quote:
Well, Percy, that HAS been a subject which has come up a few times. The attempted repartee I generally receive is an immediate parallelization between evolution and creation, and or, Intelligent Design. Yet you say nothing then, presumably because at that particular time it suits your own arguments.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The idea that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism is usually countered by a reference to all the theists who accept evolution. To be honest what you're describing sounds more like your tactics.
quote:
The point is that you attempt to stack the deck in your favor, without ever thinking that it might be incredibly hypocritical for you to do so.
You know, if you are going to make accusations like that it would help to be more explicit so at least we could see if you have the evidence to back up your assertion.
quote:
Evolution was very much a debatable, "hot topic" back in those days, much in the same ID is right now. Try not to look at the theory where it is currently in stature. It was still very much a fledgling theory in those days looking for increased support. In the same way that evolution was seeking some kind of asylum, so ID is attempting to reclaim the footing it lost.
It was 1925. Within science the hot topic relevant to evolution was the mechanism - Darwinism, Lamarckism or orthogenesis. Mendelian genetics had been rediscovered and the work that lead to the New Synthesis had already begun. Probably the biggest recent issue would have been the fraud at Kammerer's lab and the shadow it cast over Lamarckism.
Evolution was accepted - and, as I pointed out, it was already in the State-approved textbook. Compare that with the Kitzmiller case where they had to bring in a text written by the ID movement - a creationist text that had been rewritten to substitute "intelligent design" for creationism - where even the definition of "intelligent design" was the definition that the previous draft had used for "creationism". Even then two defendants tried to hide the facts about where the money to buy the books came from - to the point of perjury.
quote:
Why would I need to when I'm already familiar with it? What did I say otherwise? I'm not contending any of that. I'm simply saying that the Dover trial and the Scopes trial were fought for much of the same principles. I was pointing out that you overlook those parallels.
Obviously you are NOT familiar with the material. The cases are not parallel in the way that you mean. The biggest parallel is that in both cases religious believers tried to manipulate the science curriculum of the public school system to better suit their beliefs - in violation of the US constitution.
Your alleged parallels aren't overlooked. They are rejected as the fabrications that they are. If you really know the material then you know that what you are saying isn't true.
If they were fought for the same principles, the sides didn't change. The evolution side still fought for a sound education in science and the religious believers still fought for their religion against science.
quote:
Paul mentioned something about how lousy and unfounded Behe's claims are. So I mentioned one completely unsupported theory that he has not set his crosshairs on. Why not, if scientific truth is the aim?
Because it's not much of an issue. Memes are an interesting idea that - to the best of my knowledge - haven't really been treated rigourously enough to be considered fully science (although there's no doubt that memes - in the general sense - actually exist). But memes are just a fringe idea in science. There's no equivalent of the DI pushing memes into schools or trying to discredit rival ideas through spin and press releases.
quote:
Is that Behe hasn't submitted them, or is it that they are met with virulent hostility or total indifference?
It's that Behe hasn't submitted them. If he had and met with such virulence as you suggest the DI would be splashing that about as evidence of the persecution they claim. Behe and the DI wouldn't keep that quiet.
quote:
Look, Paul said, specifically, that Behe is a liar, yet provided NO evidence of said lies. I asked him at least three times to support his assertion. He couldn't. He just keeps saying that ID'ists are liars, blah, blah, blah. They're just mean-spirited talking points that he's erroneously fashioned in his mind.
You're trying to rewrite the discussion again. My point was that Behe is being dishonest in trying to pass off his writings as science when they are better classed as religious apologetics. Behe is enough of a scientist to know that his arguments are weak and flawed (and the fact that he doesn't submit his work to the scientific community strongly suggests that he does know it). He has to know that his motivations are religious.. He has to know that the DI is in the business of pushing religion. He has to know that the DI includes creationists - who he does not shun.
The points about the DI have been backed by evidence. THe only other accusation of dishonesty I made that I can think of is the reference to Wells - but you were the one who brought up his false accusations. You shot yourself in the foot there.
quote:
Then he gives me some asinine example of the supposed "lies," and attempts to indict ALL of Intelligent Design with it. I then ever-so-gently reminded him of the monumental, demonstrable frauds associated with evolution. Does that mean I indict all evolutionists as liars? No. But running along the same lines as him, I would be totally justifiable in doing so.
If you bother to look back to the relevant messages you'll find that the textual history is rather more complicated than you let on. Your reference to evolutionary "frauds" is in
Message 81. The quoted comment preceding it comes from my
Message 36 - and it refers not to Behe but to the DI organisation. It is not even offered as an example of Behe's lies - in part because I never said that Behe directly lied !
My point is elaborated in
Message 60. The quotes from the Wedge document appear in
Message 78
But there's demonstrable dishonesty on your part.
I did not directly call Behe a liar.
I have answered all challenges to what I actually said with regard to Behe.
Your examples were produced in response to comment about the DI that was NOT offered as an example of Behe lying. A comment that had already been supported with evidence.
Your examples of "fraud" included:
A 19th Century embryologist working to back up his own ideas - not those of modern evolutionary theory or even Darwins.
A hoax carried out by an unknown person for an unknown reason (maybe Dawson to make his career although there are other possiiblities).
An honest mistake
A fraud carried out to obtain money FROM evolutionists
False accusations invented by an ID supported and backed by the ID movement.
None if this is comparable to the actual evidence I put forward. As seems to be your usual practice you invent a strawman of my argument and use that as a basis for a
tu quoque argument.
quote:
Stop trying to stack the deck against me and have your own side except some personal responsibility.
It's hard to see what you are talking about. Surely you are responsible for your own behaviour. Nobody's forcing you to act this badly.
quote:
I have no desire to go tit for tat. I would rather we just have a nice discussion, which most of them you are more than capable of. There are other people who just can't do that. They have to immediately meet everything I say, no matter how benignly I put it, with noticeable venom.
Yet you make tit-for-tat arguments quite happily. And often not even honestly. As we've seen.
™ Version 4.2
