Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pangloss · 08-21-2002, 08:02 AM

They are not petty!

DNAunion · 08-21-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Pangloss: Reviewing Wally Kuckoo ReMine's ego fest, DNAunion writes at amazon

Intriguing! Well-stated!, November 1, 1998 ...

DNAunion: Look at the date! My views have changed drastically since then. If you remember, I even debated AGAINST ReMine at ARN about a year back.

DNAunion · 08-21-2002, 03:45 PM

DNAunion: Here's the link from ARN where I am debating against ReMine.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000849" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000849</a>

Here's the post of most interest.

DNAunion: ReMine's statements are from a thread in the "privileged" board.

Quote:

by Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
I here clear up some misstatements being made about my book. (All quotations below are from the ARN discussion forum.)
On RELIGION �

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DNAunion: �the designer (which in ReMine�s work I believe is equivalent to the Christian God)" (DNAunion, 08-03-2001)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My book doesn't discuss God, the Bible, any scripture, or religion of any kind. It speaks uniformly of a "designer" -- this follows my method of arguing scientifically from the data to wherever the data leads. For that, I make no apologies to anyone on either side of the origins debate.

DNAunion: Let me preface my response by pointing out again something I said in one of my posts you quote from:

Quote:

�DNAunion: (I've only read a dozen or so pages [of The Biotic Message] in the last couple of years after having first read about 1/2 of it originally)�

DNAunion: So I don�t claim to have a very deep understanding of the book, as should be evident from my continual qualifications appended to my statements (such as, "which in ReMine�s work I believe is equivalent to the Christian God)". Having said that, let me defend my statements as best I can.

I spent about 15 minutes skimming over chapters 1-3 and found the following, which was very prominently setoff from the rest of the text:

Quote:

�The Central Claim of Message Theory:
Life was reasonably designed for survival and for communicating a message that tells where life came from. The biotic message says, �Life is the product of a single designer � life was intentionally designed to resist all other interpretations of origin.�� (page 20)

DNAunion: A key part of message theory is that life was designed by A SINGLE DESIGNER. That seems to be a rather dramatic claim. Being able to detect design is different than being able to detect design AND how many designers were involved. And since there is only one Christian God, and only a single designer in message theory, this can be taken (applying interpretation, of course) to hint at God�s being the single designer of message theory. Very subtle and hardly convincing; but somewhat suggestive.

And on the next page:

Quote:

�Biotic message = Unifying message + Non-naturalistic message� (page 22)

DNAunion: Bringing us closer to the inclusion of the supernatural (though it is true that non-natural is not the same as supernatural - as�ReMine correctly points out). But the link to the supernatural gets even stronger later.

Quote:

�Yet, Paley�s theory, the Big Bang, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, in combination point to a logically consistent conclusion: a supernatural agent has performed a creative act in the universe.� (page 67)

and

Quote:

�The rigid commitment to naturalism contains an inherent contradiction: a preference to do damage to natural laws rather than accept any element of the supernatural. ... In the name of naturalism, they willingly jettison our most thoroughly tested natural laws. ...
We arrive at the supernatural by respecting our best scientific theories and laws � Logical consistency then compels us to infer the supernatural.� (bold emphasis added, page 68)

DNAUnion: Now the way I had interpreted all of this is that message theory holds that life is the product of a single, supernatural designer, and that that supernatural designer intentionally designed life such that we would be forced to conclude that he designed it alone and that it did not arise by any other (natural) means.

And since in the book ReMine �defends� Creationists in general several times, I assumed that the single supernatural designer in his theory is none other than the Christian God. But I do admit that this is an indirect inference: I did not see ReMine actually quote scripture, or argue religion, or mention God specifically, etc.

Quote:

ReMine: On "PSYCHOANALYZING" �

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DNAunion: "Now, I agree ... that one should not psychoanalyze the designer (I know what the designer would have wanted to do, and that is to�). .... I don�t buy ReMine�s �message theory� (one major reason is that it relies on psychoanalyzing an unknown designer)" (DNAunion, 08-03-2001)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The above statement has it quite backwards. My book and theory do not psychoanalyze God or anyone else.

DNAunion: Let me re-quote one of the most-emphasized set of statements in the first 3 chapters.

Quote:

�The Central Claim of Message Theory:
Life was reasonably designed for survival and for communicating a message that tells where life came from. The biotic message says, �Life is the product of a single designer � life was intentionally designed to resist all other interpretations of origin.�� (bold emphasis added, page 20)

DNAunion: How does anyone know what the single (supernatural?) designer would have and would not have wanted to do? Do all designers always intentionally encapsulate messages into their designs, and do those messages always unambiguously point back to the single designer? It is one thing to claim to have identified design; it is another to claim that the SINGLE designer would have wanted us to be able to recognize his act of designing (and to then use that conclusion as a basis for other conclusions).

In short, ReMine does make a claim of what the designer wanted to do. Is this �psychoanalyzing the designer�? Seems close enough to me. But regardless, it was not my choice of words: the reviewer who I referenced used the term and I simply repeated it.

Quote:

On "UNMISTAKABILITY" �

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DNAunion: "The reviewer stated that ReMine�s �message theory� was seriously flawed because ReMine claimed that the designer ... would have had to have made his message very clear since it was the designer�s intent to send an unmistakable message to us, ..." (DNAunion, quoting a review posted by an Internet evolutionist, 08-03-2001)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reviewer misstates my theory by saying "it was the designer�s intent to send an unmistakable message" (emphasis added here). My book never says that. Rather, it explicitly states that a central design goal was to reasonably design life for survival, and simultaneously to send a specific message...

DNAunion: This may just be splitting hairs, but again:

Quote:

�The Central Claim of Message Theory:
Life was reasonably designed for survival and for communicating a message that tells where life came from. The biotic message says, �Life is the product of a single designer � life was intentionally designed to resist all other interpretations of origin.�� (bold emphasis added, page 20)

DNAunion: The bold clause includes the designer�s intent of sending a message that is not just SPECIFIC, but one that is also UNAMBIGUOUS. The message is one that a person should not be able to mistakenly attribute to some other cause. That seems to me to match up pretty well with �it was the designer�s intent to send an unmistakable message�.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

pangloss · 08-22-2002, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
<strong>

DNAunion: Look at the date! My views have changed drastically since then. If you remember, I even debated AGAINST ReMine at ARN about a year back.</strong>

Good to hear that.

He has an ego to rival yours.

And, unlike you, he refuses to even to attempt to support his claims.

pangloss · 08-22-2002, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
[QB]DNAunion: And since in the book ReMine “defends” Creationists in general several times, I assumed that the single supernatural designer in his theory is none other than the Christian God. But I do admit that this is an indirect inference: I did not see ReMine actually quote scripture, or argue religion, or mention God specifically, etc.

Indeed - ReMine's continued assertion that he takes no position on creationism is unadulterated bullshit. The last page of his book, in fat, says something about how 'creation science is the only true science' or somew such nonsense..

ReMine seems to relish the ambiguity of his position - gives him lots of wiggle room.

So, when someone says that ReMines speaks of a conspiracy by evolutionists to keep "Haldane's dilemma" under wraps, he has a hissy fit. And he is technically correct - he does not once use the word conspiracy.

But claiming that evolutionists "kept hidden" Haldane's 'dilemma IS, in fact, an accusation of conspiracy.

He engages i this tactic quite a bit.

That and claiming to be 'misrepresented' all the time...

Dr.GH · 08-22-2002, 10:25 AM

ReMine also likes to insist that he won't discuss his work with anyone who hasn't bought the damn thing. Like I'm going to toss him any coin. I got it used.

Principia · 08-24-2002, 05:35 AM

Mike Gene's Cuba Gooding Jr. impression -- SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000285" target="_blank">1</a>. Okay, Mr. Science Expert, please provide the EVIDENCE that ID does "in fact pose real, immediate, physical threats to people." As a Science Expert, you should be able to back up your claim with evidence. Or, like DrGH (another 'Science Expert'), will you too evade all requests for evidence and prefer to keep things on a 'philosophical' (read: unencumbered by real data) level?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000278" target="_blank">2</a>. DrGH is confused. I am not the issue here. The issue is Dr GH's blanket claim: I see anyone resorting to an ID "hypothesis" in biology as the equivalent of a forensic scientist announcing that the �the murder was done by ghosts.� They are incompetent.
Since DRGH has completely failed to establish his belief, I have no burden to convince him otherwise.

Again, we see that DrGH failed to provide a single scrap of EVIDENCE to support his subjective opinion. Dr GH's claim is unscientific and completely void of evidential support. All I see is rhetoric draped over prejudice. Nothing more.

It's really simple - provide the evidence or admit you have none. And at least try to answer my questions.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000285;p=1" target="_blank">3</a>. I'm flattered that you would confer the title "Distinguished Professor" upon me, but I have claimed no such expertise on this forum. Truth be told, I'm just the local ID-iot. Y'know, too stupid to recognize that there is no positive evidence for ID. Thus, perhaps it is my stupidity that prevents me from seeing your evidence. I can appreciate the vague, rhetorical case you are trying to make. The increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria is a function of ignorance (in medicine and agriculture) and ID "fosters ignorance." Nevertheless, I fail to see that data that indicate ID does in fact pose real, immediate, physical threats to people. I think you should try again to connect the dots, but this time, use real data to make the connections.

BTW, are you under the impression that a world in which antibiotic resistance in bacteria has evolved and where ID has been involved in biotic history somewhere cannot coexist?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000278" target="_blank">4</a>. If you had real evidence to back up Dr GH's claim, you'd cite it. You don't, thus you bring up a rhetorical argument.

Again, the interesting thing is that many people seek to define the situation in terms of ID = incompetence. The implication of this perception simply underscores a point I have been making for some time around here.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

pangloss · 08-26-2002, 05:04 AM

Now, was that "Asshole Mike", "Minutiae-Man Mike", or "I have a website with essays on it Mike"?

Principia · 08-26-2002, 05:56 AM

Return of <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000284" target="_blank">mturner</a> -- 'You evilutionists are no better than the Creationists':

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike B:
The theory of evolution assumes no guiding intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Uh, for the hundredth time, Mike, there is not just one, single, solitary, lorn and lonely, 'theory of evolution'. Darwin's is not the only hypothetical explanation for the bald fact of evolution. And some of the other hypothetical explanations, such as ID, including EAM, do posit (but not assume) some kind of 'guiding intelligence'. Darwinism presumes that there is no such thing as 'guiding intelligence'. In fact, it presumes that no such thing as intelligence exists. None of any kind, anywhere in the universe, if you examine its Materialist/Physicalist/Mechanist position deeply enough.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not that the possibility of a guiding intelligence has never been considered (heck, YEC was once the dominate paradigm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Uh, Mike, YEC is not a scientific theory of biological evolution. It is a dogmatic denial of biological evolution. And of history and science, come to that. Special Creation, (unfortunately conflated with empirical forms of ID), is not concerned with the facts and evidence of biology, paleontology, history, or your own eyes and ears. It is an inculcated belief, nothing more. And it does not believe in a 'guiding intelligence' when it comes to lifeforms. They are simply 'poofed' into existence, fully formed, by an arbitrary and unpredictable humanoid 'God'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intelligence guiding the process of evolution has not been ignored; it has been examined many, many times, and found not to be in evidence and not to be needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Examined by whom? By 19th century Mechanists and Logical Positivists whose worldview denies its existence, 'a priori'!! The truth is that the *evidence* of 'guiding intelligence' was ignored, simply because it was presumed not to exist. The prima facie evidence was therefore 'interpreted' out of existence as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

�Emergence�, in context with the title of your thread, is, I believe, the idea that at some point of complexity of hardware/software a system might become self-aware and self-directing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**

That is to say, 'intelligent'?!? What would cause that to happen, if 'intelligence' were not an integral part of life itself, right from the jump?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And some of us who understand the theory of evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Sorry Mike, but the majority of anti-Darwinist contributors to this BB understand Darwinism perfectly well, which is exactly why we consider it to be the biggest scientific blunder of all time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

believe in miracles, too, but we don�t try to make others teach our beliefs in public school.[/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Your "theory" depends upon a magic potion of Time and Chance. It's little better than a superstition, one that is inculcated into the heads of schoolchildren everyday,-- except in those schools where that other superstition is inculcated.

pax,

mturner

pangloss · 08-26-2002, 10:36 AM

Oh good - the intelligence quotient at ARN just dropped precipitously....

Maybe you can ask him for some UNEQUIVOCAL support for his claims, such as 'directed mutation' or 'cellular intelligence'!

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

08-21-2002, 08:02 AM	#121
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	They are not petty!

08-22-2002, 10:25 AM	#126
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	ReMine also likes to insist that he won't discuss his work with anyone who hasn't bought the damn thing. Like I'm going to toss him any coin. I got it used.

08-26-2002, 05:04 AM	#128
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Now, was that "Asshole Mike", "Minutiae-Man Mike", or "I have a website with essays on it Mike"?

08-26-2002, 10:36 AM	#130
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Oh good - the intelligence quotient at ARN just dropped precipitously.... Maybe you can ask him for some UNEQUIVOCAL support for his claims, such as 'directed mutation' or 'cellular intelligence'!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.