This looks like it will be a good read.
BUY IT!!!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Jon 'Draft Dodger' Wells
Jon Wells, of 10-years-to-get-a-PhD-with-only-2-coauthored-papers-to-show-for-it and a 'mission to destroy Darwinism' fame has recently written The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, published by standard 'anything goes as long as it is pro-Conservative' Regnery Publishing.
It is standard right-wing creationist propaganda - misleading, false, idiotic, and inflammatory to its core, like the other PIG books (like this one on U.S. history, for example) , as they have become known.
The Panda's Thumb, a 'pro-evolution' website/blog, has been posting deconstructions and demolitions of Wells' latest pulp fiction.
They are good reads, and each installation demonstrates the depths to which this member of the Intelligent Design movement, and members of right-wing movements in general, will go to in order to promote their preferred ideology. It should give honest conservatives pause...
It is standard right-wing creationist propaganda - misleading, false, idiotic, and inflammatory to its core, like the other PIG books (like this one on U.S. history, for example) , as they have become known.
The Panda's Thumb, a 'pro-evolution' website/blog, has been posting deconstructions and demolitions of Wells' latest pulp fiction.
They are good reads, and each installation demonstrates the depths to which this member of the Intelligent Design movement, and members of right-wing movements in general, will go to in order to promote their preferred ideology. It should give honest conservatives pause...
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I guess I was wrong - the concept of "Intelligent Design" really is useful...
I guess I was just plain wrong about this.
The ID paradigm really is an amazingly useful tool for scientific endeavors, and therefore by extension, naturalistic evolution really is false. How could I have been so wrong all this time? I just thought that ID was a way to sneak religion into public school science classes - how wrong I was!
Here is how I now know this.
Yesterday, I had some time to kill and did a little intellectual autoflagellation at Dembski's den of sycophantic simpletons (i.e., Bill Dembski's blog), and I ended up following a couple of links to "Mike Gene's" most recent blog, The Design Matrix.
Its main purpose seems to be publicity for his upcoming book of the same title*, but what intrigued me was this page, and specifically, the entry titled Example of Design Detection.
Now let me inform you what the entry page to this blog said re: Gene's new book:
"What clues might lead to a suspicion that Life was intelligently designed? Is it possible to move beyond the suspicion?..."
So, MY suspicion was that Mike Gene may have actually produced - for the very first time - evidence that a 'design' paradigm actually produced results - maybe he actually came up with some concrete evidence for 'design in nature' - evidence that Life really was the product of Intelligence! How exciting!!
Imagine how I felt when, upon clicking the link for the entry, and seeing only a link.
I was a bit suspicious, but what the heck.
Then imagine my surprise when I saw that the link that Gene provided as an example of design detection was on a political blog, in an article titled:
Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?
An article about how it was discovered that a photographer had doctored photos.
Color me impressed! Color me astonished! Color me converted!
I mean, if it was only via an Intelligent Design paradigm, as Gene implies in the title, that this act of photoshopping was discovered, what other biologically relevant discoveries will adopting metaphorical terminology and relying on analogies as evidence provide for humanity!?!?
And Mike Gene is no slouch - why, anti-Darwinian theologian William 'Isaac Newton of Information Theory' Dembski says of him " Mike Gene is the pseudonym of one of the most insightful individuals in the ID/evolution debate."
Wow.
I guess he would know...
Let's get this new book in public schools immediately!
NOT!
*a book wherein Gene apparently talks about his 'suspicion' of design....
The ID paradigm really is an amazingly useful tool for scientific endeavors, and therefore by extension, naturalistic evolution really is false. How could I have been so wrong all this time? I just thought that ID was a way to sneak religion into public school science classes - how wrong I was!
Here is how I now know this.
Yesterday, I had some time to kill and did a little intellectual autoflagellation at Dembski's den of sycophantic simpletons (i.e., Bill Dembski's blog), and I ended up following a couple of links to "Mike Gene's" most recent blog, The Design Matrix.
Its main purpose seems to be publicity for his upcoming book of the same title*, but what intrigued me was this page, and specifically, the entry titled Example of Design Detection.
Now let me inform you what the entry page to this blog said re: Gene's new book:
"What clues might lead to a suspicion that Life was intelligently designed? Is it possible to move beyond the suspicion?..."
So, MY suspicion was that Mike Gene may have actually produced - for the very first time - evidence that a 'design' paradigm actually produced results - maybe he actually came up with some concrete evidence for 'design in nature' - evidence that Life really was the product of Intelligence! How exciting!!
Imagine how I felt when, upon clicking the link for the entry, and seeing only a link.
I was a bit suspicious, but what the heck.
Then imagine my surprise when I saw that the link that Gene provided as an example of design detection was on a political blog, in an article titled:
Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?
An article about how it was discovered that a photographer had doctored photos.
Color me impressed! Color me astonished! Color me converted!
I mean, if it was only via an Intelligent Design paradigm, as Gene implies in the title, that this act of photoshopping was discovered, what other biologically relevant discoveries will adopting metaphorical terminology and relying on analogies as evidence provide for humanity!?!?
And Mike Gene is no slouch - why, anti-Darwinian theologian William 'Isaac Newton of Information Theory' Dembski says of him " Mike Gene is the pseudonym of one of the most insightful individuals in the ID/evolution debate."
Wow.
I guess he would know...
Let's get this new book in public schools immediately!
NOT!
*a book wherein Gene apparently talks about his 'suspicion' of design....
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
How to make wild, ridiculous extrapolations
Step 1: be a creationist
Step 2: be a creationist with no relevant background, training, experience, or education in any field related to evolution or biology
Step 3: Be 1 and 2 above and have a background in something like computer programming
Step 4: Convince yourself that because of your true background, you have some sort of unique and special insight into things that you have no background in
Step 5: Read some news releases on highly technical issues related to things you have no background in. For example, read an interesting article about 'jumping genes' - an idea that has been around for awhile, but for which there was little supporing evidence.
Step 6: take the information in an article like the one above, and make broad, wild, unsupportable sweeping generalizations like this:
"Also to point out, ALL phylogenies based on homology are based on the idea of random mutations (if organism X has the exact same pattern (tissue, bone structure, etc.) as organism Y it must be because of a shared common ancestor with that pattern. If random mutation is not correct, then it is very possible that two children could “evolve” the _exact same_ organ independently. Thus, if random mutations are found to be directed, then pretty much all phylogenetic trees need to be re-examined, and perhaps even the notion of morphological tree-building would be called into question. "
Wow.
Toss everything out the window because of one unique discovery? Hypothetically possible. Of course, in this case, one will have to ignore the fact that the methods questioned have been tested on knowns and found to be pretty darn accurate and reliable.
But should 'jumping genes' really be considered on the same level as synapomorphic mutations?
Should we discount paternity testing because a computer programmer implies that 'jumping genes' calls into question every aspect of genomics?
Hardly.
If anything, the comment above merely shows the extent to which an unyielding allegiance to biblical literalism can distort one's perception of reality.
Step 2: be a creationist with no relevant background, training, experience, or education in any field related to evolution or biology
Step 3: Be 1 and 2 above and have a background in something like computer programming
Step 4: Convince yourself that because of your true background, you have some sort of unique and special insight into things that you have no background in
Step 5: Read some news releases on highly technical issues related to things you have no background in. For example, read an interesting article about 'jumping genes' - an idea that has been around for awhile, but for which there was little supporing evidence.
Step 6: take the information in an article like the one above, and make broad, wild, unsupportable sweeping generalizations like this:
"Also to point out, ALL phylogenies based on homology are based on the idea of random mutations (if organism X has the exact same pattern (tissue, bone structure, etc.) as organism Y it must be because of a shared common ancestor with that pattern. If random mutation is not correct, then it is very possible that two children could “evolve” the _exact same_ organ independently. Thus, if random mutations are found to be directed, then pretty much all phylogenetic trees need to be re-examined, and perhaps even the notion of morphological tree-building would be called into question. "
Wow.
Toss everything out the window because of one unique discovery? Hypothetically possible. Of course, in this case, one will have to ignore the fact that the methods questioned have been tested on knowns and found to be pretty darn accurate and reliable.
But should 'jumping genes' really be considered on the same level as synapomorphic mutations?
Should we discount paternity testing because a computer programmer implies that 'jumping genes' calls into question every aspect of genomics?
Hardly.
If anything, the comment above merely shows the extent to which an unyielding allegiance to biblical literalism can distort one's perception of reality.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Berlinski - still a pompous twit
David Berlinski, pseudointellecual darling of the right and associate of the Discovery Institute, has submitted a letter to Science that I really hope will either not get published or will be responded to in devastating form by actual scientists.
Berlinski is an anti-Darwin apologist, one who still employs moronic anti-evolution arguments that even the hack propagandists at Answers in Genesis have disavowed.
Of note is how he ends his letter, in reference to statements by Ken Miller (an actual scientist):
"Such an excess of stupidity is rarely to be found in nature."
Actually, David, it is found in Nature. In fact, David, it is found in abundance at the Discovery Institute.
Berlinski is an anti-Darwin apologist, one who still employs moronic anti-evolution arguments that even the hack propagandists at Answers in Genesis have disavowed.
Of note is how he ends his letter, in reference to statements by Ken Miller (an actual scientist):
"Such an excess of stupidity is rarely to be found in nature."
Actually, David, it is found in Nature. In fact, David, it is found in abundance at the Discovery Institute.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Terry Trainor - another creationist nitwit
I had written this up several months ago and forgotten to post it:
===============================================
Funny stuff…
This MSN discussion group is a gold mine of creationist silliness.
I’m sure I will be able to produce oodles of stuff from there, but I will start with a thread on Global Warming.
The main protagonist is the MSN board operator, one Terry Trainor, a young-earth creationist and engineer.
From his thread-opening post, emphases mine:
OK……. So the relationship between water and mercury is supposed to be a legitimate analogy for the relationship between Freon and the atmosphere?
Wait – it gets better.
Starting on this page of the thread, the poster “tedlusk1” challenges Terry on the applicability of his ‘model’:
Terry didn’t like that too much. Tedlusk1 expanded in a subsequent post:
Terry did not like that much, either. He later mentioned that volcanoes send more chlorine into the atmosphere than humans do. Ted asked:
Again, Terry did not like that. In fact, he ignored it, like so many of his erroneous, illogical, unscientific statements that he writes and are corrected by others. It appears that Tedlusk was later banned by Terry. That is also a recurring theme at that discussion board – and creationist-run boards in general – once someone starts pointing out the shallowness of the creationist position, they tend not to last long.
============================================
And to think - Trainor actually graduated form an engineering school and was employed by an engineering firm of some sort...
===============================================
Funny stuff…
This MSN discussion group is a gold mine of creationist silliness.
I’m sure I will be able to produce oodles of stuff from there, but I will start with a thread on Global Warming.
The main protagonist is the MSN board operator, one Terry Trainor, a young-earth creationist and engineer.
From his thread-opening post, emphases mine:
I have long argued that man is not causing global warming, if it even exists, and have given the reasons that I believe the scare was blown up; profits for the chemical industry, who needed people to switch from cheap Freon on which patents had expired to new, more expensive refrigerants on which new patents had been obtained.
Too many people believed the 'sky is falling' hype, and we are now paying the result in higher costs of refrigerants.
One of my objections involved the fact that Freon is heavier than air, while the Ozone layer is way the heck UP THERE; how could Freon raise high enough to damage it? I was assured that Ozone, even though heavier than air, did indeed raise
itself into the upper reaches of our atmosphere.
I tried to duplicate this by placing mercury and water in a glass and agitating it repeatedly. So far, the mercury is still on the bottom, though.
OK……. So the relationship between water and mercury is supposed to be a legitimate analogy for the relationship between Freon and the atmosphere?
Wait – it gets better.
Starting on this page of the thread, the poster “tedlusk1” challenges Terry on the applicability of his ‘model’:
I was assured that Ozone, even though heavier than air, did indeed raise itself into the upper reaches of our atmosphere. I tried to duplicate this by placing mercury and water in a glass and agitating it repeatedly. So far, the mercury is still on the bottom, though.
Tedlusk1:I assume that this was a tongue-in-cheek snide remark, not any actual attempt to equate the two. Such a 'model' would garner a failing grade in even elementary school science.
Terry didn’t like that too much. Tedlusk1 expanded in a subsequent post:
Terry:
Do you think posting these questions here will somehow alter the fact that Freon is heavier than the normal mix of atmospheric gasses?
Tedlusk1:Conclusion - you can't answer the questions.
Have you ever heard of, oh, wind? Updrafts? Currents? Diffusion? There are reports of solid objects - grasses, sand, particulate matter like smoke, even animals - floating about in the atmosphere. I cannot see how it is leaving you so flabbergasted that heavier than air gases and their breakdown byproducts might enter the atmosphere.
It is silly to suggest that dropping mercury in a glass of water is even close to being
analogous to the atmospheric mixing of gasses of differing densities. It is also silly to express disbelief that heavier than air gasses cannot mix with air or make it into the upper atmosphese. One can only draw such inferences if one ignores or is ignorant of basic meteorology and atmopheric science, or basic physical science.
Take a glass of water and put a drop of dye in it. Dye molecules are heavier than water and so should sink, and at first they do. But over time, the molecules diffuse throughout the water and produce a more or less equal distribution. And so with heavier than air gasses. Diffusion. Since CFCs are not water soluble, they are free to diffuse throughout the atmosphere for long periods of time.
Terry did not like that much, either. He later mentioned that volcanoes send more chlorine into the atmosphere than humans do. Ted asked:
And how did that chlorine get up there? It is heavier than air, isn't it?
Again, Terry did not like that. In fact, he ignored it, like so many of his erroneous, illogical, unscientific statements that he writes and are corrected by others. It appears that Tedlusk was later banned by Terry. That is also a recurring theme at that discussion board – and creationist-run boards in general – once someone starts pointing out the shallowness of the creationist position, they tend not to last long.
============================================
And to think - Trainor actually graduated form an engineering school and was employed by an engineering firm of some sort...
Friday, August 25, 2006
Another Chickenhawk Right-Winger
My friend and basic training, AIT and 319th FA (Airborne Battalion Combat Team) buddy Rob Ash has recently had an article published in The Eureka Reporter, a Humbolt County, CA, newspaper, chronicling his encounter with young, pro-war right-wing GOP activist Anthony Mantova. A few choice excerpts:
Why is it, I often wonder, that many of those most eager to embroil our nation in war are simultaneously strenuously opposed to serving in the military? Many Right-Wing luminaries come to mind - Limbaugh, Gingrich, Cheney, O'Reilly, Carlson, Hannity, Reagan, some pudgy-faced twit who has his own right-wing radio show in Florida, the names in bold above, etc. - all advocates of many a war, none having served.
It is very easy to advocate sending someone else in to fight to try to implement some religio-politically, ideologically driven 'policy.' It is something else entirely to be willing to fight to implement the policies you advocate. This simple truth has been brought up before - the truth being that those advocating war but refusing to fight themselves being morally repugnant cowards - and dismissed by those it applies to. Sure, they appear to have 'sound' replies, such as 'one need not play football to have a favorite team' and other such idiotic drivel. I am not sure which is more pathetic - that these Chickenhawks actually find such excuses convincing, or that many in their fanbase do.
But those of us that have served, even if in peacetime, should feel differently (though, sickeningly, some veterans' political affiliation often seems to color their common sense on these issues). We should feel anger, disgust, humiliation. We are essentially being told by these right-wing cowards and hypocrites that we are expendable as far as they are concerned. That we are/were somehow beneath them, that military service is for the dregs of society, not the high and mighty, bible-toting Republican elite. That we are/were little more than pawns for the Republican power elite to use as they see fit.
Oh, sure, some of them might have their rich daddy make some calls and secure for them a coveted spot in a unit that is guaranteed stateside duty even in wartime so they can boast of having served - but that is, as far as I am concerned, just as bad as the chickenhawk-sissy that gets deferments or has the family doctor write them a bogus 'excuse' or those that simply advocate invading everyone to assert our power while not only flatly refusing to serve themselves, but also considering those that did serve as having the "hillbilly, intellectually vacant and morally repugnant belief that ‘those who call for war must serve."
It is, in fact, people like Anthony Montova and the other right-wing chickenhawks and their enablers in the electorate and media consumers who have the hillbilly, morally repugnant beliefs. Whatever ill-will befalls them, they richly deserve.
Mantova is an ambitious young neo-conservative activist, ardent supporter of the global war on terror, Fortuna Union High School graduate, and a past Eureka Reporter columnist.
A couple of years ago, after The Eureka Reporter first started, I contacted Mantova after reading one of his columns titled, “It is Time to Invade Iran.” Since he is such a fan of aggressive military solutions to solve the world’s problems, he should be eager to enlist.
Mantova flatly refused to concede to serving the United States in the military. The money quote from these conversations came when Mantova berated me for what he said was my “hillbilly, intellectually vacant and morally repugnant belief that ‘those who call for war must serve.’”...
These days, Anthony Mantova is a young fellow on the rise in GOP politics. He is the national field director for an organization called The Leadership Institute..... Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) are some notable graduates of The Leadership Institute.
Why is it, I often wonder, that many of those most eager to embroil our nation in war are simultaneously strenuously opposed to serving in the military? Many Right-Wing luminaries come to mind - Limbaugh, Gingrich, Cheney, O'Reilly, Carlson, Hannity, Reagan, some pudgy-faced twit who has his own right-wing radio show in Florida, the names in bold above, etc. - all advocates of many a war, none having served.
It is very easy to advocate sending someone else in to fight to try to implement some religio-politically, ideologically driven 'policy.' It is something else entirely to be willing to fight to implement the policies you advocate. This simple truth has been brought up before - the truth being that those advocating war but refusing to fight themselves being morally repugnant cowards - and dismissed by those it applies to. Sure, they appear to have 'sound' replies, such as 'one need not play football to have a favorite team' and other such idiotic drivel. I am not sure which is more pathetic - that these Chickenhawks actually find such excuses convincing, or that many in their fanbase do.
But those of us that have served, even if in peacetime, should feel differently (though, sickeningly, some veterans' political affiliation often seems to color their common sense on these issues). We should feel anger, disgust, humiliation. We are essentially being told by these right-wing cowards and hypocrites that we are expendable as far as they are concerned. That we are/were somehow beneath them, that military service is for the dregs of society, not the high and mighty, bible-toting Republican elite. That we are/were little more than pawns for the Republican power elite to use as they see fit.
Oh, sure, some of them might have their rich daddy make some calls and secure for them a coveted spot in a unit that is guaranteed stateside duty even in wartime so they can boast of having served - but that is, as far as I am concerned, just as bad as the chickenhawk-sissy that gets deferments or has the family doctor write them a bogus 'excuse' or those that simply advocate invading everyone to assert our power while not only flatly refusing to serve themselves, but also considering those that did serve as having the "hillbilly, intellectually vacant and morally repugnant belief that ‘those who call for war must serve."
It is, in fact, people like Anthony Montova and the other right-wing chickenhawks and their enablers in the electorate and media consumers who have the hillbilly, morally repugnant beliefs. Whatever ill-will befalls them, they richly deserve.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Walter "I'm right and everyone else is wrong' ReMine is back...
Walter ReMine has an ego the size of Montana. It is a shame that only he and a handful of simple-minded sycophants have realized this...
But I digress. He is back at ARN making his usual boasts and condescensions...
But I digress. He is back at ARN making his usual boasts and condescensions...
Monday, August 07, 2006
Is writing a computer program really a scientific theory???
If you have no understanding of what an actual scientific theory is, and all you did for a living was write computer programs and you have an odd, almost obsessive vendetta against evolution and all things in the scientific mainstream, then I guess so...
Friday, August 04, 2006
Have we forgotten about Coulter the plagiarist?
I had written about the identified instances of plagiarism in Ann Coulter's latest screed, 'Godless,' here.
I have not heard of any follow up on this issue. I do hope it does not fade away...
*UPDATE*
There was some concern raised about whether or not Coulter had also engaged in plagiarism in her newspaper columns, and her syndicater was going to look into it. NEWSFLASH! They say there is nothing wrong... Who would have thought?
The blatant plagiarism in her book, however, is still unanswered for...
I have not heard of any follow up on this issue. I do hope it does not fade away...
*UPDATE*
There was some concern raised about whether or not Coulter had also engaged in plagiarism in her newspaper columns, and her syndicater was going to look into it. NEWSFLASH! They say there is nothing wrong... Who would have thought?
The blatant plagiarism in her book, however, is still unanswered for...
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Clear evidence re: "LifeEngineer's" use of computer programming 'science' as a universal application
I have outlined the facts surrounding the psychology of one Warren Bergerson (aka 'LifeEngineer'), apparently a retired actuary with some computer programming/engineering experience, in which he believes that the concepts employed in computer programming/modeling are and must be universally employed in all fields of science if they are to even be considered science. Further, he employs his rather restrictive grasp of mathematics to try to shoehorn any data that anyone offers into his little 'it is all intelligence driven' box. He is a something else...(see, for example, here and here)
Namely, he claims that unless a field employs 'hard science predictive theories' and a 'falsify and replace' analysis of said theories, then those in the field are not engaging in science.
He has further explained that 'hard science predictive theories' are not meant to actually explain anything, and requiring them to do so indicates an ignorance of scioence and the scientific method.
What are 'predictive theories' and who uses them? Well, exactly the folks in Bergerson's supposed area of expertise, and that is basically it.
Computer modeling/programming employs 'predictive theories', but these are not 'theories' in the true scientific sense. From what I have gathered, 'predictive theories' in computer science refer to what amounts to an application of previous experience to a proposed new project. That is, one employing a 'predictive theory' would think along these lines: "When this line of code was changed on Program X, 'A' occurred, therefore, if I make a similar change in this line of code in Program Y, something like 'A' should also occur." ( Note - predictive theories are also employed in areas like physics and chemistry, where the ineractions between componants of a system are well defined and controllable, and the 'thgeories' look an awful lot like calculations, not statements. This alone should tell the intelligent person that such theories are at best of limited value in dynamic living biological systems.)
Anyway, a new thread at ARN, started by Bergerson, clearly indicates this transferrence that he engages in. It also shows how he is quite unable to produce anything of substance, for he titled the thread "Examples of IDT's [sic]" and two dayts later, he has provided none. Of course, he implies that he has - in Bergerson's world, alluding to something, hinting at something, or writing about something is the exact same thing as presenting something.
Bergerson gives awa the farm, however, in this post on page two:
How did he give away the farm? Well, he states clearly: where he is coming from (computer programming), and what his expectations for a 'predictive theory' are. These are amenable to biological reality (for the most part).
Well, read his writings to see for yourself.
Namely, he claims that unless a field employs 'hard science predictive theories' and a 'falsify and replace' analysis of said theories, then those in the field are not engaging in science.
He has further explained that 'hard science predictive theories' are not meant to actually explain anything, and requiring them to do so indicates an ignorance of scioence and the scientific method.
What are 'predictive theories' and who uses them? Well, exactly the folks in Bergerson's supposed area of expertise, and that is basically it.
Computer modeling/programming employs 'predictive theories', but these are not 'theories' in the true scientific sense. From what I have gathered, 'predictive theories' in computer science refer to what amounts to an application of previous experience to a proposed new project. That is, one employing a 'predictive theory' would think along these lines: "When this line of code was changed on Program X, 'A' occurred, therefore, if I make a similar change in this line of code in Program Y, something like 'A' should also occur." ( Note - predictive theories are also employed in areas like physics and chemistry, where the ineractions between componants of a system are well defined and controllable, and the 'thgeories' look an awful lot like calculations, not statements. This alone should tell the intelligent person that such theories are at best of limited value in dynamic living biological systems.)
Anyway, a new thread at ARN, started by Bergerson, clearly indicates this transferrence that he engages in. It also shows how he is quite unable to produce anything of substance, for he titled the thread "Examples of IDT's [sic]" and two dayts later, he has provided none. Of course, he implies that he has - in Bergerson's world, alluding to something, hinting at something, or writing about something is the exact same thing as presenting something.
Bergerson gives awa the farm, however, in this post on page two:
Again, there are lots of existing examples of scientific analysis performed using IDTs or the logical equivalent of IDTs. Probably some of the best examples involve the computer programs and the design of computer programs.
When I sit down to design a computer program, I have a goal, I have at least an initial understanding of the constraints under which the program is expected to operate, I have an initial understanding of the output R the program is to produce, and I want to design a program or algorithms of the general type F(S,G) that produces output R. In other words, I want to find a predictive IDT of the type:"Under defined constraints, F(G,S) predicts or determines R"
How did he give away the farm? Well, he states clearly: where he is coming from (computer programming), and what his expectations for a 'predictive theory' are. These are amenable to biological reality (for the most part).
Well, read his writings to see for yourself.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Bill "Isaac Newton of INformation Theory [sic]" Dembski up to his usual tricks
Dembski bragged about being one of the primary sources for the disinformation in right-wing lunatic Ann Coulter's latest 'book', "Godless", and many have written about the glaring errors and clear propaganda it contains. Dembski's response to requests to clarify just what he told Coulter [requests form Jim Downard] are met with his usual condescending hubris and pseudo-machismo, and were posted on Dembski's blog (without permission, I suspect) for the dimwitted denizens of Dembski's den to ridicule, but no actual responses to criticisms of the garbage found in her 'book'. Read about it here and here.
For what it is worth, I found it amusing to see 'Davescot' refer to Jim's writing as if it were from a 'girly man.' I've seen a picture of DaveScot (David Scott Springer), and he is not really in a position to be referring to anyone as a 'girly man.' Also of note was 'russ' on Dembski's blog writing that Jim has an "inability to communicate with regular people." This is the same russ that wrote, after visiting this blog for fewer than 10 minutes, that it did not appear that was refuting 'anything of substance' in my writing about Crevo and Haldane's dilemma. It appears that this 'russ' - too cowardly to leave any responses here, I might add - is intellectually incapable of rendering any sort of reasoned opinion on any issue that threatens ot weaken his anti-Darwinian zealotry.
Such is the mindset of the denizens of Dembski's den of sycophantic dolts.
For what it is worth, I found it amusing to see 'Davescot' refer to Jim's writing as if it were from a 'girly man.' I've seen a picture of DaveScot (David Scott Springer), and he is not really in a position to be referring to anyone as a 'girly man.' Also of note was 'russ' on Dembski's blog writing that Jim has an "inability to communicate with regular people." This is the same russ that wrote, after visiting this blog for fewer than 10 minutes, that it did not appear that was refuting 'anything of substance' in my writing about Crevo and Haldane's dilemma. It appears that this 'russ' - too cowardly to leave any responses here, I might add - is intellectually incapable of rendering any sort of reasoned opinion on any issue that threatens ot weaken his anti-Darwinian zealotry.
Such is the mindset of the denizens of Dembski's den of sycophantic dolts.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
My nomination for stupidest statement by a non-biologist about biology
"...An observed correspondence or correlation between some DNA codes and some amino acids, is not and will never be a causal relationship. "
Emphasis mine.
I hate to spoil it for the reader, but the writer of that uninformed nonsense is - are you ready? - anti-Darwinist computer-model maker Warren Bergerson...
Emphasis mine.
I hate to spoil it for the reader, but the writer of that uninformed nonsense is - are you ready? - anti-Darwinist computer-model maker Warren Bergerson...
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Pardon my French, but...
... Conservative Republican from Oklahoma senator James Inhofe is an ignorant ass.
You can have him, Oklahoma....
You can have him, Oklahoma....
Monday, July 24, 2006
Bill Dembski and his sycophants (or is it psycho-phants?) - grotesque hypocrites and all 'round bad people
While perusing the Internet Infidels creation/evolution discussion board, I came across an interesting thread.
The author had written a review of Ann Coulter's take on evolution in her latest sleaze-oozing imbecile-fest, "Godless", and dared mention that Wizard of ID, Bill Dembski (who has boasted of providing Coulter with much of her "information" about evolution).
Dembski, ever the ego-pumping hypocrite and credential monger, would have none of it.
He made an 'all you have to do is read this' post on his blog titled "Nonexperts in evolutionary biology criticizing nonexperts in evolutionary biology for criticizing evolutionary biology".
The only text of this post was a snippet from the review in which the authors rightly mention the fact that Coulter (and Behe and Dembski himself) is apparently unwilling or unable to read primary scientific journals to get information.
Dembski's supposed rebuttal is to post the 'biographies' of the co-authors of that paper - one is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Rochester, the other is "...a self-employed artist, an activist for social change, and an avid student of history and anthropology."
This is supposed to render their opinions of Coulter's book irrelevant.
Let us remind ourselves just who William Dembski is.
He is a mathematician, philosopher, and theologian.
He has never done any research in nor has he taken any college-level courses in (as far as I can tell) anything related to biology. Yet, he writes 'authoritatively' on things like genetcs, evolutionary biology, etc.
A bit of the old pot calling the kettle black, to say the least.
What is more, there is a comment on one of the comments in that thread which reads:
"Why would a biologist be considered an expert in design, digital information systems, and factory automation? Sorting out where different critters belong in the phloygenetic tree is really little more than stamp collecting. All the action is in reverse engineering the machinery of life at the molecular scale. Engineers are the experts at reverse engineering. Who cares what happened in the distant past?..."
That comment was provided by one David Scott Springer, supposedly a retired computer tinkerer at Dell. Isn't it interesting to see yet another example of the computer tech/programmer/scientist asserting primacy of his sphere of knowledge above actual relevant knowledge? Allow me to turn that comment around and make it directly relevant:
Why would an expert in design, digital information systems, and factory automation be considered an expert in biology? Concocting or re-writing computer software or re-arranging pre-existing modules is little more than over-valued trial and error. All the action in biology is trying to figure out how biological systems operate, what does the ability to alter computer screen contrast or make a faster CPU have to do with providing any special insight on that?Biologists are the experts in biology. Engineers are the experts at engineering. Who cares what happens in a computer workshop when it comes to biology?
The author had written a review of Ann Coulter's take on evolution in her latest sleaze-oozing imbecile-fest, "Godless", and dared mention that Wizard of ID, Bill Dembski (who has boasted of providing Coulter with much of her "information" about evolution).
Dembski, ever the ego-pumping hypocrite and credential monger, would have none of it.
He made an 'all you have to do is read this' post on his blog titled "Nonexperts in evolutionary biology criticizing nonexperts in evolutionary biology for criticizing evolutionary biology".
The only text of this post was a snippet from the review in which the authors rightly mention the fact that Coulter (and Behe and Dembski himself) is apparently unwilling or unable to read primary scientific journals to get information.
Dembski's supposed rebuttal is to post the 'biographies' of the co-authors of that paper - one is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Rochester, the other is "...a self-employed artist, an activist for social change, and an avid student of history and anthropology."
This is supposed to render their opinions of Coulter's book irrelevant.
Let us remind ourselves just who William Dembski is.
He is a mathematician, philosopher, and theologian.
He has never done any research in nor has he taken any college-level courses in (as far as I can tell) anything related to biology. Yet, he writes 'authoritatively' on things like genetcs, evolutionary biology, etc.
A bit of the old pot calling the kettle black, to say the least.
What is more, there is a comment on one of the comments in that thread which reads:
"Why would a biologist be considered an expert in design, digital information systems, and factory automation? Sorting out where different critters belong in the phloygenetic tree is really little more than stamp collecting. All the action is in reverse engineering the machinery of life at the molecular scale. Engineers are the experts at reverse engineering. Who cares what happened in the distant past?..."
That comment was provided by one David Scott Springer, supposedly a retired computer tinkerer at Dell. Isn't it interesting to see yet another example of the computer tech/programmer/scientist asserting primacy of his sphere of knowledge above actual relevant knowledge? Allow me to turn that comment around and make it directly relevant:
Why would an expert in design, digital information systems, and factory automation be considered an expert in biology? Concocting or re-writing computer software or re-arranging pre-existing modules is little more than over-valued trial and error. All the action in biology is trying to figure out how biological systems operate, what does the ability to alter computer screen contrast or make a faster CPU have to do with providing any special insight on that?Biologists are the experts in biology. Engineers are the experts at engineering. Who cares what happens in a computer workshop when it comes to biology?
Just so we don't forget... (Salem hypothesis data points)
Warren Bergerson is not the only anti-Darwinist zealot with an engineering background that is clueless in the relevant sciences. Let us not forget (not an all-inclusive list and in no particular order) these other folks that I've briefly mentioned:
David R. Pogge
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Walter J. ReMine (aka 'Laserthing', 'IThinkSo')
One
Jon Bartlett (aka 'Crevo', 'johnnyb')
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Steve Petermann
One
There are many many more out there, of course.
All claiming some sort of special insight into something that they clearly have, at best, a tenuous intellectual grasp on...
David R. Pogge
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Walter J. ReMine (aka 'Laserthing', 'IThinkSo')
One
Jon Bartlett (aka 'Crevo', 'johnnyb')
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Steve Petermann
One
There are many many more out there, of course.
All claiming some sort of special insight into something that they clearly have, at best, a tenuous intellectual grasp on...
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Warren Bergerson's cavalcade of whimsy
Every week or so, I peruse the ARN discussion forum for examples of what I will now call the Bergerson effect - the act of extending one's actual area of knowledge to encompass and in fact supersede all others.
I have writen about Bergerson (aka 'Lifeengineer') a few times before, but to reiterate - he is apparently an engineer of some sort that is involved in producing models of human behavior for an insurance company. His favorite themes are:
1. He has disproved 'Darwinism' using simple actuarial math
2. Only a tiny percentage of all people that call themselves scientists are actually competent in the sciences
3. A tiny percentage of scientists understand how science works
4. Genetics is a pseudoscience
5. Evolutionary biology is a pseudoscience
6. All academic science is rife with corruption and incompetence
7. All industrial science is corrupt and incompetent, also
8. He and a small handful of people (whom he refuses to name) understand how to engage in true science
9. True science involves the formulation and use of 'hard science predictive theories'
Problem is, he has NEVER, not once, ever provided any supporting documentation or evidence at all for ANY of these claims, and in fact labels all who ask for such evidence as 'trolls' or accuses them of engaging in 'politics' or ideological paradigm defense.
I pointed out how predictive theories are really not theories as in scientific theories so much as expectations from previous experience and are used primarily by those in the computer programming/computer science field.
Thus, Bergerson believes that HIS field of supposed actual 'expertise' trumps all others; that the concepts and 'theory' structure used in computer modeling not only should, but must be applied to all other fields of science. And if that is not done - if a geneticist, for example, cannot produce a "predictive theory" in the same manner that he would in computer modeling, then they are clearly incompetent and engaging in pseudoscience.
He is, in my personal opinion, of course, a very delusional person, with a hint of megalomania.
Here - see for yourself:
ID theories
Can science explain science?
Truly some amazing exchanges there.
I especially this juxtaposition of claims by Bergerson from the 'Can science...' thread:
I would argue that for even moderately complex scientific issues, the portion of scientists with professional credentials with the competence to make meaningful contributions is less that 1 in 100 and for complex issues the ratio is probably less than 1 in a thousand. Is there published reports demonstrating that at least 99 out of 100 scientists are incompetent? Probably not.
and
I predict that such a test would confirm the 99 plus percentage incompetence claim. ... As far as I know, there is no published data supporting this conclusion.
No evidence, no studies, no data to support his claims - which he makes frequently - and he is lecturing others about incompetence and how to engage in real science?
Incredible...
Oh - one last one. A claim too incredibly unsupported and stupid to let slide:
There is hard evidence that genes do not contain anywhere near sufficient information to control or determine developmental processes.
That is a particulary funny, stupid claim. It derives from some older threads (that I may attempt to track down) in which Bergerson, again directly applying computer modeling/computer programming concepts to biology, declared that any type of phenotypic change requires millions of changes in 'programming', and since genes do not possess that much "information", natural processes cannot account for such changes.
I do wonder then how this wizard would explain achondroplasia caused by a single point mutation...
I have writen about Bergerson (aka 'Lifeengineer') a few times before, but to reiterate - he is apparently an engineer of some sort that is involved in producing models of human behavior for an insurance company. His favorite themes are:
1. He has disproved 'Darwinism' using simple actuarial math
2. Only a tiny percentage of all people that call themselves scientists are actually competent in the sciences
3. A tiny percentage of scientists understand how science works
4. Genetics is a pseudoscience
5. Evolutionary biology is a pseudoscience
6. All academic science is rife with corruption and incompetence
7. All industrial science is corrupt and incompetent, also
8. He and a small handful of people (whom he refuses to name) understand how to engage in true science
9. True science involves the formulation and use of 'hard science predictive theories'
Problem is, he has NEVER, not once, ever provided any supporting documentation or evidence at all for ANY of these claims, and in fact labels all who ask for such evidence as 'trolls' or accuses them of engaging in 'politics' or ideological paradigm defense.
I pointed out how predictive theories are really not theories as in scientific theories so much as expectations from previous experience and are used primarily by those in the computer programming/computer science field.
Thus, Bergerson believes that HIS field of supposed actual 'expertise' trumps all others; that the concepts and 'theory' structure used in computer modeling not only should, but must be applied to all other fields of science. And if that is not done - if a geneticist, for example, cannot produce a "predictive theory" in the same manner that he would in computer modeling, then they are clearly incompetent and engaging in pseudoscience.
He is, in my personal opinion, of course, a very delusional person, with a hint of megalomania.
Here - see for yourself:
ID theories
Can science explain science?
Truly some amazing exchanges there.
I especially this juxtaposition of claims by Bergerson from the 'Can science...' thread:
I would argue that for even moderately complex scientific issues, the portion of scientists with professional credentials with the competence to make meaningful contributions is less that 1 in 100 and for complex issues the ratio is probably less than 1 in a thousand. Is there published reports demonstrating that at least 99 out of 100 scientists are incompetent? Probably not.
and
I predict that such a test would confirm the 99 plus percentage incompetence claim. ... As far as I know, there is no published data supporting this conclusion.
No evidence, no studies, no data to support his claims - which he makes frequently - and he is lecturing others about incompetence and how to engage in real science?
Incredible...
Oh - one last one. A claim too incredibly unsupported and stupid to let slide:
There is hard evidence that genes do not contain anywhere near sufficient information to control or determine developmental processes.
That is a particulary funny, stupid claim. It derives from some older threads (that I may attempt to track down) in which Bergerson, again directly applying computer modeling/computer programming concepts to biology, declared that any type of phenotypic change requires millions of changes in 'programming', and since genes do not possess that much "information", natural processes cannot account for such changes.
I do wonder then how this wizard would explain achondroplasia caused by a single point mutation...
Monday, July 10, 2006
Creationist engineer using 'analogy' as 'evidence' yet again
What is it with these people?
Clearly, the person quoted in lavender above does not understand what analogies are used for...
Quote;All in all, there is no direct comparison between computers and DNA, or anything else in biology. There are some useful analogies and metaphors, but they are tropes, not biological reality.
It is understandable that DD's ["Darwin Defenders" - a cute little denigratory moniker that ARN forum denizens have given people that actually understand science in an attempt to belittle them without getting into trouble ] would try to ignore the analogy between computers and living systems since analysis based on this analogy clearly demonstrates that their belief system is logically unworkable...
Clearly, the person quoted in lavender above does not understand what analogies are used for...
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Limbaugh caught with Viagra
This is classic stuff....
Thrice-divorced draft dodger and right-wing talk radio hero Rush Limbaugh was detained at the Palm Beach International Airport for having a bottle of Viagra in his possession that did not have his name as the patient.
He was returning from the Dominican Republic.
Hmmmmm....
Now why would a nice unmarried family values guy like Limbaugh be taking A bottle of Viagra, which produces erections, to the Dominican Republic?
Was Mann Coulter with him?
Did he go down to 'visit' with some prepubescent boys? Underage hookers?
Will his idiotic listeners care at all?
Of course not.
Right wing heros have been pre-granted amnesty and immunity for all wrong doing. Doubtless, this is the Democrat's fault...
**UPDATE**
Who would have thunk it? The draft dodging drug addict is trying to 'laugh' it all away on his show...
Thrice-divorced draft dodger and right-wing talk radio hero Rush Limbaugh was detained at the Palm Beach International Airport for having a bottle of Viagra in his possession that did not have his name as the patient.
He was returning from the Dominican Republic.
Hmmmmm....
Now why would a nice unmarried family values guy like Limbaugh be taking A bottle of Viagra, which produces erections, to the Dominican Republic?
Was Mann Coulter with him?
Did he go down to 'visit' with some prepubescent boys? Underage hookers?
Will his idiotic listeners care at all?
Of course not.
Right wing heros have been pre-granted amnesty and immunity for all wrong doing. Doubtless, this is the Democrat's fault...
**UPDATE**
Who would have thunk it? The draft dodging drug addict is trying to 'laugh' it all away on his show...
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Just when I thought Warren Bergerson ("Life Engineer") could not possibly get any stupider...
I engage in my latest intellectual autoflagellation by reading this (Bergerson in lavender):
Interesting.
Let's see what folks that actually understand a thing or two about what a "theory" is say:
From this BioTech dictionary":
theory
Definition:
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
Even in plain old dictionary.com, the relevant definitions are in direct contradiction to Bergerson's claim:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
Not opne - ever - to admit ignorance or basic error, Bergerson posts a typical condescending rejoinder:
In other words, theories for which there exists supporting empirical evidence and provide explanations for the phenomenon in question are not 'hard' or 'real' science, whereas, assertions supported only by more assertions that have not yet been 'falsified and replaced' by other unsupported assertions are 'hard' or 'real' science. Incredible...
If any readers have even heard of "falsify and replace" analyses, or "hard science predictive theories", as described by Bergerson, please, let me know.
For example, if you search for "hard science predictive theories", do you think you will receive returns linking to CalTech or MIT or something? If you do, you will be wrong - you will receive links to posts by or about Bergerson.
If you search for "predictive theories" you will get a number of returns, many of which are not links to Bergerson's internet posts. You will find something interesting - you will find that "predictive theory" is a concept that is used frequently in computer science:
And here:
This is how Bergerson uses the term - should we be surprised? Though he is very cryptic about his background and what he does, I have gathered that he has an engineering background and is involved with generating computer models of human behavior. That certainly explains why he insists on his definition of "predictive theory" and on the uber-utility of it - it is what he does, therefore, it has primacy over all things. Standard 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail' mentality.
However, 'predictive theories' ala Bergerson, as such, have limited utility outside of computer science and perhaps chemistry and physics since they do not explain anything.
So, you can 'predict' how much a bar of a pure metal will expand if you raise its temperature by one degree Centigrade. Big deal.
But you cannot actually explain why it does that. In terms of scientific knowledge, what good is it to be able to 'predict' something without understanding the reasons why the phenomenon even occurs? And to suggest, no - demand - that such 'theories' are "true science" and all else is 'political' is absurd to the highest degree. In fact, I find such 'theories' fairly useless in any fields other than those that do not seek to understand or explain anything, and why one would demand that such limited 'theories' are the only 'true' science escapes me, and I question whether the term 'theory' should even be used for such things.
But back to the topic at hand -
I am still undecided - is it pathetic or infuriating that this fool keeps writing so confidently about "hard science" when it is obvious that he lacks even a basic grasp of scientific principles?
Quote: Anyway, let me suggest "....without offering an explanation for how it works, it isn't a theory."
More scientific ignorance. Real science or hard science generates predictive theories that identify tested relationships between the values of cause and effect variables. Hard science neither produces nor requires explanations of how the causal relationships work.
Interesting.
Let's see what folks that actually understand a thing or two about what a "theory" is say:
From this BioTech dictionary":
theory
Definition:
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
Even in plain old dictionary.com, the relevant definitions are in direct contradiction to Bergerson's claim:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
Not opne - ever - to admit ignorance or basic error, Bergerson posts a typical condescending rejoinder:
Scientific analysis, in the end, always comes down to humans making decisions about the validity of scientific theories. It is important to recognize that there are only two known methodologies for making such decisions.
These are:
1. The hard science methodology where decisions are based on the results of open, objective, and independent falsify and replace analysis and
2. The subjective/authoritarian/political methodology where the validity of a 'theory' is based on the subjective personal opinions or voting by some set of individuals...
In other words, theories for which there exists supporting empirical evidence and provide explanations for the phenomenon in question are not 'hard' or 'real' science, whereas, assertions supported only by more assertions that have not yet been 'falsified and replaced' by other unsupported assertions are 'hard' or 'real' science. Incredible...
If any readers have even heard of "falsify and replace" analyses, or "hard science predictive theories", as described by Bergerson, please, let me know.
For example, if you search for "hard science predictive theories", do you think you will receive returns linking to CalTech or MIT or something? If you do, you will be wrong - you will receive links to posts by or about Bergerson.
If you search for "predictive theories" you will get a number of returns, many of which are not links to Bergerson's internet posts. You will find something interesting - you will find that "predictive theory" is a concept that is used frequently in computer science:
Ultimately, generating theories from your own research will provide the greater HCI [Human-Computer Interaction ] community with valuable knowledge. Theories and models that come about from your research will be one of three kinds:
explanatory theories
predictive theories
generative theories
Explanatory theories seek to explain the behavior of our world; they tend to provide a more conceptual model of the world. Predictive theories seek to predict outcomes based on the changing values of component variables. Predictive theories provide an extremely high level of utility to HCI, they allow designers to directly predict the outcomes of their designs on user performance variables. Generative theories generate guidelines and principles that provide useful and applicable knowledge and models. The type of theory a researcher intends to produce guides the selection of appropriate research methodologies.
And here:
Instead, we need to equip the HCI person with power tools for design. For me, that implies supplying HCI with supporting science in the form of predictive theories. Predictive theories are not merely frameworks. Predictive theories are things (which one person can tell to another) that can predict a situational or design consequence. Predictive theories are generative theories. They are ways of characterizing and hence organizing and constraining the design space.
This is how Bergerson uses the term - should we be surprised? Though he is very cryptic about his background and what he does, I have gathered that he has an engineering background and is involved with generating computer models of human behavior. That certainly explains why he insists on his definition of "predictive theory" and on the uber-utility of it - it is what he does, therefore, it has primacy over all things. Standard 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail' mentality.
However, 'predictive theories' ala Bergerson, as such, have limited utility outside of computer science and perhaps chemistry and physics since they do not explain anything.
So, you can 'predict' how much a bar of a pure metal will expand if you raise its temperature by one degree Centigrade. Big deal.
But you cannot actually explain why it does that. In terms of scientific knowledge, what good is it to be able to 'predict' something without understanding the reasons why the phenomenon even occurs? And to suggest, no - demand - that such 'theories' are "true science" and all else is 'political' is absurd to the highest degree. In fact, I find such 'theories' fairly useless in any fields other than those that do not seek to understand or explain anything, and why one would demand that such limited 'theories' are the only 'true' science escapes me, and I question whether the term 'theory' should even be used for such things.
But back to the topic at hand -
I am still undecided - is it pathetic or infuriating that this fool keeps writing so confidently about "hard science" when it is obvious that he lacks even a basic grasp of scientific principles?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
