tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3258499091167232418..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Michael Behe in Toronto: "What Are the Limits of Darwinism?"Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54651959634200364522013-03-18T02:18:09.476-04:002013-03-18T02:18:09.476-04:00sez luther flint: "Here's an interesting ...sez luther flint: "Here's an interesting point:<br /><br />a) science is the only way of knowing<br />b) we currently know some things were designed (eg, forks)<br />c) no current scientific analysis can tell us whether any thing was designed<br />d) there are non-scientific ways of knowing<br /><br />Which must we drop?"<br />c), the notion that "no current scientific analysis can tell us whether any thing was designed". The Design-detection methodology used by real science, requires a certain level of background information regarding the processes which were involved in the manufacture of the whatzit one is attempting to determine the Design-status of; ID-pushers <i>claim</i> to have some sort of Design-detection methodology which is in no way dependent on background knowledge of processes involved in manufacturing, but since no ID-pusher has ever managed to actually <i>make use of</i> the ID-based Design-detection methodology they claim to have, it is hardly any wonder why real scientists ain't buyin' what the ID-pushers are selling.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90259542888042650602013-03-17T22:23:57.971-04:002013-03-17T22:23:57.971-04:00By the way, I don't believe you when you claim...By the way, I don't believe you when you claim not to be an IDiot. If you weren't committed to the argument from design, then I cannot fathom why you'd get so hysterical when I gently hinted that "apparent design" might be a debatable proposition.<br /><br /><i>Apparent design has been established. The fact that you;re now trying to muddy these clear waters show exactly how low you are willing to stoop.</i><br /><br />That still can bring a chuckle to my lips—it was the second-funniest thing you'd said in this thread. And you still haven't shown how, when, where, and by whom "apparent design has been established".Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51334557276198800732013-03-17T22:03:22.975-04:002013-03-17T22:03:22.975-04:00There you go lying again. Ho hum.There you go lying again. Ho hum.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5927259764866506352013-03-17T14:00:38.427-04:002013-03-17T14:00:38.427-04:00@Nuillfildian
Now you're just supporting Mille...@Nuillfildian<br />Now you're just supporting Miller's misinterpretation despite previously admitting he "flubbed it". The problem being of course that in order to do so you have to completely ignore what else Behe says and engage in quote-mining. So yes, the particular definition Behe gives could be misconstrued in the way you suggest but, as noted, once Behe has pointed out the context of the definition where other functions are openly discussed it becomes clear that he is talking about the complete cessation of the specific system function and not any and all possible function. As Behe notes, that idea is silly because everything with mass can be a paper-weight.<br /><br />As regards "we wuz robbed" - I'm not a supporter of ID - I don't actually believe in ID - I just think scientists perjuring themselves for SCIENCE, and nobody within science having the balls to call them on it is scandalous. And, as noted above, the fact that such scurrilous behaviour delights you to the point where you are unable to help yourself performing a (perceived) victory dance, shows without doubt that you are anti-science. That is, you will get behind any old rubbish when your ideology is challenged.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21000885589013947812013-03-17T13:45:09.226-04:002013-03-17T13:45:09.226-04:00Re my supposed lie - you say "that" woul...<i>Re my supposed lie - you say "that" would be the lie, but you refer to three things - one is a statement about Miller (which is true); one is a statement about you finding it funny (which you do)</i><br /><br /><b>Bzzzzt!</b> Here is where you lie.<br /><br />What I find funny is that you're charging perjury, which is lying under oath about a material matter when your only evidence at the time was a website published three years before the trial which was not entered into evidence. That was what was funny. And it still is, though your insistence on the absurd allegation grows ever more tedious.<br /><br />Now you've found a portion from the trial which mirrors the website allegation. Unfortunately, he had just spent several minutes showing from Behe's own words that this was a plausible interpretation. E.g. (pg. 12, lines 1-11 at the site you provided:<br /><br /><i>Now the next slide is another quote of Dr. Behe's<br />that tries to make this point absolutely explicit as to<br />why you need the system to be working. He points out,<br />another quote, Darwin's Black Box, page 39, quote, Since<br />natural selection can only choose systems that are<br />already working -- and if you remember, his contention<br />is, if you're missing a part, you're not working -- then<br />if a biological system cannot be produced gradually, it<br />would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell<br />swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act<br />upon, closed quote.</i><br /><br />Now, if the parts themselves have selectable functions, this argument of Behe's on pg. 39 falls flat (it also falls flat when you consider neutral and nearly neutral theory, but I'll leave that aside). So at best, Behe's views on irreducible complexity are incoherent and IC means whatever Behe wishes it to mean, neither more nor less. The incoherent thinking of Behe, however, does not advance his cause nor does it suffice to sustain a charge of perjury. If it had, then the it's common sense that the defense lawyers would have been happy to make the charge. They certainly weren't beneath all sorts of scurrilous accusations when they were trying to prevent Barbara Forrest from testifying.<br /><br />So why didn't they respond? One can only conclude that Behe was either happy with Miller's testimony as it stood and didn't want to challenge it (and his <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/29/thank-you-michael-behe/" rel="nofollow">bragging about his trial testimony</a> without mentioning Miller does lend credence to this) or he knew that challenging Miller would risk revealing ID as the arbitrary epistemic mush it really is.<br /><br />But at least you've now shown that Miller at least made that statement in court. So you've taken that tiny baby step toward making your case. Now you need to show that this alleged falsehood was about a <b>material matter</b>—in other words, that it could potentially affect the trial's outcome if it were known about. So if Behe had piped up and pointed to that page you showed me, what would come of it? Would Jones have concluded that ID wasn't fundamentally religious? Would he have deemed it proper science? The article I linked quotes liberally from Jones' opinion regarding Behe's testimony, and it looks like this slight emendation wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference to the outcome of the trial.<br /><br />But don't let that deter you. Just keep on chanting "WE WUZ ROBBED!" I'm sure someone will believe you one day.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55151579155361906742013-03-17T13:20:08.279-04:002013-03-17T13:20:08.279-04:00@Nullfildian
Here is Miller in court:
"the e...@Nullfildian<br />Here is Miller in court:<br /><br />"the essence of the biochemical argument from irreducible<br />complexity, however, is that the individual parts of<br />that machine have no function of their own". (Day 1, pm, line 21 - http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_0926_day1_pm.pdf)<br /><br />This is false - we know it's false because Behe talks at length about the alternative function some parts of IC systems have (see my quote from DBB above). And we know Miller knows it is false because we have seen a video debate where Behe informs Miller of this and directs him to the parts of his book I am directing you to here (microtubules - part of the IC cilium - as structural supports in cells).<br /><br />So, Miller has lied for years about Behe's argument - let us assume at first he was just confused but after repeated tellings this defense can no longer wash - and many of these tellings were prior to the court appearance, and yet when Miller turned up in court he trotted out the same lie under oath and thus committed perjury. It's not really that difficult.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15228245720186835902013-03-17T13:03:52.923-04:002013-03-17T13:03:52.923-04:00@Nullifidian
Re my supposed lie - you say "th...@Nullifidian<br />Re my supposed lie - you say "that" would be the lie, but you refer to three things - one is a statement about Miller (which is true); one is a statement about you finding it funny (which you do); and the third is a conclusion based on those facts which may or may not follow (as it happens it does) but which could in no way be construed as a lie. Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19701051000351885842013-03-17T11:56:55.871-04:002013-03-17T11:56:55.871-04:00And in case #1 fails once again to make it through...And in case #1 fails once again to make it through your titanium cranium, the point of the statement is that you have not shown that Miller lied about a material matter <b>IN COURT</b>. You have to show that there was a lie told in open court and you have to show that it materially affected the ruling. Pointing me to a website that was published three years before the Dover ruling and which was <i>never entered into evidence</i> and therefore was never considered by Judge Jones in his ruling is not only insufficient, it's so wildly off the mark that one can only conclude that your insistence on the matter is either perversity or shows a completely inability to think.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77002225507338059442013-03-17T11:50:44.835-04:002013-03-17T11:50:44.835-04:001. One does not commit perjury by having been wron...1. One does not commit perjury by having been wrong once in one's life and <i>then</i> testifying at trial. Perjury is lying in a sworn statement (notarized affidavit, deposition, or trial testimony) about a material matter. "Website" is not among those three. The fact that you cannot understand this despite having been told repeatedly suggests that you are intellectually negligible.<br /><br />2. "A quite deliberate attempt to do down Behe's argument by misrepresentation. I'm glad you find that funny because that fact alone tells us all we need to know about your scientific integrity." - This would be the lie in question.<br /><br />3. Three cheers for heuristically vacuous hypotheses!Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90429007309739490932013-03-17T10:56:53.437-04:002013-03-17T10:56:53.437-04:00Here's an interesting point:
a) science is th...Here's an interesting point:<br /><br />a) science is the only way of knowing<br />b) we currently know some things were designed (eg, forks)<br />c) no current scientific analysis can tell us whether any thing was designed<br />d) there are non-scientific ways of knowing<br /><br />Which must we drop?Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73367546150864155542013-03-17T10:48:43.356-04:002013-03-17T10:48:43.356-04:00@Nulklfildin
1. Miller wasn't simply wrong - h...@Nulklfildin<br />1. Miller wasn't simply wrong - he lied. He knew what Behe meant (we know this because we can see Behe telling him and showing him the parts in his book which shows Miller is misrepresenting him), yet Miller has continued to deliberately misrepresent the argument. That's all well and good in science, but to do it in court is called perjury. Deal with it.<br /><br />2. Where did I lie? The only point we've discussed in depth was Miller. I said Miller misrepresented Behe and it turns out he did. That's called being right and that means I told the truth (or twoof, if you prefer). <br /><br />3. As regards the IC core, lol, it's pretty easy, you just examine what the overall function of the system is and what parts are essential for this type of function - and that's the IC core. So, for example, in a mousetrap the maker's name is not part of the IC core, whereas the hammer and the spring are. It's actually a very simple argument that any 12 year old - free from contrary ideological commitments - could understand.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33659210832250789092013-03-17T07:10:44.287-04:002013-03-17T07:10:44.287-04:00Piotr writes,
'Andy, if could explain the orig...Piotr writes,<br />'Andy, if could explain the origin of life without invoking an otherwise unknown alien, who would need the alien?'<br /><br />We wouldn't (need the alien). <br />And we can't (explain the origin of life).<br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74184584957818088522013-03-17T05:58:37.069-04:002013-03-17T05:58:37.069-04:00Piotr writes, '... Things would be different i...Piotr writes, '... Things would be different if the alien were less enigmatic ...'<br /><br />No argument there. If there IS a God, then it is clearly a far less urgent matter to 'Him' that he be recognized than it is to 'His' proponents. ;)andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50277707625193584562013-03-17T05:30:00.907-04:002013-03-17T05:30:00.907-04:00Correction: ... if WE could explain...Correction: ... if WE could explain...Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77802771254544259032013-03-17T05:29:14.582-04:002013-03-17T05:29:14.582-04:00Andy, if could explain the origin of life without ...Andy, if could explain the origin of life without invoking an otherwise unknown alien, who would need the alien? And if we couldn't, the "alien" explanation wouldn't help either, being a clear case of <i>obscurum per obscurius</i>. Things would be different if the alien were less enigmatic and we had some insight into his intentions and methods. But IDers have this mantra: "We are discussing the Design, not the Designer!" Ah well, if so, then <i>entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem</i>.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77885034219531876042013-03-17T02:41:33.928-04:002013-03-17T02:41:33.928-04:00...but when you do it in court it's called per...<i>...but <b>when</b> you do it in court it's called perjury.</i><br /><br />"When." One does not commit perjury by having been wrong once in one's life and <i>then</i> testifying at trial. Perjury is lying in a sworn statement (notarized affidavit, deposition, or trial testimony) about a material matter. "Website" is not among those three. The fact that you cannot understand this despite having been told repeatedly suggests that you are intellectually negligible.<br /><br /><i>Miller has taken some redundant parts away and the cillium still works, but that does not deal with the IC core of an IC system.</i><br /><br />Exactly what I said: "Behe responded that these systems were therefore not part of the 'IC core'—three cheers for heuristically vacuous hypotheses!" Behe provides no way of identifying an "IC core" except in retrospect; it's always what we don't have an evolutionary explanation for yet. So it's useless as a guide to investigation or as anything other than a prop for shoring up the worldview of people who can't come to terms with evolutionary biology.<br /><br /><i>And of course you're anti-science - why else get behind obvious lies when your religious ideology is challenged.</i><br /><br />The only person lying during the course of this 'conversation' has been you. Now while I'm sure you find working through the contents of your delusional system fascinating, I feel rather like someone who has been buttonholed by someone on the intellectual plane of a 9/11 Troofer. And like any Troofer, you have all sorts of malign reasons you've concocted for anyone who doesn't buy your BS must be an agent of the conspiracy of silence. Give it a rest, you tedious old fart.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62228459053375759632013-03-17T00:12:08.086-04:002013-03-17T00:12:08.086-04:00Lutesite writes, ' I don't think we can as...Lutesite writes, ' I don't think we can assume that their concept of music would so closely resemble ours (if they even have music at all) that they would be able to recognize it as music. '<br /><br />And Piotr writes, 'Yeah, but if you don't know anything about the hypothetical designer and his intentions, a repetition might just as well have been produced by a blind process. '<br /><br />Inasmuch as these might be considered arguments for ruling out design, they also seem to make a decent case for - if we are to accord human beings a certain degree of expertise concerning the behavior of design itself - allowing a certain amount of leeway, and giving the benefit of the doubt to arguing for an 'alien' designer, precisely BECAUSE we can't expect 'it' to have sufficient common ground with us that we could instantly know that design has taken place. Yet, if we observe things like I mentioned earlier, that definite patterns and themes are apparent, that repetition where it occurs is not simply mindless, but appears to obey some type of logic (such as the spaces between words rather than jus tha vin gsp ace sap pea raf ter eve ryt hre e letters) then, rather than ruling out design because we can't prove it, we might choose to give ourselves, and the 'alien' enough credit to conclude within reasonable doubt that we are looking at a designed object. Just as aliens who are competent in design might be able to discern a mind behind Shakespeare's sonnets and Bach's compositions based on what they could observe about them.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73612399233311540152013-03-16T23:47:34.647-04:002013-03-16T23:47:34.647-04:00Piotr writes, "Words, words words"
Yes,...Piotr writes, "Words, words words"<br /><br />Yes, indeed; that's what they are. Just as 'we must postulate only blind, mechanistic forces as explanation for all features of biology' is words, words, words.<br /><br />Sorry that I didn't know how to mime my response to you.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25736356657676380132013-03-16T22:47:20.014-04:002013-03-16T22:47:20.014-04:00Allan, yes; agreed and understood. In a 'speci...Allan, yes; agreed and understood. In a 'specific putative case' you would need to show the strength of the design argument over the 'evolution' argument. Perhaps not, for my satisfaction, 'rule out' natural mechanisms , but at the very least clearly demonstrate why design can be considered a stronger explanation.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42321192450512900652013-03-16T19:58:17.136-04:002013-03-16T19:58:17.136-04:00lutesite, understood. That wasn't what I meant...lutesite, understood. That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to the design OF a piano, as a creation. The inventor's knowledge and skill used to create and tune for the right sequences, in the right position, not leave anything out, etc. Stopping at high notes and low notes, presumably for both reasons of space- can't have a piano as long as a bar - and efficiency (i.e., no need to create keys for notes that aren't pleasing to the human ear).andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20718943814639596902013-03-16T19:52:09.844-04:002013-03-16T19:52:09.844-04:00Jim, I really like your answer, and for the most p...Jim, I really like your answer, and for the most part accept it. One thing I particularly like about it is that you write that ID fails 'for me'. This is an important point, I feel. You have used your own personal experiences to inform your philosophy, and I value that more than any sort of right/wrong arguments. I respect other people who also use THEIR life experiences, and arrive at completely different points of views from yours. I respect people like Jung and Wallace, who like you devoted years of their lives to complex studies, and I respect people like Jackie Robinson and Harriet Tubman, who used their faith-inspired lives to make the world a better place. All of these people achieved a personal philosophy, very different from yours, that was coherent for them and served them, just as you have.<br /><br />The only part I disagree with you about is the end. I think there are any number of reasons other than a refusal to accept our humble place in the universe as reasons why people strongly feel that they live in a created universe.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40641475668351406702013-03-16T17:21:09.220-04:002013-03-16T17:21:09.220-04:00@Nullfildian
The issue is simple - Miller knows wh...@Nullfildian<br />The issue is simple - Miller knows what Behe said and chooses to misrepresent it because misrepresenting it gives him nice easy argument against. This might be fine within the scientific community who just want to be left alone to develop their theory free from the inconvenience of any challenge, but when you do it in court it's called perjury. <br /><br />And while I know that must come as a shock to you the facts are the facts - Miller lied, and has been lying for 15 years, and nobody (almost nobody) within academia has had the balls to call him on it. As for the cillium, the same argument stands - Miller has taken some redundant parts away and the cillium still works, but that does not deal with the IC core of an IC system. That is, at some point we will get to a stage where parts cannot be removed without losing system function - it is at that point that Behe's argument begins - not when you scratch the maker's name off a mousetrap.<br /><br />And of course you're anti-science - why else get behind obvious lies when your religious ideology is challenged.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34136353453650646452013-03-16T15:23:46.049-04:002013-03-16T15:23:46.049-04:00Because the recurrence of the same note, only an o...Because the recurrence of the same note, only an octave higher, each time the frequency is doubled is purely a matter of physics. Unless I've misunderstood you, and your merely talking about the physical arrangement of the keyboard into alternating sets of two and three black keys. Even then, such an arrangement could easily occur in nature (Piotr has given the example of repetitive patterns in a genome)Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87270868772405263022013-03-16T15:06:49.012-04:002013-03-16T15:06:49.012-04:00"You're not using the repetition of octav..."You're not using the repetition of octaves on a piano as an example of purposeful repetition, are you?"<br />well, obviously, I am. Please explain why I shouldn't be.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44566264576539966862013-03-16T14:52:40.424-04:002013-03-16T14:52:40.424-04:00Yeah, but if you don't know anything about the...Yeah, but if you don't know anything about the hypothetical designer and his intentions, a repetition might just as well have been produced by a blind process. You speak MLK's language, you understand the words and the syntax, and you know what effects can be achieved by repeating a key phrase. Repetition per se means nothing, means nothing, means nothing. For example, a genome may contain plenty of repeated patterns accidentaly amplified by processes such as replication slippage. They are about as purposeful as the repetition of a musical fragment by a broken record. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.com