well, here, citing discoveries which are chemical and mechanical. No one, Moody included, is claiming that every scientific development depends on direct reference to evolution.

Yet DNA research confirms Darwinian theory. And Darwinian theory explains why plants and animal do evolve in the wild, when there is no farmer or rancher there to guide things by artificial selection.

To understand why the MS is in fact central to biology, try reading this article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)". It's interesting.

Luskin then asks "can [evolution] yield commercial benefits?", and answers "No". Bizarrely, he then cites Jerry Coyne: "truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits." The key here is the term "many". Coyne is saying that the commercial benefits are few, not nonexistant.

And in any case, a lack of commerical benefit is not a standard for truth. What commerical benefit has the discovery of universal expansion brought us?

If you'd like to read a full review of a Creationist text by Coyne, please see his review of Icons of Evolution (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm). It's interesting.

[Piggy]

In Error #2, Luskin denies that ID is necessarily God-related:

Moreover, leading ID theorist and biochemist, Michael Behe, explains that ID differs from Paley’s argument in crucial respects which make ID scientific, in contrast to Paley’s arguments which explicitly attempted to address theological questions:

The most important difference [between modern ID and Paley's arguments] is that [ID] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. … [A]s regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo .10

Intelligent design was also cited as a real possibility by the co-discoverer of natural selection. Alfred Russel Wallace, and the term “intelligent design” was even used by contemporaries of Darwin as an alternative to Darwin’s viewpoint.11 Finally, the modern theory of ID has experienced a surge in popularity due to the discoveries in the past 30-40 years in genetics, molecular biology, and cell biology which have revealed a world of complex microbiological machines and the digital language-based genetic code underlying all of life.12 ID clearly does not have solely religious origins, as Mr. Mooney would suggest.

First of all, Behe is a crank. If you would like to see scholarly refutations of his hypotheses, please read these articles (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html). They're interesting.

Secondly, it is certainly interesting that this "alternative to Darwin's viewpoint" was defeated a century ago by Darwinian theory. That's hardly a recommendation for resurrecting it.

Third, Luskin's claims that recent scientific discoveries support ID, and his insinuation that there is an increasing scientific interest in ID, are totally bogus. His footnote #12 at the end of that sentence does not lead us to any references for these alleged discoveries, but rather to Behe's book.

[Piggy]

Given what I've posted so far, I don't see any point in continuing with a debunking of this 30-page article. When this many errors and falsehoods are crammed into the first 2.5 pages, nothing that comes after can be of any... well... interest.

[Mojo]

Given what I've posted so far, I don't see any point in continuing with a debunking of this 30-page article. When this many errors and falsehoods are crammed into the first 2.5 pages, nothing that comes after can be of any... well... interest.Perhaps T'ai Chi can suggest some specific points from the article that he thinks are interesting enough to be worth discussing.

[Spektator]

Perhaps T'ai Chi can suggest some specific points from the article that he thinks are interesting enough to be worth discussing.

Yes. And perhaps, as usual, he won't.

[Achán hiNidráne]

...

[bjb]

Perhaps T'ai Chi can suggest some specific points from the article that he thinks are interesting enough to be worth discussing.

I asked him the same thing back in post #50. He did respond to some other posts, but not to mine.

His technique is to make general, vague accusations, this way, any rebuttal can be said to be not specific enough. In other words, we can't hit a target when he won't tell us what the target it. T'ai Chi will not make specific claims because then we can address them directly and he will have nowhere to hide. This is not the same as lying but it is a very dishonest way to hold a discussion.

[ponderingturtle]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.

People have addressed the article you haven't.

[Complexity]

Justin - I would never waste my time reading anything that you suggest.

All that we're left with, then, is your tacky personality.

[Foster Zygote]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.

Well, thanks to CF and Mercutio. I'm not sure if this is a response to me or not. If not then it seems rather hypocritical as T'ai rarely does anything but post "interesting" quotes from others. If it is directed at me I wonder what he means by "tired tactic". I'm sure it's not unprecedented but I've never seen it before on any forum. I suppose that was the best rebuttal he could come up with.

Steven

[fishbob]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.

Name one.
People have been asking, none are obvious, so help us out.

[AWPrime]

T'ai Chi can you get banned for being willfully ignorant and a bad person?

[Piggy]

Where'd T'ai Chi go, btw?

[Hellbound]

Piggy:

He took his toys and went home, because we weren't making interesting* points.

From the Tai Chi Dictionary of Alternatve Meanings:
in-ter-est-ing--[adj]--in agreement with or supportive of Tai Chi's personal views or theories; see also synchophant.

[petre]

I find T'ai Chi's claim that the article is worth reading insufficient evidence of such until he indicates that he has indeed read every piece of available literature regarding the subject and provides a short commentary on each, including reasons why this particular piece is of interest.

It seems it should be easy to do.

[delphi_ote]

Where'd T'ai Chi go, btw?
I PMed him to draw his attention back to this thread and to your posts.

When he comes back, maybe I'll finally figure out what it is we believe.

[Piggy]

When he comes back, maybe I'll finally figure out what it is we believe.
In Spain they have a saying... no te compliques la vida. Don't complicate your life. If understanding is not required for belief, then hey, why bother? It can only lead to trouble. Believe on, my friend!

[T'ai Chi]

I find T'ai Chi's claim that the article is worth reading insufficient evidence of such until he indicates that he has indeed read every piece of available literature regarding the subject and provides a short commentary on each, including reasons why this particular piece is of interest.

It seems it should be easy to do.

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?

Apparently you're (just) another who strongly believes an opinion is a "claim".

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi can you get banned for being willfully ignorant and a bad person?

I understand you value my opinion, but you'd have to ask the moderators a question only they can answer. Wouldn't you agree?

[Mojo]

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?Some criticisms of the article have been posted. You have stated that they were not good criticisms because they "failed to address important points". Can you say what these "important points" are? Then we can talk about the specific points you consider to be important.

[Piggy]

Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it.
By all means, let's.

Which means it's your turn to address posts 97-101, not to mention posts 6, 19, and 20.

I don't see any reason for any further posts until you do.

[T'ai Chi]

But what from the book, specifically?

[Foster Zygote]

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?

Apparently you're (just) another who strongly believes an opinion is a "claim".

Let's start with this observation by Dr. Adequate from post #19:

One obvious howler is their claim that ID does not rely on God-of-the-gaps reasoning. The quotes they use to try to substantiate this show the very opposite.

"Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation."

"Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. Given that neither standard neo-Darwinism, nor co-option has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest, one might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. ... Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms."

You will also notice that they have to lie about the existence of the "gaps".

Please tell us why Dr. A did not meet your standards. Explain why his observation is wrong.

Steven

[Jeff Corey]

Good luck, Stevarino.

[Foster Zygote]

Good luck, Stevarino.

Just bangin' my head against the floor like T'ai's avatar. :D

Steven

[Jeff Corey]

The reason I addressed you as Stevarino is that Louis Nye used to call Steve Allen that, as in "Hi. ho. Stevarino.

[Foster Zygote]

The reason I addressed you as Stevarino is that Louis Nye used to call Steve Allen that, as in "Hi. ho. Stevarino.

I know, I got it. :)

Steven

[T'ai Chi]

I've read the 'counter rebuttals'; they just aren't very compelling. More like a long list of personal disagreements.

You're free to email me, and I might put up the best ones on my page in an article.

[petre]

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?

Apparently you're (just) another who strongly believes an opinion is a "claim".

Very well then, thanks for clearing that up. I'll retract that statement by noting that, in fact, no one has claimed the article is worth reading.

[ponderingturtle]

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?

Apparently you're (just) another who strongly believes an opinion is a "claim".

Ah you seem to be confused on what an opinion is vs what a claim is.

The VW Beetle is the best car ever is an opinion
The VW Beetle is the fastest road car ever produced is a claim and as such it can be tested.

Many of the specific points addressed where claims because they can be objectively measured, not opinions that can not be.

[drkitten]

Please focus on the article.

Very well. "The article contains no valid arguments in support of its soi-disant 'points.'"

Discuss.

[Piggy]

Pseudoskeptic psuedoanalysis babble attacking a person instead of the points raised in the article. Yawn, as always.

Please focus on the article.
The article has been focused on, specifically in posts 6, 19, 20, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101, which directly rebut the points raised in the article.

Everyone can see this.

If you believe that these posts do not in fact address the article, then reference them and explain why.

Otherwise, why should we continue here?

[Jeff Corey]

How stupid are you? There have been many cogent refutations posted. What are you, one of those pseudoskeptics that are blind to the evidence that falsifies your biased view?

[Hawk one]

So, what are your specific arguments against the specific points that Piggy brought up?

[T'ai Chi]

Anything is possible. But let's talk about the article.

[delphi_ote]

Anything is possible. But let's talk about the article.
Why are you waiting? Go for it!

[Hawk one]

Anything is possible.

That's not an argument against Piggy's points. In fact, that's not really making any sense to anything I just said, because it specifically doesn't adress my point at all. It doesn't adress any points, it's as vague and general and overall useless as it can be.

But let's talk about the article.

But every single time someone does that, you just ignore their posts and evade answering their criticisms of the article. Are you saying you'll stop doing this and properly adress* the criticisms of the article? If not, then every demand that the thread should stay focused on the article gets more and more hypocritical.

*With properly adress, I mean come up with arguments on why they are wrong. Merely saying "they're not good" enough isn't an argument, it's an assertion. An assertion you have yet to support in any manner, by the way.

[Mojo]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points.

But let's talk about the article.OK, let's talk about the article.

What were the "important points" that the response failed to address?

[Mojo]

Post #153:So, what are your specific arguments against the specific points that Piggy brought up?Post #154:Anything is possible. But let's talk about the article.Surely your comprehension of English is good enough for you to be able to understand that that is what Hawk asked you to do?

[Mojo]

People here are just attacking the person, that is obvious.

Try again.OK, I'll try again.

Let's talk about the article.It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points.

What were the "important points" that the response failed to address?

[ponderingturtle]

Anything is possible. But let's talk about the article.

We are waiting for you to say anything substantial about the artical. Others have tried, and you have ignored them, so unless you start nothing will happen or you are simply a troll.

[T'ai Chi]

How about we focus on one claim of Mooney's?

[Mojo]

How about we focus on one claim of Mooney's?How about we focus on the "important points" from the article (you know, the one we're supposed to be discussing) that you claim were not addressed by earlier responses?

[T'ai Chi]

Here's the article:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3739&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage&printerFriendly=true

[Hawk one]

And what do you think are its important points?

[T'ai Chi]

You're asking? I thought they were supposedly already addressed and refuted? But your question tells me that you don't even know what they are.

You'll have to read the article. Look for bold.

[Hawk one]

You're asking? I thought they were supposedly already addressed and refuted? But your question tells me that you don't even know what they are.

You'll have to read the article. Look for bold.

I have read parts of the article, and I didn't find any strong points at all. Since other people have already refuted these points, there is little point in repeating it.

I was asking because I wanted to see if you could tell if there were any strong points, and more importantly, explain why, in your own words, why they are strong points. I should have thought this latter was obvious, but I keep forgetting you need to be spoonfed every little detail.

So, name me one specific strong point, and why you think it's a strong point. That's when you will finally have actually discussed the article. See how easy that can be?

And when you do this, I guarantee that I will respond to that point and your reasons.

[Mojo]

You're asking? I thought they were supposedly already addressed and refuted? But your question tells me that you don't even know what they are. You have claimed that a criticism of the article was not a good response because "it failed to address important points". What "important points" which have not been addressed have you identified in the article?

[delphi_ote]

How about we focus on one claim of Mooney's?
Enough of your lazy demands. Piggy already did, and you ignored him. If you want the subject changed, change it. Stop complaining and talk about the article if that's why you're here.

[webfusion]

I read throught the entire piece. I pored over the bibliography as well, and followed links to their sources.

The penultimate important point of the entire article is summed up in the following exchange:

Mooney:
"So what is a good editor to do about the very real collision between a scientific consensus and a pseudo-scientific movement that opposes the basis of that consensus? At the very least, newspaper editors should think twice about assigning reporters who are fresh to the evolution issue and allowing them to default to the typical strategy frame, carefully balancing “both sides” of the issue in order to file a story on time and get around sorting through the legitimacy of the competing claims."

Casey Luskin:
According to his view, one side should not be given the same amount of air-time, size of print-space, or numbers of opportunity for rebuttal simply because it goes against the “consensus.” According to Mr. Mooney, such "balancing" isn’t appropriate.

Here is my rebuttal. Take note. This is a rebuttal. It is a rebuttal to a very main and important point of Luskin's article.
Here it comes ----


Plenty of TV airtime, column inches and radio play is devoted to speculation, opinion, fantasy and suppositions. Some of that seeps into the realm of pure reportorial journalism, unfortunately.
The journalism profession is expected by the public to report facts. That is what Mooney is making reference to.

The reporting of a crash of "a helicopter" into a building in Manhattan earlier today is a great illustration of this failure of journalists to step back and look at real facts and NOT just pour out raw, unsubstantiated data.


ID is not a factually-based concept.
Evolution is.

There is, as Mooney says, no reason to pursue a fair and balanced review of both, when one of the two is essentially myth and fantasy, while the other is real and solid.

/end rebuttal.

[Foster Zygote]

There is, as Mooney says, no reason to pursue a fair and balanced review of both, when one of the two is essentially myth and fantasy, while the other is real and solid.

/end rebuttal.

I like this Dawkins quote:

"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

Steven

[webfusion]

Oh well.

What does that mean?

[delphi_ote]

Oh well.
Feel free to ignore it again, but I'm at least going to make you look at it again and consciously ignore it.
In the section Error #1, Luskin makes the following claims:

First, Luskin admits that "it is a simple task to find quotes from scientists or scientific organizations saying evolution is crucial or key to all of modern biology."

Here is how he attempts to counter this fact:



Dr. Walker's statements from Quadrant (81) do not, in fact, explain why evolutionary theory is unlikely to impress people who are not already convinced of its accuracy.

First of all, thousands of students every year are indeed convinced of the truth of evolutionary theory.

Second, it is simply not true that scientists generally support evolution merely because it is Godless. There are many scientists who understand the Modern Synthesis and who also believe in God. And even if this were not the case, it would not explain why the MS, rather than some other Godless theory, is the only game in town. Darwin's theory came to dominate over other evolutionary theories (most famously, that of Lamarck) because it is verifiable. It works.

Next, Luskin cites some scientists who state that they would have been able to achieve their discoveries without direct reference to MS.



He chooses his battles well, here, citing discoveries which are chemical and mechanical. No one, Moody included, is claiming that every scientific development depends on direct reference to evolution.

Yet DNA research confirms Darwinian theory. And Darwinian theory explains why plants and animal do evolve in the wild, when there is no farmer or rancher there to guide things by artificial selection.

To understand why the MS is in fact central to biology, try reading this article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)". It's interesting.

Luskin then asks "can [evolution] yield commercial benefits?", and answers "No". Bizarrely, he then cites Jerry Coyne: "truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits." The key here is the term "many". Coyne is saying that the commercial benefits are few, not nonexistant.

And in any case, a lack of commerical benefit is not a standard for truth. What commerical benefit has the discovery of universal expansion brought us?

If you'd like to read a full review of a Creationist text by Coyne, please see his review of Icons of Evolution (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm). It's interesting.
But by all means, keep digging your hole. We'll all keep laughing at you.

[T'ai Chi]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.

[pchams]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.
What is unconvincing? Please explain something. :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.

Of course your unconvinced because you lack a basic understanding of reality, evolution, science and logic. Stupid is not a trait that can be fixed.

[delphi_ote]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.
So this is all the response you can expect of anyone else to your own posts. We've read them. We find them unconvincing (and intellectually dishonest, childish, incoherent, irrelevant, ignorant...)

You can't make demands of others that you won't accept yourself. We're not here to entertain you. Put up or shut up.

[Unnamed]

Perhaps we should ask Mr. Mooney himself?

http://www.scienceblogs.com/intersection/

Responding to the DI (http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/09/responding_to_the_di.php)
The DI Rebuttal (http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/09/the_di_rebuttal.php)
These Are So Not Good Criticisms (http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/09/these_are_so_not_good_criticis.php)

[Hawk one]

Where is that one strong point in the article I asked for, complete with an explanation in your own words why it's a strong point?

[webfusion]

Oh well, indeed.

[Mojo]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.Yes, but that is not a good response, because it fails to address any of the points made in the rebuttal. You need to say why you consider it unconvincing. If you consider it unconvincing because it failed to address particular points from the article, you need to state what those points were. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unsupported assertion.

Would you consider a statement that the article was unconvincing but which didn't say why the article was unconvincing to be a good rebuttal?

[Darat]

Moved some posts to AAH, to all participants that had posts moved remember a handy guideline is "argue the argument not the arguer".

[Garrette]

Fair enough, Darat.

[ponderingturtle]

That requires there to be an arguement expressed.

[scotth]

I just completed a very painful task of reading this entire thread in one shot.
When you read this thread this way, a pattern just leaps out at you. A pattern in tai chi's behavior. In my opinion, it is very clear tai chi will not address any rebuttal of his posted article. It is clear he has no intention to.

[delphi_ote]

Moved some posts to AAH, to all participants that had posts moved remember a handy guideline is "argue the argument not the arguer".
What do we do if there's no argument?

[T'ai Chi]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

[Hellbound]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

THe argument from your link has been argued.

You've not put forth any argument at all.

Besides, I thought we were talking about pie?

[ponderingturtle]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".

Please present an agruement.

[blutoski]

No good critique so far. Keep trying. :)

T'ai Chi: you've occasionally asked some interesting questions, but this post inspired me to put you on my ignore list. I feel you're just posting to create an emotional response and essentially trolling.

'bye.

[blutoski]

T'ai Chi: you've occasionally asked some interesting questions, but this post inspired me to put you on my ignore list. I feel you're just posting to create an emotional response and essentially trolling.

'bye.

Forgot to add:

latest xkcd (http://xkcd.com/c169.html)

[Mojo]

Please "argue the argument not the arguer".Please present an argument. Calling an article "interesting" is not an argument. Dismissing a critique of the article because it "fails to address important points" without saying what those "important points" are is not an argument. Dismissing criticisms by saying that there have been "no rebuttals yet" or "no good critique so far" is not an argument. These are all unsupported assertions.

If you are to present an argument, you need to say why the article is interesting. You need to say what the "important points" that were not addressed by earlier critiques actually were. You need to say why the critiques supplied were not good critiques. Supply something to support your assertions.

[Hawk one]

Where is that one strong point in the article I asked for, complete with an explanation in your own words why it's a strong point?

[T'ai Chi]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

[ponderingturtle]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?

Where is the evidence that you did?

[T'ai Chi]

I asked first.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Okay, T'ai Chi, since you insist upon replying in chronological order: answer post #172, then Hawk one will answer #173, then you can answer #174.

[Mojo]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?Which points would those be?

[delphi_ote]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?
AHA! Trick question. There aren't any!

[Piggy]

Where is evidence you've read and understood the strong points in the article?
Post 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101.

Now, can we please address the article?

[Foster Zygote]

Post 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101.

Now, can we please address the article?

I came across this T'ai Chi quote while looking for something else:

I wish one could place their non-admin-related posts on ignore. It would cut down on a lot of forum clutter, since they genearlly feel obligated to respond to everything.

It seems to say it all.

Steven

IGNORE ME!!!

[T'ai Chi]

Please, actually discuss the article.

[Piggy]

Please, actually discuss the article.
This is like asking us to please breathe, or eat, or use our keyboards. It's already been done. At this point, T'ai Chi, there can be no doubt that you are trolling.

[T'ai Chi]

Please, again, focus on the argument, not the person.

[Grimoire]

Please, again, focus on the argument, not the person.

What argument? There has been no argument presented, so we are only left with the person.

[Dr Adequate]

Please, actually discuss the article. The article is trash. This has been demonstrated by the many faults that have been found in it; and by the fact that the person who commended it to our attention has not even attempted to rebutt any of the proffered criticisms.

Does anyone have anything to add to that, or are we done here?

[Grimoire]

The article is trash. This has been demonstrated by the many faults that have been found in it; and by the fact that the person who commended it to our attention has not even attempted to rebutt any of the proffered criticisms.

Does anyone have anything to add to that, or are we done here?

I think that sums things up nicely.

[Piggy]

Please, again, focus on the argument, not the person.
No.

Here's why.

1. I and others have already focused on the argument. So that's been done.

2. You have chosen to pretend that this has not been done, despite the fact that everyone can see otherwise. This behavior is called "trolling" -- habitually making posts which contribute nothing to the board and are only designed to be frustrating to others or disrupt genuine discussion.

Since you refuse to address the article cited in your own OP, there is nothing left to do but point out your behavior in the hopes that the admins will take action.

[T'ai Chi]

Let's get this to 5,000 views.

I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.

[ponderingturtle]

I asked first.

So, people have adressed the artical, and you ignored them instead of focusing on the arguement and actualy refuting them with any evidence.

[Mojo]

I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.Why do you consider the rebuttals already posted (and which you have failed to discuss) to not be relevant? You stated that one of them "failed to address important points". What points would those be?

Remember, an unsupported assertion that they are not relevant, or not good criticisms, is not an argument. Neither is a claim that they failed to address important points if you're not able to state what those points actually are.

[ponderingturtle]

Please, again, focus on the argument, not the person.

Please, again, please present one then we will focus on the arguement.

[ponderingturtle]

Let's get this to 5,000 views.

I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.

Why you are the only supporter of the artical, and there have been sufficient rebuttals for the rest of us.

[Mojo]

Please, actually discuss the article.What is the point, if you consistently demonstrate a complete unwillingness (or inability) to discuss it yourself?

[Piggy]

Let's get this to 5,000 views.

Wow. If that's not evidence of pure attention-hog trolling, I don't know what is. Obviously, it's all about the view-count for this guy.

Why is he allowed to stay?

[T'ai Chi]

That is my guess for when people will contribute something of substance and focus on the actual article with relevant strong rebuttals.

[Brainache]

Here ya go Tai Chi: The article states X. People in this thread have stated that X is a load of bollocks. Tai Chi then says no one has refuted X. How is calling something a load of bollocks not dealing with the major point?

It is up to the author of the article to write something which is not a load of bollocks, if he wants to be taken seriously.

Likewise with your posts. If you were to actually, you know, say something, people might be able to engage you in debate. Unfortunately debate is not what you seek. I wonder what it is you want?




I know!::bunpan HOORAY!!

[delphi_ote]

Let's get this to 5,000 views.
Then 5,000 people will see how embarassing your behavior has been.

[CFLarsen]

Let's get this to 5,000 views.

I'll check back in then and see if people are discussing the actual article with relevant rebuttals.

What would constitute a relevant rebuttal?

[Piggy]

What would constitute a relevant rebuttal?

Well, posts 6, 19, 20, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101, for starters.

[ponderingturtle]

What would constitute a relevant rebuttal?

Mabey he is looking for a weaker one than the ones presented, so that he can show his superiority by poking holes in that?

[RichardR]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.

[ponderingturtle]

I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.

Quite right, we should wait for him to produce something worthy of a reply and then he will get it.

[Jeff Corey]

Don't hold your breath.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

This article is really sad, let's start with "Error #1: Mr. Mooney overpraises Darwin"

[quote]Mr. Mooney argues evolution is the “linchpin of modern biology,” and “a bedrock of modern science,” and one of the greatest intellectual achievements of human history.[quote/]
There is nothing wrong with this statement evolution in every significant way is the "linchpin of modern biology". Zoologists and Botanists use evolution to understand adaptations, behavior, and relationships. Molecular biologists can establish perhapse the strongest evidence for evolutionary relationships. Ecologists study the very forces that drive adaptation. So, every field in modern biology is connected through evolution.


"Error #2: Mr. Mooney claims ID traces itself to the theological arguments of William Paley"
Intelligent design is by definition an argument from design so from that point alone it is a decendant of the Paley argument. Also, while they never investigate the nature of the designer they admit that for design to be the case there must be a designer. So from that point it is also a decendant of Paley even though they don't say God both are arguments for a designer.
[quote]Finally, the modern theory of ID has experienced a surge in popularity due to the discoveries in the past 30-40 years in genetics, molecular biology, and cell biology which have revealed a world of complex microbiological machines and the digital language-based genetic code underlying all of life.[quote/]
Is he kidding? Each of those discoveries has done nothing but overwhelmingly confirm evolution, especially common descent. Also, the popularity of ID can be directly traced to the fall of creation science in the courts.

"Error #3: Mr. Mooney critiques a blatantly false, straw-man version of intelligent design"

[quote]Mr. Mooney argues that intelligent design is simply a negative “God-of-the-gaps” argument against evolution which appeals to supernatural.[quote/]
It is! Pointing to a very obscure biomolecular motor as evidence of ID is as GodoftheGaps as you get. They can't talk about ID as making the eye or the wing because the evolution of those organs is fairly well understood, the eye for example has evolved at least 40 seperate times. Also, Behe admitted in court that ID's appeal to the supernatural would open the door to astrology.

That's just the first three arguments. It's sad to see him deny that ID is what it is. Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

[Piggy]

Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?

[ponderingturtle]

Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?

You forgot it is also likely to be so illogical and missinformed that it is not even worth rebutting.