Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 08-31-2002, 06:28 PM

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000078" target="_blank">This is a good URL</a> to show just how hypocritical MG is.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Principia · 08-31-2002, 06:47 PM

From <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000301" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

While we're on the subject of semantics and terminology, I'm having a bit of trouble with "mutation". To me a "mutation" is not a heritable "variation", as per density and colour of fur, within certain standard parameters. Extremes, such as orange day-glo, would be mutations, but white would be no more than a variation within inherited norms. As you know, there is even a sub-species of white black bear, called the "Spirit bear" by natives of the Pacific Northwest. This is not, to me, a mutation, any more than dark and light peppered moths are mutations.

Furthermore, many geneticists seem to limit the term "mutation" to an event taking place in the genome. I don't believe that they have the right to unilaterally appropriate the English language to their own ends, although they seem to have no compunction in doing so, repeatedly. Only in the holy name of Science, of course. I think a biological mutation should be any novel change in an organism, either wholistically or in one or more of its parts, or in its standard and established repetoire of autonomic behaviours and abilities. In a word, a mutation is something that goes beyond a standard and established Form, while a variation is, no matter how infrequently expressed, a perfectly acceptable expression from within the parameters of that established and inherited Form.

Now to "adaptive". Any biological trait is adaptive if it permits an organism to live in harmony with its particular environment, that is, to have a balanced and stable ecology (umwelt). In that sense, human intelligence has never been adaptive, whereas the propensity of most predators to limit their own reproduction in relation to prey populations is adaptive. (Which is, in passing, why the Darwinian notion of 'fitness' as 'differential reproduction' is so dangerously wrong.)
But human intelligence has been "beneficial", at least to human beings, although at tremendous cost to the rest of the biosphere, creating , at this stage, a disasterous imbalance in our own ecology. Beneficial is a subjective and relative value statement which I prefer to avoid in evolutionary contexts. Contrast with "adaptive", which has an observable, universal, and objective criterion. IMHO.

[...]

Hey, if you people just want to discuss the technical details of some recent publications in your own area of expertise, go right ahead. You don't need any of us 'laymen' muddying your private genetics pool.

If, on the other hand, you wish to debate the philosophical questions of life, it origins, its forms, its varieties, its developments, its evolution, its meaning, its purpose, etc., using supporting evidence from the sciences to advance your arguments, then call me.

Read mturner complaining about the use of jargon in biological science. His whole argument? "I don't know what you guys are talking about." LOL!

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Principia · 08-31-2002, 07:18 PM

Wow, Mike Gene is <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000305" target="_blank">on fire</a> today:

Quote:

Not surprisingly, I have an alternative explanation to JPs. What has also happened over the last few months is that the number of ID critics posting here has greatly exceeded the number of IDists. This is significant because most ID critics have extremely negative views of IDists. As I suggested almost from the beginning, most ID critics view IDists as being either stupid, deluded, or dishonest (or a combination). As such, when they argue with IDists, it is very hard for many to posture such that this basic disrespect is not evident. This becomes a real problem when there are too many ID critics in the kitchen. An interesting dynamic comes into play. First, they feed off each other's stereotypes. They enjoy seeing an IDist being treated as a stupid idiot because it reinforces their preconceptions. But when the ID critics begin to multiply such that they constitute the majority, they begin to "feel at home." So they bring the raw, nasty elements of their stereotypical thinking out into the open more. It feels "safer" to do this, being surrounded by a majority that also thinks IDists are stupid, deluded idiots. In then becomes natural for them to insult IDists in a variety of ways. And in a sense, some try to "show off" in this regard, looking for laughs from the crowd that sees with stereotype. It's only a matter of time before one steps over the line. This sparks a type of flame war or personality battle, and the mass of stereotypical thinkers either come to the rescue of their insulting ally or lay low until it blows over.

Let me give a few specific examples, as I saw them. I'd say the recent wave of rudeness began about the time David Hume began flooding this forum with posts. His attitude was classic - all IDists are stupid and dangerous and must be defeated by any means possible. Things really exploded when DNAUnion figured out David Hume was Wolf. Even though it seemed clear Wolf was violating a basic forum rule while trying to disrupt the forum, many ID critics refused to criticize him. Some even defended him. The administrators eventually validated DNAUnion's accusation and David Hume quietly slipped away. Not too long afterwards, we got the infamous "Dembski is lying" thread, where now it was time for character assassination. Although it was demonstrated that the accusation of lying was baseless, the damage was done. Then the forum seemed to get a whole new set of ID critics. One example I saved is this:

Beast: ID is Creationism, pure and simple.... Arm, came here with an open mind, read your cites, what I've found is the Old Wine of Creationism in the New Wineskins of pseudoscience. "I shall continue to shout 'Tripe!' wherever tripe is served."
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000225" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000225</a>

Someone names "Lucia" then informed us that ID is about the need for psychological comfort. This common stereotype has been repeated by several others:

Aptamer: I don't know if I would call ID a political movement. I think ID is merely based on people's unease with losing the fuzzy feeling that life has more meaning than simply a random walk.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247</a>

(Responding to Aptamer)Ldave: Boy ain't that the truth! Like you, I've stuggled to find a classification scheme for the various forms of ID I've seen presented in this forum and elsewhere. I can't say I've given up, but it has been a difficult and bewildering set of ideas.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247</a>

RBH: First, I'd classify ID as a little more than loosely coupled aggregation of mostly ill-specified conjectures that share only what aptamer calls "people's unease with losing the fuzzy feeling ...".
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247</a>

Noisy: I've just reviewed my post, and it's finally sunk in. ID is a political grouping.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000247</a>

The Stupid IDists are also spoken of:

Aptamer: There is always a balance in nature, unlike in the minds of IDists and creationists.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000253" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000253</a>

Theo: Walking on eggshells seems to be a way of life around here - don't taunt the fundies. Very white of you. Well, very polite of you. I'd have phrased the above as "Ah cain't unnerstan' it, so sher as brimstone, Godddidit!"
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000237;p=3" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000237;p=3</a>

Then we get to more stereotypes:

Dr GH: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.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000278;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000278;p=2</a>

DrGH also has the honor of being someone who posted a picture of what was left from a rotting corpse and then blaming this on his debate opponent.

RBH, implying that IDists were "intellectual criminals," took it to another level, warning us that not only are IDists stupid, but dangerous:

RBH: I would argue that ID does in fact pose real, immediate, physical threats to people.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000285" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000285</a>

Not to be outdone, pz's recent example is worthy of mention again:

pz: It is with sincere concern for his well-being that I suggest that that is a man who seriously needs to make an appointment with a mental health care professional..... The man is disturbed, deranged, and delusional, and needs help, not a pat on the back.
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000303" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000303</a>

Since this time, pz has voluntarily decided not to talk anymore about religion because he can't do so without being abusive.

Of course, the interesting thing is that when I have had the time, I have challenged the ID critics about their stereotypes. When you are used to spewing this stuff to people of like mind, you get caught off guard when someone actually dares to question your stereotype. And in the case of DrGH, RBH, and pz, we found they could not support their stereotypes with evidence. When it became apparent that they were peddling their stereotypes, they withdrew from the discussions.

The sad thing about all of this is that at the same time a certain crowd of ID critics feel more free than ever to insult others with their sloppy, stereotypical thinking, there are ID critics who seem to understand you can disagree with others without being disrespectful. What is interesting is that in this very thread, Matt is feeling the heat of the power of this stereotype. Principia is apparently upset with Matt because Matt is not treating IDists as stupid idiots deserving only of abuse. You have to remember that in the minds of many ID critics, showing any hint of respect to ID is almost as bad as being a Creationist. Matt is not too far from Gould's sin - being accused of "giving ammunition to the IDists."

One post that flames all!

monkenstick · 08-31-2002, 09:55 PM

i've just posted my urate oxidase thing over at ARN. I posed as an ID proponent (just in case you think i've switched sides) - otherwise IDers get defensive. Hopefully it will put some doubt in their minds - thats all you can really hope for - that you might place a nagging doubt in their mind that will eat away at their confidence in ID.

Principia · 08-31-2002, 10:36 PM

please check your pm.

leonarde · 08-31-2002, 11:09 PM

Posted by monkenstick:

Quote:

i've just posted my urate oxidase thing over at ARN. I posed as an ID proponent (just in case you think i've switched sides) - otherwise IDers get defensive. Hopefully it will put some doubt in their minds - thats all you can really hope for - that you might place a nagging doubt in their mind that will eat away at their confidence in ID.

Yeah, a nagging doubt about someone's honesty....

Dr.GH · 08-31-2002, 11:24 PM

monkenstick, LOL

This is a public BB. I mean, like, well, duh ...

monkenstick · 09-01-2002, 01:56 AM

don't worry, I feel as stupid as I look.

its totally backfired - I meant them to take more notice, and now they'll probably take even less notice than had I gone in, all guns blazing, gungho evilutionist style.

bugger.

Dr.GH · 09-01-2002, 09:59 AM

Oh well, it is all just cyber ozone. Cheers.

Albion · 09-01-2002, 10:08 AM

Erm - has he ever explained why ID critics use stereotypes but he doesn't? I mean, his whole post is perpetuating the steretype that people who disagree with him all use stereotypes. Can't he see that he's doing it too?

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

08-31-2002, 06:28 PM	#151
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000078" target="_blank">This is a good URL</a> to show just how hypocritical MG is. [ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

08-31-2002, 09:55 PM	#154
monkenstick Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 214	i've just posted my urate oxidase thing over at ARN. I posed as an ID proponent (just in case you think i've switched sides) - otherwise IDers get defensive. Hopefully it will put some doubt in their minds - thats all you can really hope for - that you might place a nagging doubt in their mind that will eat away at their confidence in ID.

08-31-2002, 10:36 PM	#155
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	please check your pm.

08-31-2002, 11:24 PM	#157
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	monkenstick, LOL This is a public BB. I mean, like, well, duh ...

09-01-2002, 01:56 AM	#158
monkenstick Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 214	don't worry, I feel as stupid as I look. its totally backfired - I meant them to take more notice, and now they'll probably take even less notice than had I gone in, all guns blazing, gungho evilutionist style. bugger.

09-01-2002, 09:59 AM	#159
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Oh well, it is all just cyber ozone. Cheers.

09-01-2002, 10:08 AM	#160
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Erm - has he ever explained why ID critics use stereotypes but he doesn't? I mean, his whole post is perpetuating the steretype that people who disagree with him all use stereotypes. Can't he see that he's doing it too?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.