Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:09 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Update from Robert Wright, editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads.tv, Aug. 30: This diavlog has now been re-posted. The decision to remove it from the site was made by BhTV staff while I was away and unavailable for consultation. (Yes, even in a wired world it's possible to take yourself off the grid. Here's how I did it.) It's impossible to say for sure whether, in the heat of the moment, I would have made a decision different from the staff's decision. But on reflection I've decided that removing this particular diavlog from the site is hard to justify by any general principle that should govern our future conduct. In other words, it's not a precedent I'd want to live with. At the same time, I can imagine circumstances under which a diavlog would warrant removal from the site. So this episode has usefully spurred me and the BhTV staff to try to articulate some rules of the road for this sort of thing. Within a week, the results will be posted, along with some related thoughts on the whole idea behind Bloggingheads.tv, here.

Last edited by Brenda; 08-30-2009 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:16 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

PZ Myers reviews "The Edge of Evolution" in two parts: Part I, Part II.

Excerpt from the latter:

Quote:
... I did want to say a few words about chapter 9, where he takes on evo-devo. I waited a bit because I knew that Sean Carroll was writing a review of the book for Science, and I expected he'd go gunning for chapter 9, too—but no, he didn't. I guess he felt as I do, that since Behe's fatally flawed premise was exposed in the first few chapters, there was little point to addressing his incompetent nit-picks later in the book. After all, when the construction crew has built a foundation of tissue paper in a pool of quicksand, by the time you get around to criticizing the roofers for using graham crackers for shingles, you're about out of outrage.
"Out of outrage" pretty well sums up my feeling that Behe has been given a platform by Bh.tv. There was a time when I would have expanded upon how appalled I am at such a choice; now, I know it's not worth the bother.

I've listened to a few seconds of this diavlog, enough to hear John McWhorter call Behe's nonsense "a very important book." I can't remember the last time I lost so much respect for someone so quickly. [Added: I'm reminded of the last line of the excerpt I posted last night.]
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 08-26-2009 at 08:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:23 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:25 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?
McWhorter says in the opening moments that he initiated this. Blame's all his.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:35 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
McWhorter says in the opening moments that he initiated this. Blame's all his.
My respect for McWhorter is diminished by this. Behe has been refuted soundly and repeatedly (see the Dover case, e.g., or specific arguments against "Irreducible Complexity".)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:35 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development.

On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting.

I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:48 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development.

On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting.

I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?

That's a good question, actually. I think John, unfortunately, is somebody whose reason abdicates when his religious beliefs are challenged. That, at any rate, is how I interpret his stance here.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2009, 10:20 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development.

On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting.

I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?
A couple of answers:

Only the supple brains at the DI can tease out the works of the Almighty from the grasp of the seeming chaos and confusion of nature. Once you understand that the universe has all been set in motion so that someone like the venerable Behe and/or other mmm chosen brethren would be seen as vessels for the higher understanding that this world needs. Behe is just part of god's plan for the universe and he, his cohorts and their decedents ( both intellectually and biologically ) will see that man takes his rightful place back into the center of the universe where we belong.

Another idea Is that writing such books can be lucrative like say Ann Coulter. Make a lot of claims that can't be verified and start attacking science that frankly his audience would never think of trying to understand. Would Ann Coulter think that anybody in her demographic would bother reading anything more challenging than her polemics and maybe a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" ? I am not saying that Behe is Ann Coulter but I am sensing some sort of common descent here and maybe even some intelligent design of a slightly different variety.

I await some less asymmetrical diavlog on the subject and I am confident that we will see it soon. As for the hand wringing over this stuff and the templeton stuff ... lighten up a bit. Social conservatives have to suffer the fact that no one is here to REALLY defend burning down abortion clinics and jailing 12 year olds that want to terminate pregnancies ... have some compassion.

In the end Behe can charge whatever windmills he chooses to and I get more valuable links from bjkeefe.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-27-2009, 04:53 AM
LeeBowman LeeBowman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 9
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
"Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development."
Attemps are constantly being made, and the TTSS hypothesis has been injected with its own toxins, multiple times. There is absolutely no evidence of flagellar precursers, or an ancestral form. Miller is blowing smoke regarding IC refutation.

Quote:
" ... even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive."
Random mutations as the sole source of complexity and novelty?! That deserves the 'magic' connotation.

"
Quote:
Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting."
Why?

Quote:
"I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components?"
It's 'components' are observable. And functional. Magic is just a term for something we don't understand. Random mutations to produce structured order, complexity, synergistic systems and aesthetics is the best example I can think of.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2009, 05:34 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeBowman View Post
Attemps are constantly being made, and the TTSS hypothesis has been injected with its own toxins, multiple times. There is absolutely no evidence of flagellar precursers, or an ancestral form. Miller is blowing smoke regarding IC refutation.
Miller:

Quote:
In 1998 the flagella of eubacteria were discovered to be closely related to a non-motile cell membrane complex known as the Type III secretory apparatus (Heuck 1998) These complexes play a deadly role in the cytotoxic (cell-killing) activities of bacteria such as Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes bubonic plague. When these bacteria infect an organism, bacteria cells bind to host cells, and then pump toxins directly through the secretory apparatus into the host cytoplasm. Efforts to understand the deadly effects of these bacteria on their hosts led to molecular studies of the proteins in the Type III apparatus, and it quickly became apparent that at least 10 of them are homologous to proteins which form part of the base of the bacterial flagellum (Heuck 1998: 410).

This means that a portion of the whip-like bacterial flagellum functions as the "syringe" that makes up the Type III secretory apparatus. In other words, a subset of the proteins of the flagellum is fully-functional in a completely different context – not motility, but the deadly delivery of toxins to a host cell. This observation falsifies the central claim of the biochemical argument from design – namely, that a subset of the parts of an irreducibly complex structure must be, "by definition nonfunctional." Here are 10 proteins from the flagellum which are missing not just one part but more than 40, and yet they are fully-functional in the Type III apparatus.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 08-27-2009 at 06:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-27-2009, 01:15 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Jeff having dealt with your dismissal by assertion of research such as Miller notes that refutes items in the "irreducible complexity" argument, I'll just note that you go from argument by expression of incredulity that complexity requires magical creation as Behe claims:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeBowman View Post
Random mutations as the sole source of complexity and novelty?!
to the realization that

Quote:
Magic is just a term for something we don't understand.
without connecting the dots as to how that statement relates to the failings of the IC claims. Hence the resorts to denial, scorn, and incredulity to attempt to bolster a failing logical and scientific argument.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:26 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?
I'm betting Behe wouldn't be available for debate with most of the people on that list.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-02-2009, 02:09 PM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

"I can't remember the last time I lost so much respect for someone so quickly." Exactly!

I don't know which is harder to believe, that god actually exists, or that John McWhorter just said all the things I think I heard him say.

I took a microbiology course at a Chicago Community College and I'm no scientist, but I was yelling at my PC in response to the nonsense these two were spouting. McWhorter must not be trying very hard to find the science if he is still this ignorant.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-02-2009, 11:47 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
"I took a microbiology course at a Chicago Community College and I'm no scientist, but I was yelling at my PC in response to the nonsense these two were spouting. McWhorter must not be trying very hard to find the science if he is still this ignorant.
Really. What specifically was the "nonsense" that John and Behe were "spouting"? Both men seem very intelligent and well-informed. What did you learn in you CC biology course that showed them wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:16 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Ye gods.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:18 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default From Kitzmiller v. Dover

Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Just some starting context for Professor Behe's views:
Quote:

4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)).
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 08-27-2009 at 01:13 PM.. Reason: Oops. Missing link.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:28 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

PZ excerpts Ken Miller's review of Behe's book.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:31 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Richard Dawkins's review of Behe's book.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:33 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Jerry Coyne's review (PDF) of Behe's book. [Added: HTML version found.]

[Added] Also, Jerry Coyne's review of Behe's earlier book, Darwin's Black Box.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 08-26-2009 at 07:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:46 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright review a paper Behe coauthored in 2004.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:59 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright review a paper Behe coauthored in 2004.
Heh. (This is in reference to a Behe paper mentioned as a prior to this paper.)

Quote:
Although some in the “intelligent design” community tout Behe and Snoke’s paper as the long-awaited theoretical paper (Discovery Institute 2004), it contains no “design theory”, makes no attempt to model an “intelligent design” process, and proposes no alternative to evolution. In reality Behe & Snoke (2004) is an unmemorable investigation of neutral drift in protein and nucleic acid sequences. As we will show, the paper cannot even support the modest claims it does make.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

The TalkOrigins FAQ page on Behe and "irreducible complexity."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:51 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Grab the popcorn: this is bound to be a good thread.

(Doubtful I'll actually watch the diavlog.)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:55 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

The reception so far:

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-26-2009, 08:48 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
The reception so far:

Those guys are adorable.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-26-2009, 08:01 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Mark C. Chu-Carroll's review of "The Edge of Evolution."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-26-2009, 08:06 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Blake Stacey has gathered up a bunch more links related to "The Edge of Evolution." And I do mean a bunch. Great effort.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-26-2009, 08:10 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Nick Matzke (via PZ) looks specifically at Behe's malaria claims.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-26-2009, 08:45 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default two ways a skunk could evolve

consider two male proto skunks fighting. Both skunks are equal. Winning the fight or achieving a draw allows the skunk to live another day. Even emitting a slight smell during the fight could drive off the attacker because all other factors are equal. Over generations the smelly skunk gets more odorous and is increasingly able to survive skunk on skunk fights.

the 2nd way for the smell to evolve is for the proto skunk to have a 2nd trait that gives it a competitive advantage. Over generations, for every slight decrease in competitive advantage of the 2nd trait, the skunk gains an equally slight increase in its ability to emit an offensive odor.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:27 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default BOB MAKE IT STOP

Oh, my god. It wasn't enough to have that first Discovery Institute guy on, now you have to get Michael Behe? In my opinion, the most basic criterion for being on bloggingheads is that you should be at least interesting if nowhere near right. Seriously, blow your "irreducible complexity" out your ass. What a useless discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:36 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: BOB MAKE IT STOP

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
Oh, my god. It wasn't enough to have that first Discovery Institute guy on, now you have to get Michael Behe? In my opinion, the most basic criterion for being on bloggingheads is that you should be at least interesting if nowhere near right. Seriously, blow your "irreducible complexity" out your ass. What a useless discussion.
And when did McWhorter decide he was a scientific expert? What is up with all of his assertions about what's plausible and what's not in molecular biology? Does he really think he could go toe to toe with Dawkins, or PZ, or ERV?

Why has McWhorter decided that this ridiculous charlatan, with a long history of having been repeatedly debunked by by his peers, not to mention his shaming in a court of law (decision written by a G. W. Bush appointee,) is worth a public conversation or an hour of a person's time? I'm forcing myself to watch, but, when I mentioned above that McWhorter had lost some of my respect, I had no idea just how awful his contribution was gong to be to this travesty.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 08-26-2009 at 10:48 PM.. Reason: it's good to complete your sentences
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-26-2009, 10:02 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: BOB MAKE IT STOP

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
And when did McWhorter decide he was a scientific expert? What is up with all of his assertions about what's plausible and what's not in molecular biology?
Your alarm bells should have gone off within the first minute of the diavlog, when it became apparent that most of McWhorter's previous "knowledge" of evolution came from reading Behe's other book.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-26-2009, 11:19 PM
nautirony nautirony is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 49
Default Re: BOB MAKE IT STOP

Removing a vid is a first for BH.tv, isn't it?

I disagree with Behe but I wish it weren't removed. John McWhorter should have written an article or added a video that clarified his position rather than remove it since removal looks like an act of cowardice and/or an attempt at denying/rewriting history...

Last edited by nautirony; 08-26-2009 at 11:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:33 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default schism! new site!

We've got a few programmers among us (including me). I bet we could crowd-source a new site. It can't be that hard! It's not like we need to FedEx cameras around the world to do this. We can match what Bob's paying his talkers. We could even get bjkeefe and kidneystones to moderate.

If this creationism thing keeps up no one will want to be on bhtv anymore. A spinoff site is better than no site for us regular viewers.

Who's with me?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-27-2009, 03:35 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: schism! new site!

Heh.

Some days I wonder if Bob was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a look-alike. I thought I knew Bob, and knew BHTV, after following BHTV since its inception. Then he released his new book and ever since then I don't recognize him, and I don't recognize BHTV. It's just beyond weird.

It's as if Bob was hiding this side of himself all the time leading up to the release of his book. I think a lot of us have been hoping for the day that this would all settle down and the site (and Bob) would go back to normal. It can't happen soon enough.

But, wow, they removed the video? I wonder if we'll ever get an explanation. (Assuming they haven't already given one.)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-27-2009, 07:19 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: schism! new site!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Heh.

Some days I wonder if Bob was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a look-alike. I thought I knew Bob, and knew BHTV, after following BHTV since its inception. Then he released his new book and ever since then I don't recognize him, and I don't recognize BHTV. It's just beyond weird. [...]
Posted in 2001 by guess who?

Quote:
Quote:
"This time, though, the evolutionists find themselves arrayed not against traditional creationism, with its roots in biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea: the intelligent design theory."—New York Times, front page, April 8, 2001
With this sentence, the newspaper of record has now granted official significance to the latest form of opposition to Darwinism. As the Times notes, adherents of "intelligent design theory" are doing what creationists have long done, such as trying to change public-school science curricula. But there's a difference: Instead of being a bunch of yahoos, they are a bunch of "academics and intellectuals" with new, "more sophisticated" ideas.

Two obvious questions: What is really new about "intelligent design theory"? And who are these "academics and intellectuals"? The answer to the first question—nothing of significance—is best seen by answering the second question.

The Times piece identifies three "intellectual fathers" of intelligent design theory: Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski.

[...]

Intellectual father No. 2: Michael Behe, biochemist at Lehigh University. "One of the first arguments for design theory," according to the Times, is found in Behe's 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe, says the Times, argues that various biochemical structures "could not have been built in a stepwise Darwinian fashion." For example, the mechanism for blood-clotting involves more than a dozen different proteins working together in complex harmony. Surely, Behe argues, the entire complex mechanism didn't spring to life from a single fortuitous mutation! So, Darwinians must contend that it was built by a series of mutations, and that each mutation, by itself, was useful to the organism. Yet, Behe insists, if you try to imagine these earlier, more rudimentary forms of the mechanism—lacking its full complement of proteins—you'll find yourself imagining a mechanism that wouldn't function at all.

The first thing to note about this "new" argument against Darwinism is that it is roughly as new as The Origin of Species. The classic formulation of Behe's question is: "What good is half an eye?"—and it was raised by Darwin himself, who then did his best to answer it.

Of course, it's a good question, a question that Darwinians should continue to struggle with (as they have), notwithstanding the inherent difficulty of discerning an evolutionary path that has been lost in the mists of prehistory. Still, there is nothing new about this basic question. It is straight out of Creationism 101.

[...]

Incidentally, the first time I opened Behe's book, I came upon a major confusion about Darwinian theory—a confusion on par with, and in fact related to, the confusion of Phillip Johnson's described above. It's no wonder Behe can't imagine how natural selection could create complex things if he hasn't bothered to find out how natural selection is supposed to work in the first place.
To be fair, let's remember that McWhorter said at the beginning of the diavlog that it was all his idea. Let's also remember that Bob has lately been (1) out promoting the hell out of his book (2) in pain (3) on drugs and (4) probably on retreat by now.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-27-2009, 10:00 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: schism! new site!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Heh.
Some days I wonder if Bob was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a look-alike. I thought I knew Bob, and knew BHTV, after following BHTV since its inception. Then he released his new book and ever since then I don't recognize him, and I don't recognize BHTV. It's just beyond weird.
start a secessionist web site version of BHTV. Only politically correct discussions and comments tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
But, wow, they removed the video? I wonder if we'll ever get an explanation. (Assuming they haven't already given one.)
McWhorter is afraid of going against the grain. Or maybe he is sacrificing his credibility to demonstrate how powerful the left is, that it can destroy anyone who speaks contrary to doctrine.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-27-2009, 11:09 PM
nautirony nautirony is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 49
Default Re: schism! new site!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
McWhorter is afraid of going against the grain. Or maybe he is sacrificing his credibility to demonstrate how powerful the left is, that it can destroy anyone who speaks contrary to doctrine.
So it wasn't the Darwinists who shut down JM but it was the Left...??!!///??11!!

Can I join the 'Chinese whispers'? _Maybe_ it is the aliens...
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-02-2009, 10:09 AM
SkepticDoc SkepticDoc is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Argleton
Posts: 1,168
Default Re: schism! new site!

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
We've got a few programmers among us (including me). I bet we could crowd-source a new site. It can't be that hard! It's not like we need to FedEx cameras around the world to do this. We can match what Bob's paying his talkers. We could even get bjkeefe and kidneystones to moderate.

If this creationism thing keeps up no one will want to be on bhtv anymore. A spinoff site is better than no site for us regular viewers.

Who's with me?
I'll watch...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:38 PM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default John should learn some economics.

John has a hard time imagining how order can emerge from chaos. Maybe he should read Hayek and learn some economics. Incredible orders, way out of bounds for our imagination, arise all the time all around us.

Also if he thinks that the step from protein to complete humans is totally incredible, how does he conclude that there must be a design behind it? If it's so incredible then no one could have ever designed it: that's my reaction.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.