Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Quetzal · 08-06-2002, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
I've read about memes before, but I'm still a little unsure what they are. Can you enlighten me?

Can a person's receptivity to memes change due to religious conversion? Often, I've heard creationists say they used to "believe in" evolution (Usually, these days, they call it "Darwinism," which is rather quaint if you take it literally.), but now they see that it's all a big lie.

I wish I knew exactly how one can be unconvinced of things which are well supported by evidence and successfully indoctrinated in evidentially unsupported beliefs.

Social isolation? Need to follow a strong leader? Desperation for sure answers that never change? I don't know.

Hi Lizard:

A meme is to ideas and culture as a gene is to biology and evolution. Not all ideas are memes. To become a meme, an idea must be passed on to someone other than the person who thought it first - "replicated". "Beliefs," especially organized and promoted beliefs like "religion", are memes. Or, depending on how you think about them, cooperating groups of memes or "meme-sets".

In a theoretical sense (the whole concept is a bit squishy), you can take "memes" for given idea/behaviors and apply many of the rules and concepts of biology, genetics, population biology, and especially epidemiology to their persistence and spread in a population. See Brodie's book "Virus of the Mind", or Dawkins's article of the same name, for a more detailed discussion.

A meme survives by being passed on either vertically (to the next generation) or horizontally (to other members of the population). The memes (supposedly, and this is where I think the memetics folks take it too far)contain elements that program behavior to insure the meme is passed on. This propagation is more like a cold virus than a gene, afaik.

On the other hand, looking at memes and groups of memes from a biological sense is an interesting metaphor for how ideas persist and are transmitted.

Principia · 08-17-2002, 08:45 AM

Time for another installment of ID whining, this time <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=000009" target="_blank">here</a>. The center of earth-shaking controversy? Why, it's the mutt himself, being protected by his alpha, who was apparently on a moratorium from ARN:

Quote:

Secondly, the smear against Dembski is much worse. First, the accusation of "lying" is much more likely to be taken seriously because it is not crude. The crudity of DNAUnion's renders it "over the top," even to the point of parody. One has to wonder if DNAUnion had this "Dembski Lying?" post in mind and was provoking us all back to this glorious moment in ID Critic activity here at ARN. Secondly, our moderator is anonymous and is not personally damaged by such attacks. Clearly, in the case of Dembski, people were involved in character assassination.

I love it when the IDi[s]ts try to do damage control. It's the same ol' argument that when one of their own goes on a rampage, it's ... well, 'parody' or 'humo(u)r.' When the critics do the same, it's 'toxic' and 'grounds for bans,' or in the case of Dembski, downright unethical. Watch the mutt chase his own tail! Spin away!

PS: Apparently MG does lurk here from time to time. So, let's not spare our opinions, eh? BTW, the moderators of ARN are not that anonymous.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

hezekiah jones · 08-17-2002, 09:13 AM

Mike Gene is slippery isn't he. I think dayton is referring to the fact that the remarks were made towards a forum moderator, not some puffed up mathematician from Waco, who happens to be a public figure and thus fair game.

Most boards are especially protective against snide remarks made against moderators, are they not? Mike Gene can't properly draw an analogy between the moderator and the mathemetician.

Anyway I'm sure every time the mathematician sees his name on the internet, for good or ill, he gets a chub. It's an axiom of the Wedge Strategy: all publicity is good, even bad publicity.

RogerLeeCooke · 08-17-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Historically, most evolution critics have been scientifically illiterate religious zealots. But a growing number of serious scientists touting Ivy League credentials, multiple Ph.D.'s, and tenured professorships are challenging Darwin's previously incontrovertible academic standing. Many of these "evolution skeptics" adhere to what is known as Intelligent Design theory.

Note the subtle credential-mongering here. There have always been challenges to Darwinism, but the challenges are all lumped together with that vague word "many" to imply that ID is the main challenge.

Quote:

Intelligent Design (I.D.) argues that evolution can explain much about biology, but not everything. The immense complexity of DNA and the dizzying intricacy of the simplest cell were unknown prior to the 20th century. In light of these discoveries, current I.D. research assesses the limits of complexity that can originate through natural processes alone.

What research? What methodology? How in the world do they expect to put limits on what can happen without intelligent design?

Quote:

Advocates of Intelligent Design conclude that life's origins must have required an intervening intelligence, because natural reactions cannot produce such intricate biochemical structures.

However, this conclusion's possible theological implications have drawn severe attack from dogmatically secular academics: if scientific evidence implies the intervention of an intentional designer, the most logical designer probably would be a deity. Orthodox Darwinists are using their control over academic institutions, research facilities, political figures, state school boards, and national media to oppose research on this new theory.

Gee, would you say the author's personal opinion is showing through here in the guise of objective reporting? Naw, such phrases as "dogmatically secular academics" and "using their control over academic institutions..." just naturally occur when you are writing objectively.

Seriously, what this guy wants is the abolition of standards for research grants, tenure, etc. That ain't gonna happen. But if he really wants to research intelligent design, let him work on explaining the wonderful design in schistosomiasis, giardia, and all those other great parasites whose principal victims are innocent children.

Quote:

Atheism Impeding Science Challenges to Darwinism have been suppressed ever since Origin of Species' was published. Louis Agassiz, a 19th-century Harvard paleontologist and founding member of the National Academy of Sciences, was shunned by academia when he alleged that Darwinism gained prominence in spite of evidence. As he wrote in 1869, "Darwinism excludes nearly all the mass of acquired information," and "the explanation supplied by Darwin and his henchmen is not congruent with the facts."

Right. That explains why nobody ever heard of Agassiz, doesn't it. And of course, no new evidence for Darwinism has been added since 1869.

Quote:

However, within a decade of Origin of Species, only a handful of scientists retained their skepticism of the new theory. Darwinism's rapid success was, in part, religiously motivated. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Similarly, Michael Ruse, editor of the journal Biology and Philosophy, told the HPR, "Scientists have certainly introduced issues of atheism."

That is simply outrageous. The fact that one draws conclusions from facts does not imply that those conclusions were the motivation for the inference.

Quote:

Yet their dogmatic adherence to a materialist explanation of the universe is itself unscientific and has impeded scientific progress in the past. Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time that despite mounting evidence in the mid-20th century, scientists made "a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang," because that explanation "smacks of divine intervention." Afraid that the Big Bang's theological implications would unseat their atheistic dogma, scientists ignored evidence and resisted the true theory of the universe's origin for decades. Darwinist ideologues are similarly impeding current progress on Intelligent Design.

Is there no end to this guy's ability to make a mountain out of a molehill? A single sentence by Hawking is held to establish that scientists "ignored evidence." The mind boggles!

Quote:

Indeed, Darwinists have organized to counter I.D. research and education efforts. Skip Evans is Network Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a national political effort to suppress challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy. Evans said the NCSE opposes ideas and evidence that would "water down" Darwinism in the classroom. Critiques of evolution might "cast seeds of doubt in the students' minds," Evans told the HPR. Responding to I.D. theorists' allegations of institutional bias, Evans said they are "just whining" and "being crybabies."

But of course creationism *isn't* a political movement; it's scientific. That's why it does most of its work in front of church groups and PTA meetings.

Quote:

Censorship and Discrimination. Scientists and researchers who question Darwinism tell of intense censorship and job discrimination. A doctoral student had to leave Rice
University after he presented research casting doubt on Darwinism. Dr. Jed Macosko was denied a postdoctoral research position at Caltech because everyone the lab hired had to be "convinced of evolution," Macosko told the HPR.

Of course they do. Do you expect them to *admit* that they are idiots? How else can they explain their miserable failure as academics?

Quote:

At Baylor University, professor and I.D. theorist William Dembski experienced what he called "academic McCarthyism" from science faculty who withdrew funding from Dembski's research facility after discovering that his research challenged Darwinism. He compares doubting the Darwinian Orthodoxy to opposing the the party line of a Stalinist regime. "What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? That's the sort of situation we're in. You have to play your cards very close to the vest, and you can't really say what you're about," Dembski told the HPR.

Paranoia run rampant. But we do see what this is all about: the abolition of standards, so that imbeciles can get money to pursue their political/religious agenda.

And on and on it goes. This fool has some connection to Harvard, does he?

pz · 08-17-2002, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aahz:

1. On average the typical IDist has a piss poor understanding of probability theory (and mathematics in general). This goes even for fairly smart guys such as Mike Gene.

I am constantly seeing this casual praise for Mike Gene, and I really don't understand it. I'd say he has a piss poor understanding of the scientific method and biology, too. All I ever see from him is special pleading, paranoid whining about persecution, and vague and continually unrealized promises that he really is working on an ID-driven research program, honestly and truly.

The one thing he is right about is that he needs to keep his true identity under wraps. If I were on a search committee, and I could tie a candidate to promoting that blithering nonsense bandied about on the ARN board, I'd vote him down. The sin of the IDiots isn't that they are promulgating heresy, but that they are so damned incompetent at doing it scientifically.

RufusAtticus · 08-17-2002, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Historically, most evolution critics have been scientifically illiterate religious zealots. But a growing number of serious scientists touting Ivy League credentials, multiple Ph.D.'s, and tenured professorships are challenging Darwin's previously incontrovertible academic standing. Many of these "evolution skeptics" adhere to what is known as Intelligent Design theory.

Multiple PhD's? LOL! When I was applying to grad schools two years ago, no programs would take someone who already had a PhD. Credible science programs rarely accept PhD students if they already have a PhD. Every time I've seen a person claim multiple PhDs, at most only one was accredited.

Futhermore, I think most of the IVY League education in the ID movemonet is from Divinty Schools or Philosophy programs.

Bill · 08-17-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
Multiple PhD's? LOL! When I was applying to grad schools two years ago, no programs would take someone who already had a PhD. Credible science programs rarely accept PhD students if they already have a PhD. Every time I've seen a person claim multiple PhDs, at most only one was accredited.

Futhermore, I think most of the IVY League education in the ID movemonet is from Divinty Schools or Philosophy programs.

I am certain that well-known mainstream schools will give multiple PhDs, at least so long as they are not in the same department. As a case in point, we have the <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/menus/cv.html" target="_blank">Curriculum Vitae of William A. Dembski</a>, which includes:

Quote:

Education

B.A. - psychology - University of Illinois at Chicago - 1981
M.S. - statistics - University of Illinois at Chicago - 1983
S.M. - mathematics - University of Chicago - 1985
Ph.D. - mathematics - University of Chicago - 1988
M.A. - philosophy - University of Illinois at Chicago - 1993
Ph.D. - philosophy - University of Illinois at Chicago - 1996
M.Div. - theology - Princeton Theological Seminary - 1996

Note that Dembski first went for a series of degrees in math, then (after receiving his math PhD, he began studying Philosophy. And after receiving his Philosophy PhD, he began his Theology studies. Anybody want to bet that he will come up with a Doctor of Divinity degree at some point in the not too distant future?

== Bill

pz · 08-17-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:


Multiple PhD's? LOL! When I was applying to grad schools two years ago, no programs would take someone who already had a PhD. Credible science programs rarely accept PhD students if they already have a PhD. Every time I've seen a person claim multiple PhDs, at most only one was accredited.

Futhermore, I think most of the IVY League education in the ID movemonet is from Divinty Schools or Philosophy programs.

Yeah, most of the time getting a second Ph.D. is a total waste of time. The purpose of the degree is to show that one is capable of independent scholarship and creative thought in the process of creating new knowledge; it is not like getting certification in some skill at your local vocational college, although that's the way some of these creationist yahoos seem to treat it. Would they think Francis Crick and Seymour Benzer weren't properly trained to study biology because their Ph.D.s were in physics?

I can think of an exception, though. The process is so much different in the humanities than in the harder sciences that I don't think a Ph.D. in one would apply well in another. Jonathon Wells, for instance, would have been justified in getting that second Ph.D. in biology after his first in theology if he'd actually intended to learn new skills and apply them, instead of doing it solely to pander to the idiotic credophiles of creationism.

Dr.GH · 08-17-2002, 10:45 AM

I have had friends do multiple doctorates, but always in distant fields, and ofcourse there are a good number of MD/PhDs.

Starboy · 08-17-2002, 10:58 AM

Wouldn't it be great if having multiple degrees really meant that you knew something, that you would make important contributions to culture and the knowledge of mankind. If that were the case, I would have obtained multiple diplomas long ago. Please don�t get me wrong, education is necessary but it is not sufficient.

Starboy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2002, 09:13 AM	#63
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Mike Gene is slippery isn't he. I think dayton is referring to the fact that the remarks were made towards a forum moderator, not some puffed up mathematician from Waco, who happens to be a public figure and thus fair game. Most boards are especially protective against snide remarks made against moderators, are they not? Mike Gene can't properly draw an analogy between the moderator and the mathemetician. Anyway I'm sure every time the mathematician sees his name on the internet, for good or ill, he gets a chub. It's an axiom of the Wedge Strategy: all publicity is good, even bad publicity.

08-17-2002, 10:45 AM	#69
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	I have had friends do multiple doctorates, but always in distant fields, and ofcourse there are a good number of MD/PhDs.

08-17-2002, 10:58 AM	#70
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Wouldn't it be great if having multiple degrees really meant that you knew something, that you would make important contributions to culture and the knowledge of mankind. If that were the case, I would have obtained multiple diplomas long ago. Please don�t get me wrong, education is necessary but it is not sufficient. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.