tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2057483343519979955..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: How Does an Intelligent Design Creationist Write a Ph.D. Thesis?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49101964384293193322008-03-14T09:30:00.000-04:002008-03-14T09:30:00.000-04:00And why only deprive the yet-to-be-annointed of th...<I>And why only deprive the yet-to-be-annointed of the degree that they've paid for and the career it promises? </I><BR/><BR/>There's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. You don't pay for a Ph.D. Graduate research is an opportunity to demonstrate ability in a field; you could dump buckets of money into it and it wouldn't make the slightest difference in whether you could make progress towards <B>earning</B> a degree (not to mention that respectable grad programs in biology <I>pay you</I> to be in them.)<BR/><BR/>Also, the Ph.D. examination is an opportunity for the attendees to question the candidate hard, and they should. Both Ross and Durston are people who have raised what they claim are very serious, very difficult questions about the premises of their research in other settings; those same questions should be considered fair game in the examination. If Ross could explain why his specimens are actually, accurately 70 million years old in his thesis presentation, then sure, he should be given the degree. If his committee fails to bring up the question that he himself has publicly asked, then it's their failure.<BR/><BR/>I want people like Larry on every Ph.D. review committee. I had a couple, and they made me sweat blood. Ross apparently had a team of pushovers who basically handed him his degree without question, and that's just wrong. Apparently, they had your idea that a Ph.D. was something you just bought.PZ Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10911078800554129822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50080299103755790252007-12-07T10:14:00.000-05:002007-12-07T10:14:00.000-05:00The pope was referring to evolution, which, as you...The pope was referring to evolution, which, as you may know, is accepted as fact by the church.<BR/><BR/>I would be nice if you embraced that part of the catholic tradiiton.<BR/><BR/>But I doubt it.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29444085766946120432007-12-07T06:47:00.000-05:002007-12-07T06:47:00.000-05:00Sanders said… “the catholic church can see that to...Sanders said… “the catholic church can see that too. You know, a religion with some actual tradition.”<BR/><BR/>Dragon replies… As a protestant evangelical Christian, my tradition inseparably includes Catholic tradition and history, and I embrace it earnestly and affectionately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85692185072789842782007-12-07T06:41:00.000-05:002007-12-07T06:41:00.000-05:00Sanders said… “Didn't the pope say: "the truth can...Sanders said… “Didn't the pope say: "the truth cannot contradict the truth"?<BR/><BR/>Dragon replies… You said a lot of interesting things for which present time doesn’t allow a response. I will take your word that the Pope did say, “"the truth cannot contradict the truth." I personally would take that statement to mean that what we observe as nature (the general revelation of nature and the material) is true. I think naturalists and creationists could agree on that, unlike some of the ‘Eastern’ persuasions. But, what is the other “truth’ to which you and the Pope refer? For me the other “truth” is the Bible (special revelation) – a revelation that is outside the natural but consistent with it (same Creator) and it comports with man’s unique non-physical qualities and experience in the world better than the idea of random accidental purposelessness (see my reply to Larry above.). When you feel like it, in the limits of a blog, you may wish to help me understand how you as an atheist define the second reference to “truth”.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31696435818753792312007-12-07T06:17:00.000-05:002007-12-07T06:17:00.000-05:00Larry Moran said… “Just make sure your press relea...Larry Moran said… “Just make sure your press release is accurate. My worldview is rational and scientific as opposed to superstitious.”<BR/><BR/>Dragon replies… Sometime I’d welcome a post that explains how the source of a naturalist’s worldview, the foundation of man’s reasoning and intelligence, was not itself rational (endowed with reason), and was not personal (self-aware, intelligent), and was not teleological (purposive) – but was rather an accidental random non-rational impersonal purposeless (referring to your own previous statements) and blind ‘natural’ process that managed to produce man’s rational faculties. Maybe you could explain how such a view is “rational and scientific” and not “superstitious.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15648406187753693602007-12-06T10:37:00.000-05:002007-12-06T10:37:00.000-05:00Dragon , you are as fake as a three dollar bill, b...Dragon , you are as fake as a three dollar bill, but I'll answer, Briefly, I hope (for my own sake)<BR/><BR/>You can be a naturalist and at the same time be a theist. None of this would require you to introduce the supernatural to the science, nor deny evolution, a fact, as if it were false.<BR/> <BR/>I am an atheist but I'm definitely not into scientism. Science is not everything even if it is my favorite. I consider philosophy is essential. I have no problem with the existence of religion, great achievements of intelect have and can arise within religious thinking (specially in the area of huanism). I am a left wing pluralist person. I can appreciate the human dimension of religion.<BR/><BR/>I only have a problem with particular groups of anglo evangelical christians who need to deny a well establishd fact and then introduce the supernatural into "scientifc" explanation. It's a sorry mess. <BR/><BR/>This is not to say the metaphysical appreciation are "false" you are welcome to think that rubisco, snow crystals and the bees knees reflect a world designed by the creator. But evolution has to be false for that to work? That is, quite plainly, religion gone wrong. I like sophisticated religions, not dogmatic ones. <BR/><BR/>Sure I am no theologian but at least the catholic church can see that too. You know, a religion with some actual tradition. Didin't the pope say: "the truth cannot contradict the truth"A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43502654878944013962007-12-06T10:09:00.000-05:002007-12-06T10:09:00.000-05:00Dragon replies... Thank you for admitting that you...<I>Dragon replies... Thank you for admitting that you promote a "worldview" in addition to practicing science. :-) May I issue a press release? :-)</I><BR/><BR/>You're very welcome.<BR/><BR/>Just make sure your press release is accurate. My worldview is rational and scientific as opposed to superstitious.<BR/><BR/>Within evolutionary theory, I advocate a pluralist worldview as opposed to an adaptationist worldview.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47877821852508150652007-12-06T09:42:00.000-05:002007-12-06T09:42:00.000-05:00Larry said... "The "Reasons to Believe" website .....Larry said... "The "Reasons to Believe" website ... [is] promoting a different worldview.<BR/><BR/>Dragon replies... Thank you for admitting that you promote a "worldview" in addition to practicing science. :-) May I issue a press release? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63045887368582435842007-12-06T09:29:00.000-05:002007-12-06T09:29:00.000-05:00Dragon says,Two qualified biochemists, like Larry ...Dragon says,<BR/><BR/><I>Two qualified biochemists, like Larry Moran and Fazale Rana (my source for the Rubisco information) can look at the same empirical data and come to different conclusions – why? Possibly because of their respective worldviews.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure that's correct. My view of the science is correct and it can be easily checked by reading the scientific literature.<BR/><BR/>The "Reasons to Believe" website, on the other hand, is much less concerned about trivia such as scientific accuracy because they are promoting a different worldview.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1717250814229050852007-12-06T08:16:00.000-05:002007-12-06T08:16:00.000-05:00Larry Moran said… “There may be some adaptationist...Larry Moran said… “There may be some adaptationist biochemists who see rubisco as an example of perfect design but they are wrong.”<BR/><BR/>Dragon replies… My reason for offering a creationistic interpretation of rubisco was to show how much like a marriage this all is. In a marriage, each person is equally qualified as a marriage partner, but can look at the same thing and come away with two completely different perspectives. Two qualified biochemists, like Larry Moran and Fazale Rana (my source for the Rubisco information) can look at the same empirical data and come to different conclusions – why? Possibly because of their respective worldviews.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72813098156999296002007-12-06T06:33:00.000-05:002007-12-06T06:33:00.000-05:00Dragon replies to Sander’s, if you’re still there....Dragon replies to Sander’s, if you’re still there.<BR/><BR/>Sanders, if I failed to notice that I dropped a personal check at the grocery store, you'd probably pick it up and offer it to me politely, and I'd say "thank you." If you saw me at the side of the road with a car problem, you'd probably use your mobile phone to call for help for me. Yet, you stridently react when I express a distinctly different view or 'interpretation' of what science may be revealing (not science interpreted through naturalistic eyes). If you are what I typically term a “naturalist” - a belief in naturalism, materialism, humanism, physicalism, scientism, atheism, etc., and you arbitrarily and without any acknowledged theological scholarship reject the possibility of any non-natural, non-material or spiritual reality - I am very puzzled as to how you can adopt such a seemingly certain attitude about nature/science, when nature/science is so full of ambiguity. Especially when my perception of naturalism is that at its core it is irrational, and as purposeless as evolution. I don’t mean this is in a harsh manner. I just mean that I don’t understand how one can be so scientific when it comes to nature and so seemingly unscientific when it comes to the many things in life that are not so easily measured – and why you so strongly object to someone like me who sees an obvious correlation between nature and the supernatural (“supernatural” really needs definition).<BR/><BR/>I think that this is the dynamic that creeps into the issuance of Ph.D.'s and I don't understand it.<BR/><BR/>DragonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53945446817805127882007-12-06T05:44:00.000-05:002007-12-06T05:44:00.000-05:00AgreedAgreedTimothy V Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913020911593893925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67006647216646505762007-12-05T18:25:00.000-05:002007-12-05T18:25:00.000-05:00Denying evolution does seem to me an unscientific ...Denying evolution does seem to me an unscientific direction to take, regardlss of whether there are religious motivations or not.<BR/>Plus I have no problem with people having religion. i am not the kind who thinks religion is instrinsically evil, for instance (though it can usually be perfected, heh)A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48298899553455705192007-12-05T18:16:00.000-05:002007-12-05T18:16:00.000-05:00Thinking evolution could not being true is about a...Thinking evolution could not being true is about as valuable as thinking that the heliocentric model or continental drift is false. So many unexplained data requiring explanations and corrections are required it is is obviously not the logicla position to take. And yes, this is a matter of where logic, as well as experience, will leads us, whether we like it or not.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43939090639224745742007-12-05T13:48:00.000-05:002007-12-05T13:48:00.000-05:00Don’t worry Sanders I’m with on evolution, but I c...Don’t worry Sanders I’m with on evolution, but I can’t yet elevate it to a logical truism, and hence I have a certain amount of studied reserve. You seem less reserved than myself. Don’t feel inhibited by the thought that should alternatives to evolution seem unthinkable in our milieu, then if our current conceptions of evolution prove false, this gives the green light to ID ‘interventionism’; It certainly doesn’t – I say that even though I am theist. In any case I wonder if you’re lack of reserve is a subliminal reaction to the threat of this ‘green light’? What worries me, is that because I can’t match your lack of reserve you are going against something you yourself have said:<BR/><BR/>I guess it's the usual, "either you are with me or you are with evil religion" moral predicament.<BR/><BR/>True I’m into theism, but not necessarily anti-evolutionism. Ironically perhaps you do share a cognitive complex with the ID people; evolution false => ID true!!!!<BR/><BR/>Counterfactuals I think they call them!Timothy V Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913020911593893925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77333793940384585282007-12-05T11:58:00.000-05:002007-12-05T11:58:00.000-05:00Dragon says,I’ve read that biochemists have discov...Dragon says,<BR/><BR/><I>I’ve read that biochemists have discovered that Rubisco’s perceived ‘confusion’ is not faulty but reflects a beneficial tradeoff between the interaction of the two gasses, molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide. Therefore, what was often viewed by naturalists as an error in design and supportive of evolution theory is actually a perfect design and cannot be improved upon.</I><BR/><BR/>There may be some adaptationist biochemists who see rubisco as an example of perfect design but they are wrong. It's easy to show this by re-designing rubisco to make it more efficient at fixing oxygen. This makes plants grow better.<BR/><BR/>I covered this last summer in a series of posting on the Calvin Cycle. Here's the third article on rubisco [<A HREF="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/fixing-carbon-building-better-rubisco.html" REL="nofollow">Fixing Carbon: Building a Better Rubisco</A>].Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-905645244268018142007-12-05T11:19:00.000-05:002007-12-05T11:19:00.000-05:00Rubisco...is important for tastinguh...wha?As far ...<I>Rubisco...is important for tasting</I><BR/>uh...wha?<BR/>As far as I know, rubisco's only function is in the Calvin cycle of photosynthesis--it's often stated to be the most abundant protein on the planet. I also suspect you have misinterpreted the claim of "near perfection"...presumably you're talking about <A HREF="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/19/7246?lookupType=volpage&vol=103&fp=7246&view=short" REL="nofollow">this</A>?<BR/>I'd be interested in the opinion of a biochemist on the subject...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67290019563651179062007-12-05T10:39:00.000-05:002007-12-05T10:39:00.000-05:00Timothy:Don't remain on the lookout for ID too lon...Timothy:<BR/>Don't remain on the lookout for ID too long: it is impossible to scientifically discuss hypotheses of "supernatural intervention". Hence they are never falsified nor confirmed by science.<BR/>It looks to me that you are playing coy, as if evolution could just happen to be false. Maybe you are a another phony like dragon who actually need to think evolution is false to be able to belive in god.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16408629689974869452007-12-05T10:01:00.000-05:002007-12-05T10:01:00.000-05:00Oh, so rubisco is proof god existsyou forgot to in...Oh, so rubisco is proof god exists<BR/>you forgot to include the bee's knees...they bend oh so perfectly<BR/>bye dragon, and this time, it's for good.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55762600092302854592007-12-05T05:59:00.000-05:002007-12-05T05:59:00.000-05:00Dragon replies to Sander’s many loose and ill-defi...Dragon replies to Sander’s many loose and ill-defined accusations by simply giving an amateur's example of creationist’s interpretation of science. What I represent in the spiritual references is not "spiritualism" but correlation to scripture. I wonder if this would pass muster in Larry’s class.<BR/><BR/>The protein Rubisco (ribulose1,5-biophosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) is important for tasting and is sometimes considered inefficient, wasteful and even error prone, due to its seeming tendency to ‘confuse’ molecular oxygen for carbon dioxide (A mistake?), which makes unwanted compounds, which naturalists often view as faulty design and more like an evolutionary process (Certainly a perfect ‘designer’ wouldn’t do such poor work.). <BR/><BR/>I’ve read that biochemists have discovered that Rubisco’s perceived ‘confusion’ is not faulty but reflects a beneficial tradeoff between the interaction of the two gasses, molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide. Therefore, what was often viewed by naturalists as an error in design and supportive of evolution theory is actually a perfect design and cannot be improved upon. It reflects a perfect God/Designer, one that leaves a good ‘taste’ in your mouth.<BR/><BR/>Rubisco also apparently plays an important role in photosynthesis. Maybe Genesis 1:30 is referring to Rubisco, “I give every green plant for food.”<BR/><BR/>DragonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75948119936922998542007-12-05T00:46:00.000-05:002007-12-05T00:46:00.000-05:00OK I feel bad about saying that but I had already ...OK I feel bad about saying that but I had already stooped to try to explain something to the dogmatic iron curtain of this dragon individual. Introduce supernaturalism to science? yeah, why onot. BY denying a basic facts of science? suuuuure, of course.<BR/>believe me, this one is the "beyond repair" kindA. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67323904236060539672007-12-04T18:16:00.000-05:002007-12-04T18:16:00.000-05:00Hi Sanders: Thanks for your replies and hope your ...Hi Sanders: Thanks for your replies and hope your publishing goes well. I’ll be interested in looking at it if you let me have the reference should it get published, not that I’d be an expert judge of it!Timothy V Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913020911593893925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69203644263816474592007-12-04T18:15:00.000-05:002007-12-04T18:15:00.000-05:00Thanks for the reply Larry. I’m in no position to ...Thanks for the reply Larry. I’m in no position to disagree with your assessment of Kirk Durston’s science or ‘non-science’ or of his chances of ultimately gaining a PhD.<BR/><BR/>Why do you ask if I am wishing that ID creationism is good science? Isn’t nearly as easy to ask me if I am wishing that ID creationism is not good science? – After all, as I have put my money behind the evolutionary horse, this might seem to be the question with a stronger reason for asking. But, needless to say, as I have admitted to being a theist, I suppose it’s understandable for you to think that I would be ‘mentally set up’ to favor an ‘ID’ type relation between creator and created! <BR/><BR/>Is ID science good science? Well, that’s another reason why I’m here - to find out. But having said that let me say that when I think about ID my mind starts to buzz with other questions like: just what is intelligence? How does intelligence achieve what it does? Does the human model of intelligence give us some insight into the nature of Divine intelligence? Where does AI and algorithmics fit in all this? And above all: What bearing does the fact that the epistemological tractability and ontology of an object are bound together, have on this whole issue of a ‘Creator’? I would like to know if ID people ask these kinds of questions, but as far as I can see ‘God did it, end of story’, does seem to be the ID way so far. ID people; please correct me if I am wrong.<BR/><BR/>To cut a long (and boring) but developing story short: my current theological views (or in your terms ‘my superstitions’!) are starting to form links with evolution and so I am genuinely concerned about the protein-folding question. Moreover, it impinges upon some of my very hobbyist level science/maths/philosphy projects, and so I am personally rather anxious to see this Durston protein folding ‘road block’ to evolution settled one way or the other. No Larry, it’s got nothing to do with me wishing that ID is good science, trust me! I want to get the road block cleared so I can make progress in those big questions that concern us all - such as the meaning of life, the universe and everything! (make that ‘the lack meaning of life, the universe and everything’ in your case!)Timothy V Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913020911593893925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31289297824173539182007-12-04T18:13:00.000-05:002007-12-04T18:13:00.000-05:00Hi Dragon. Glad you’re still with us in spite of t...Hi Dragon. Glad you’re still with us in spite of the insults. I once challenged some Jehovah’s witnesses about their organization’s failure to predict world events. Because I was beyond the pale of their community I was automatically discounted as a lair, even though I have documentation I have collected to back up my claim. But the doorstep JW has a ‘reality simplifying heuristic’, namely: “This person is beyond the pale, and is likely to be a liar, and therefore his claims aren’t worth following up”. (A JW once suggested that I was a ‘lover of lies’) <BR/><BR/>The lesson here? A certain amount of social identification and dis-identification does figure in the way we take up information and this helps us select relevant information from a great tide of incoming information. In fact, and I have said this somewhere in the depths of this very blog, MOST of the information any SINGLE person acquires about our world doesn’t come directly through experimentation, but via social texts and texts come from people. Hence, in one sense science is a social phenomenon. So it is clear why there is a need for ad hominem; for personalities and what personalities say are de-facto evidences and act as vicarious stand-ins for experimental protocols when it is impossible for us to collect those protocols first hand. So, expect the insults to continue! (unfortunately!).<BR/><BR/>As you may remember I actually favor evolution over ID, but I have got lots of time for people like yourself and Kirk Durston. However, as I am theist I am also a natural target for distrust in spite of my tentative evolutionary stance….…Timothy V Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913020911593893925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25694549837482886832007-12-04T11:26:00.000-05:002007-12-04T11:26:00.000-05:00the worst thing is that when nature speaks loud an...the worst thing is that when nature speaks loud and clear , ypu acnnot ignore it; but you guys justify your supernaturla belief on the denial of perfectly well established natural facts. <BR/><BR/>When the natural fact is there, you CANNOT ditch, much less for mere supernaturalism...it's os unscientific at allmlevels, Dragon. You guys are hopeless.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.com