"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[T'ai Chi]

An interesting article 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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Just read it, then get back to us.

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote-mine.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

An interesting article 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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

An interesting article 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]

Originally Posted by thomps1d

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]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

First, you present your point.

That would require him to have one.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

He has one,

I see no evidence for this...

Quote:

...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]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

[bjb]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

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

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

I got as far as the 4th word in the into before spotting a blatant error.

Quote:

While intelligent design scientists...

Intelligent design scientists; oxymoron

[Mid]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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

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

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Then you haven't been to Stormfront

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

So no rebuttal then.

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

[Jono]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

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;

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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!?!?!