Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 11-26-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Funny how Langan keeps complaining about ID critics posting under pseudonyms, but doesn't criticize Mike Gene for doing the same thing.

The hypocrisy is astounding isn't it? Over at the Superbrains board, warren bergerson and Gina were bitching about how ARN should mandate that everyone reveal their identity. Guess they forgot about their favorite resident cLoWn.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

theyeti · 11-26-2002, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by faded_Glory:
ARN has become the Chris Langan Masturbation Society with Jazzraptor (Moderator 4) as the chief wanker. It has only taken them a few weeks to degenerate from moderately entertaining to excrutiatingly boring.

That's about the long and short of it. Langan and his parrot have basically ruined that board. What they hope to gain is beyond me, because 1) Langan doesn't want to discuss his magnum opus; if you have to ask, you're apparently too stupid to bother with. 2) Langan doesn't want to discuss biology. His only attempt at doing so made him look foolish (see the mutation wrt fitness discussions) and rather than defend his illogical claims, he simply resorted to name-calling. (Again, his premise is that if you disagree with him, you must be stupid and not worth responding to.) And 3), pretty much every interesting poster has had it with the forum since the arrival of Langan and his troll companion, especially given the double standard that's being used for moderation. What's left? Is there any point to ARN that Langan couldn't have fulfilled with his other self-glorifying forums?

Quote:

They have banned nearly all dissenting voices, and I predict charlie d will be next. The place is a waste of bandwidth.

I don't think they banned more than a few people. I don't agree with their bannings except for maybe one case, but most people simply left because the forum is now useless. It's just a forum for Langan to blow his hot air. I certainly don't see any point in participating. I predict that charlie d, along with the handful of others like Jesse, will leave them to wallow in their own shit sooner or later.

theyeti

Principia · 12-04-2002, 11:17 AM

And as expected, DuMbsKi <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000506" target="_blank">moans and bitches</a> about not getting the last word against Orr in the <a href="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.5/exchange.html" target="_blank">Boston Review article</a>.

Quote:

A moment ago I remarked that unless intelligent design can rule out Darwinism as a strict logical impossibility, Orr regards intelligent design as waste of time and as having no scientific traction against Darwinism. The question we should be asking is why Orr, as a scientist, raises the standard so high against intelligent design. Certainly he realizes that as a criterion for judging claims, strict logical possibility/impossibility applies only in mathematics. Orr might answer that intelligent design proponents have themselves set so high a standard and that he is merely reporting that fact. But Orr was reviewing my book No Free Lunch, and I carefully avoid tying intelligent design's critique of Darwinism to the unreasonably high standard of logical impossibility or mathematical certainty (though, granted, I employ mathematics). Nor does a charitable reading of Behe yield such an interpretation. So let me pose the question again: Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?

Quote:

In the theory of intelligent design, causal specificity comes up in the antecedent circumstances that condition (but do not determine, explain, or account for) creative innovation. Antecedent circumstances condition the possibilities of creative innovation. Technologies, for instance, evolve by building on previous technologies. But they evolve in the first instance by inventors having ideas. Where do those ideas come from? Causal specificity is not much help here. No set of antecedent circumstances can account for a creative innovation. Antecedent circumstances, however, need definitely to be considered for their effect on constraining the innovations that are produced. Beethoven, for instance, could not have written music for the piano until after the piano was invented. Hegel generalizes this point beautifully with regard to the unfolding of culture, showing how one cultural advance builds on the next. But note that for Hegel it is intelligence (Geist) that does the building and not brute material processes.

The ultimate argument from ignorance, and one upon which he bases the rest of his arguments. He has about as much a clue of what causes creativity as what causes evolution.

Quote:

Bottom line: Darwinism has a burden of proof that intelligent design does not have. Darwinism is a theory of process and therefore needs to provide convincing evidence that the processes it describes are able to bear the weight placed on them. That weight is considerable -- indeed, no less than the whole of biological complexity and diversity. Intelligent design by contrast has a different burden. As a theory of creative innovation, its burden is to show where creative innovations first emerge and then trace their causal antecedents and consequents. Darwinism and intelligent design therefore face fundamentally different tasks, though there will be considerable overlap in their practical outworking (intelligent design, for instance, does not require that every aspect of biology be designed and is fully capable of assimilating the Darwinian mechanism). Ultimately what will decide the controversy between Darwinism and intelligent design is scientific fruitfulness. Darwinism, despite having many bright guys like Allen Orr to plough its fields and despite having all the research moneys you could want and despite having had almost 150 years to prove itself has come up empty in accounting for the emergence of biological complexity. Behe's book, which was the first major positive statement of intelligent design, was published a mere six years ago. Intelligent design researchers are presently few in number and cannot obtain government funding for their research. That will change. Interest is mounting. And George W. is after all my neighbor.

And that's just about the necessary intellectual juxtaposition we need to see.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Butters · 12-04-2002, 01:03 PM

Two things,
The reason no one will explain CMTU to you, is besause it is only so much gobbeltygook, with no meaning at all, that much is clear.

Second, why do these guts keep crying about a lack of funding? What do they need funding for? They are not performing expreiments, they are sitting around making shit up. Why don't they do like everybody else, get a job, then spend half your time on the company computer.

Third, these guys claim to have written books on I.D., anyone know where to find them.(I bet their not selling as fast as Hovinds crap, I don't think the fundies like anything more complacted than that, hell, they won't even open a high school science book.

Matthew144 · 12-04-2002, 03:47 PM

Michael Behe's book Darwins Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution is a pretty good place to start. It is pretty complex stuff, but he tries to make it interesting. Some of this ID stuff is bad, I'll admit it, but this is better.

Doubting Didymus · 12-04-2002, 04:07 PM

That should read "better", in quotations. Technically true, but not neccesarily "good".

Mageth · 12-04-2002, 04:08 PM

Matthew144, you might be interested in reading some critical reviews of Behe's works <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html" target="_blank">here.</a>

Is your username in reference to Matthew 14:4?

"For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her."

pangloss · 12-05-2002, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia:
 The hypocrisy is astounding isn't it? Over at the Superbrains board, warren bergerson and Gina were bitching about how ARN should mandate that everyone reveal their identity. Guess they forgot about their favorite resident cLoWn.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Is that the same Warren Bergerson that got told at ARN - by the moderator, no less - to stop making false claims?

Principia · 12-05-2002, 05:20 AM

So many IDiot cLoWns at ARN it's hard to keep track, ain't it? BTW, you should read some of the dialogue WB had with Gina at Gina's Megaboards. The "twist" at the end was especially delightful. PM if you'd like.

pangloss · 12-05-2002, 05:20 AM

Shame that Warren has essentially abandoned his own board...

<a href="http://groups.msn.com/ProgressiveEquilibrium/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message =34&LastModified=4675393266946385252" target="_blank">http://groups.msn.com/ProgressiveEquilibrium</a>

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]

12-05-2002, 05:20 AM	#20
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Shame that Warren has essentially abandoned his own board... <a href="http://groups.msn.com/ProgressiveEquilibrium/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message =34&LastModified=4675393266946385252" target="_blank">http://groups.msn.com/ProgressiveEquilibrium</a> [ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

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

12-04-2002, 01:03 PM	#14
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Two things, The reason no one will explain CMTU to you, is besause it is only so much gobbeltygook, with no meaning at all, that much is clear. Second, why do these guts keep crying about a lack of funding? What do they need funding for? They are not performing expreiments, they are sitting around making shit up. Why don't they do like everybody else, get a job, then spend half your time on the company computer. Third, these guys claim to have written books on I.D., anyone know where to find them.(I bet their not selling as fast as Hovinds crap, I don't think the fundies like anything more complacted than that, hell, they won't even open a high school science book.

12-04-2002, 03:47 PM	#15
Matthew144 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando Posts: 13	Michael Behe's book Darwins Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution is a pretty good place to start. It is pretty complex stuff, but he tries to make it interesting. Some of this ID stuff is bad, I'll admit it, but this is better.

12-04-2002, 04:07 PM	#16
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	That should read "better", in quotations. Technically true, but not neccesarily "good".

12-04-2002, 04:08 PM	#17
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Matthew144, you might be interested in reading some critical reviews of Behe's works <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html" target="_blank">here.</a> Is your username in reference to Matthew 14:4? "For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her."

12-05-2002, 05:20 AM	#19
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	So many IDiot cLoWns at ARN it's hard to keep track, ain't it? BTW, you should read some of the dialogue WB had with Gina at Gina's Megaboards. The "twist" at the end was especially delightful. PM if you'd like.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.