Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

[bjkeefe]

Actually, one minor point where we disagree:

Originally Posted by AemJeff

[...] I agree with Behe that BHtv should have let the interview stand ...

In the first place, if we take the explanation as given at face value -- that John McWhorter asked to have the diavlog pulled -- then I do not think "BHtv should have let the interview stand." It seems to me that it was both considerate of Bh.tv to abide by JM's wishes, and also smart from the point of view of maintaining good relations with a (usually) valued diavlogger. I could even think it was smart as a matter of general policy -- to someone reluctant to appear on this site, knowing that he or she could ask to have something pulled might be a bit of a security blanket that would be the final push to get him or her to do a diavlog.

As far as JM asking to have the diavlog pulled goes, I think it makes him look a little bit bad to have done so, but I also think he's well within his rights to ask this. Anyone should have the right to withdraw something that he or she doesn't want to stand behind, especially in this Internet age of quote-mining and Google-bombing. If JM had the sense that this was a bad decision and/or a poor performance by him, and worried that this one thing would become overly prominent when people searched for him online, then those seem like reasonable worries to me.

Again, I think he looks bad, in the short term, to have let it get to the point of publication before asking to have it pulled, especially given how quickly and gleefully Beehee and his acolytes are mistaking a privilege for a right (or pretending to, more likely) and playing the CENSORSHIP!!!1! card. But if the diavlog itself was any indication, it's clear that JM has no clue about how these people operate.

I think it would be good for JM to write a detailed post explaining his take on the whole affair, and then that should be the end of it.

[Me&theboys]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Let's flesh out that quote:


The evidence is here, in this very thread. Does anybody see any evidence of a "scary," "unexpected" "mob" showing up? I agree with Behe that BHtv should have let the interview stand, but his characerization


is somewhat at odds with the facts (which, again, are documented right here.)

Completely agree. There were 48 or so posts made prior to the diavlog being yanked. Over 20 of them consisted of links to sites that offer refutations to Behe's ID claims. Almost 20 of them were some one-two word nonsense posts directed at fellow commenters, and replies to them. Fewer than 10, all of them mild in nature, were bemoaning that bhtv aired this kind of diavlog and that McWhorter engaged in it. There was no vitriol against Behe. The comments posted here most certainly did not prompt the yanking. The vast majority of the posts that anyone could consider remotely objectionable were made AFTER the yanking, many of them prompted by it. Perhaps bhtv has a policy that any diavlogger who wants to have his diavlog removed has that right. Who knows. Regardless, if Behe and his minions are even remotely attached to the concept of truth, they should be focusing their blame on McWhorter, who requested the removal, not the bhtv commenters.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Actually, one minor point where we disagree:



In the first place, if we take the explanation as given at face value -- that John McWhorter asked to have the diavlog pulled -- then I do not think "BHtv should have let the interview stand." It seems to me that it was both considerate of Bh.tv to abide by JM's wishes, and also smart from the point of view of maintaining good relations with a (usually) valued diavlogger. I could even think it was smart as a matter of general policy -- to someone reluctant to appear on this site, knowing that he or she could ask to have something pulled might be a bit of a security blanket that would be the final push to get him or her to do a diavlog.

As far as JM asking to have the diavlog pulled goes, I think it makes him look a little bit bad to have done so, but I also think he's well within his rights to ask this. Anyone should have the right to withdraw something that he or she doesn't want to stand behind, especially in this Internet age of quote-mining and Google-bombing. If JM had the sense that this was a bad decision and/or a poor performance by him, and worried that this one thing would become overly prominent when people searched for him online, then those seem like reasonable worries to me.

Again, I think he looks bad, in the short term, to have let it get to the point of publication before asking to have it pulled, especially given how quickly and gleefully Beehee and his acolytes are mistaking a privilege for a right (or pretending to, more likely) and playing the CENSORSHIP!!!1! card. But if the diavlog itself was any indication, it's clear that JM has no clue about how these people operate.

I think it would be good for JM to write a detailed post explaining his take on the whole affair, and then that should be the end of it.

I agree with you, and I could have been clearer here. My opinion was probably better expressed in this post:

Me& also made a good point below:

Originally Posted by Me&theboys

...
Perhaps bhtv has a policy that any diavlogger who wants to have his diavlog removed has that right.
...

[The Allen Factor]

Originally Posted by Me&theboys

What I find hard to believe is that John just a) read this book in a total vacuum of ignorance about the creationism debacles in the US, b) found it fascinating, c) decided to do a public diavlog with Behe without bothering to do any research at all on the issues at hand other than reading Behe's book. For an intelligent person like John, that's akin to having one's brain kidnapped.

Dr. McWhorter mentioned that he's read several attempted rebuttals of Behe's work and none have impressed him. Quite frankly, I agree with this. Strawmen and fairytales just don't quench my intellectual thirst, and apparently they don't his, either.

Why do they yours?

Originally Posted by ERV

*amused*

So Behe hasnt found the time in *looks at watch* over two years to debate me on HIV evolution, but he conveniently found the time to get a blow-job on BloggingHeads from some random guy.

Pathetic.

I happily offer to film a replacement show, for this one, with Behe.

Miss ERV (I assume that's in reference to endogenous retrovirus and not your poor feminine hygiene)

After being eviscerated by Sal Cordova's superior knowledge and intellect, why would you want any part of one of our greatest living biochemists, Mike Behe? Surely you jest, sweet heart. Behe would spank you like your parents so-obviously did not.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by ERV

*amused*

So Behe hasnt found the time in *looks at watch* over two years to debate me on HIV evolution, but he conveniently found the time to get a blow-job on BloggingHeads from some random guy.

Pathetic.

I happily offer to film a replacement show, for this one, with Behe.

I do hope BHtv follows up on ERV's offer. (Though maybe not paired with George Johnson!)

Updated: Duh! The obvious pairing would be with McWhorter - if he's up for that. (Come on, John - what a great way to rebuild and renew!)

[AemJeff]

One more pull from Behe's response:

Rather, I suspect the folks at the website weren’t expecting the vitriolic reaction, began to worry about their good names and future employment prospects, pictured themselves banished to a virtual leper colony, panicked, and folded.

Anyone who has ever been exposed to the fray associated with the appearance of an Althouse diavlog on this site will understand how closely this speculation matches reality.

[The Allen Factor]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

One more pull from Behe's response:



Anyone who has ever been exposed to the fray associated with the appearance of an Althouse diavlog on this site will understand how closely this speculation matches reality.

Speaking of exposed, I'd like to once again draw attention to NCSE Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed!.

And to whet your appetites, here's the website's introduction:

In light of the DVD release a few months ago of the terrific Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, we thought it would be a good time to provide a comprehensive listing of articles that correct the various misrepresentations and falsehoods spread by Darwinists about Expelled.

Most of the falsehoods in circulation about the film can be traced to a website called "Expelled Exposed" set up by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as part of its PR effort to smear the documentary last year. “Expelled Exposed” alleges that Expelled made “dishonest attempts to make mountains out of molehills and to create martyrs where martyrdom does not exist.” As John West observed in response, "The basic thrust of [“Expelled Exposed”] seems to be the preposterous claim that pro-ID scientists never, ever face harassment, intimidation, or persecution. Not ever! Scientists who claim otherwise—such as biologist Richard Sternberg, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, and Baylor University engineering professor Robert Marks—must be cry-babies or worse. The NCSE's approach is otherwise known as 'blaming the victim.'"

Although the NCSE's website spends much energy attempting (poorly) to debunk and deny claims that ID proponents experience persecution, the attitude found at “Expelled Exposed” wouldn’t be any different even if its authors admitted that the attacks experienced by pro-ID scientists had actually occurred. In essence, “Expelled Exposed” effectively says, 'There’s no persecution of ID-proponents in the academy. But even if there was, so what? They deserve it.'

"Expelled Exposed" occasionally pays lip-service to freedom of speech, but the site itself should be exposed for what it really is: an attempt to subtly—and sometimes not so subtly—convince readers that the pro-ID viewpoint does not deserve the full protections of academic freedom. By unashamedly encouraging would-be persecutors, “Expelled Exposed” unwittingly justifies the central thesis of the Expelled documentary, namely that ID proponents lack academic freedom and experience unjust persecution and blacklisting within the academy.

They present such strong evidence that I can say with complete confidence that anyone who disagrees that I.D. proponents are being oppressed are almost certainly a part of the oppression to begin with.

[Me&theboys]

[QUOTE=The Allen Factor;127200]Dr. McWhorter mentioned that he's read several attempted rebuttals of Behe's work and none have impressed him. Quite frankly, I agree with this. Strawmen and fairytales just don't quench my intellectual thirst, and apparently they don't his, either. Why do they yours?[\QUOTE]

I agree, too, that McWhorter's read at least some of the works on evolution and some of the rebuttals to ID. That was the point of my comment, which is I that I DON'T think ignorance followed by sudden enlightenment via the comments section explains his decision to pull the diavlog. I personally think he's spent 10 years suffering from confirmation bias on several levels and got feedback after the diavlog from peers and colleagues who expected him to have done some better intellectual work on the subject before conducting a diavlog about it. By pulling the diavlog, he's trying to minimize damage to his intellectual reputation. IMHO.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

Speaking of exposed, I'd like to once again draw attention to NCSE Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed!.

And to whet your appetites, here's the website's introduction:


They present such strong evidence that I can say with complete confidence that anyone who disagrees that I.D. proponents are being oppressed are almost certainly a part of the oppression to begin with.

What a clever rhetorical gambit! "If you don't think I'm being oppressed, then you're an oppressor!" Bravo! I bow to your unyielding logic.

[Me&theboys]

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

anyone who disagrees that I.D. proponents are being oppressed are almost certainly a part of the oppression to begin with.

can you define oppressed?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

[...]

What a bunch of whining. First, the only right you have to free speech is protection from government sanction. Free speech does not mean that you get to spew your religious babble anywhere you feel like plopping down your soapbox.

Second, this whimpering about being excluded from academia is just laughable. If you IDiots think you have some actual contributions to make to the scientific endeavor, you can't be asking for special treatment. You have to play by the same rules as everyone else bucking for a job: do original research and get it published in peer-reviewed journals.

And if you're going to complain that your "work" is being "suppressed" in that regard, then I really have no patience for you. This is the same complaint made by every other crank since we developed a peer review system. While there are very occasional problems at individual journals with individual submitted articles, nothing of actual scientific merit stays unpublished forever. To try to claim otherwise is pure tin foil hat nonsense.

The truth is, "intelligent" design is nothing more than creationism gussied up with a bit of fancy talk. The core principle is the view that "this is too hard for me to understand, therefore God did it." Everything else is just an endless attempt to find nits to pick in evolutionary theory and from each one of them, to conclude the evolution is false and we should embrace a Dark Ages mentality. End of story.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Did you read Zimmer's "Evolution?" That was probably the best, hands-down, overview of evolution and how it all ties together on the various levels. Positively brilliant. But yeah, definitely check out the other two. You won't be disappointed.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Updated: Duh! The obvious pairing would be with McWhorter - if he's up for that. (Come on, John - what a great way to rebuild and renew!)

Excellent suggestion. It would be, to coin a phrase, a teaching moment.

Originally Posted by Me&theboys

Don't forget that Bob's spending this week at that yogic silent meditation retreat. Coming back to this mess may tarnish his bliss. Maybe he should book a 2nd week and wait for things to die down.

lol I can only imagine how crazed up Bob will be after he spends a week staring at the wall like a lunatic. He’ll be soo angry at bhtv staff. He’ll go all GOP on them. He’ll teabag McWorther’s ass and put it on youtube. lol lol lol

[AemJeff]

Razib weighs in.

Some Creationists are complaining that McWhorter had the video withdrawn because he feared career reprecussions. I doubt that, his bread is buttered by The Manhattan Institute, which is a conservative think thank. Though most elite conservatives are not Creationist, there is no shame in Creationism in the modern American conservative movement. Rather, I suspect the pressure was the more informal one of peer group horror which likely came in via email.

and again:

3) Part of the issue really has to do with the impenetrability of "scientese." More clearly, I remember years ago a friend with a legal degree admitting that the Creationist talking point about The Second Law of Thermodynamics would have left him at a loss, as he didn't have the scientific background to parse such issues. Behe is a much more sophisticated and slick player at that particular game.

Anybody interested ought to check the Talk Origins link on creationist thermodynamics.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Razib weighs in.


and again:



Anybody interested ought to check the Talk Origins link on creationist thermodynamics.

Thanks for the links. I strongly second Razib's point 3 about Behe's ability to baffle 'em with bullshit.

BTW, Razib has added a third short post on the matter.

Also of note, from Razib's first post:

Beliefnet's resident Creationist, David Klinghoffer is accusing bloggingheads.tv of "Stalinism".

Never bet against the possibility of a wingnut seizing an opportunity to go hysterical about "persecution" and "suppression," that's for sure. Truth during said hysteria is of course optional.

Here's a taste:

Something evidently happened behind the scenes at Bloggingheads. So the interview was taken down, at which point an anonymous Orwellian Administrator posted as follows:

(And then the comment about McWhorter asking to have the diavlog pulled is reproduced.)

More whimpering along those lines follows, and then Klinghoffer then gets out some of the rest of his usual axes to grind. I guess Abbie (ERV) really threatens his weak sense of his own manhood. You go, girl.

[piscivorous]

Originally Posted by DoctorMoney

Well, take it as a vote of confidence that I see this post.

Like I said, I was talking about people who seem to be deliberately attempting to derail all conversation. Everybody engages in a little hyperbole from time to time, but I do not agree that the trolls come in two partisan flavors.

There's only one kind, and it's pretty obvious who they are.

Wasn't really looking for a vote of confidence but thanks all the same. I guess that we shall have to live with the differing perceptions as to the diversity of flavors that the trolls come in here as I read both left and right trolls here though I believe that there is an abundance of left over right.

[Starwatcher162536]

I have never claimed to be, or thought of myself as the sharpest knife in the tool shed, so the following is by no means looking down on people and thinking "they are stupid", but....

Isn't it well, obvious that evolution does not contradict the second law? I have a hard time believing that someone who has not already made up their mind on what side they are on, would place much stock in those claims.

At most, the only thing I can see where that claim would mean anything whatsoever to a reasonable person, is if that person had no idea what the second law actually is. But assuming said person is still open minded, I would think the next action would be to look up info on entropy, which would facilitate the realization that any claim to the effect that evolution contradicts that law would become is bogus.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Wasn't really looking for a vote of confidence but thanks all the same. I guess that we shall have to live with the differing perceptions as to the diversity of flavors that the trolls come in here as I read both left and right trolls here though I believe that there is an abundance of left over right.

Care to give some specific examples, with links?

[DoctorMoney]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Wasn't really looking for a vote of confidence but thanks all the same. I guess that we shall have to live with the differing perceptions as to the diversity of flavors that the trolls come in here as I read both left and right trolls here though I believe that there is an abundance of left over right.

Nice to see that you responded to my even-handedness with a partisan jab.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I have never claimed to be, or thought of myself as the sharpest knife in the tool shed, so the following is by no means looking down on people and thinking "they are stupid", but....

Isn't it well, obvious that evolution does not contradict the second law? I have a hard time believing that someone who has not already made up their mind on what side they are on, would place much stock in those claims.

At most, the only thing I can see where that claim would mean anything whatsoever to a reasonable person, is if that person had no idea what the second law actually is. But assuming said person is still open minded, I would think the next action would be to look up info on entropy, which would facilitate the realization that any claim to the effect that evolution contradicts that law would become is bogus.

To this end, I would like to second Jeff's recommendation that anyone not familiar with the way creationists try to use Second Law science-y talk to buttress their wankery start by visiting the Talk Origins index page on "Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism."

[piscivorous]

Are hints and innuendo non-partisan or just dodging?

[The Allen Factor]

Originally Posted by themightypuck

I didn't see why he wanted it taken down either. It didn't seem that bad. On the other hand John McWhorter was pretty much uncritical about something he has to know he is going to take a lot of heat for.

Of course he was going to take heat for it. Darwinists are crybabies that can't handle opposing viewpoints being given the light of day. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the behavior of bjkeefe and his ilk.

Originally Posted by themightypuck

He addressed some important philosophical consequences of Behe's views (like isn't ID a kind of giving up of the scientific project)

In what way would I.D. be giving up of the "scientific project"?

How is saying "designerdidit" any more of a science stopper than saying "chancedidit"?

There's no question that a designer did, in fact "do it". What's up for debate is what mechanisms were used. The front-loaded hypothesis is an intriguing. I'd suggest looking into the works of John A. Davison, found in the sidebar of his Word Press blog.

Originally Posted by themightypuck

Is he trying to say he has observed ID? The I don't get it so it must be magic argument is always a terrible one and it seemed weird for McWhorter to let it slide.

I.D. is an inference based on what we know about the hallmarks of intelligence and the unintelligence of nature, and which better fits with what we find in biology.

There's nothing "magical" about the process of design, you've likely seen it take place every single day of your life. On the other hand, the Darwin position assigns to nature attributes which simply do not exist outside of their deranged and potentially dangerous minds.

In other words, I.D. deals in reality and what we do know, whereas Darwinism deals in fairytales, magic and pleads to ignorance.

This is why I.D. is science and Darwinism is not. This is also why Darwinists are so terrified of I.D. that they feel that all I.D. supporters simply must be silenced.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

Of course he was going to take heat for it. Darwinists are crybabies that can't handle opposing viewpoints being given the light of day. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the behavior of bjkeefe and his ilk.

Yeah, I'm a real "crybaby" for posting links to critical reviews of Behe's tripe and for calling the creationists what they are.

Your mistake is that your canard about "opposing viewpoints" (aka "teach the controversy") is wearing thin. There gets to be a point when we're talking about science where "opposing viewpoints" have been shown to be lacking in substance or merit or both, and we call a halt to listening to cranks repeating their decades-stale talking points.

I'll say it again: if you want your "opposing views" to be treated with respect, then play by the same rules as everyone else: do original research, write it up, and get it published in peer-reviewed journals. Putting out books from a vanity press operation just won't cut it. Neither will endless whimpering about suppression. This non-stop playing-the-victim role may still fool the occasional uninformed accommodationist (cf. McWhorter), but it's working less well every day. You can only call people whom you bore "STALINIST!!!1!" so many times before the average person says, "Meh, Godwin's Law. You lose."

There's no question that a designer did, in fact "do it".

That's religion, not science. That's why no one bothers to listen to you. Believe whatever you want, but once you've said "God did it!!!1!," there's nothing left to discuss and nothing left to do. Those of us who prefer to do actual science prefer to adopt the attitude that things should be explained without resorting to a supernatural fallback.

This is also why Darwinists are so terrified of I.D. that they feel that all I.D. supporters simply must be silenced.

Wrong again. No one here, or anywhere else that I'm aware of, is arguing that Uncommon Descent or any other creationist site should be shut down. No one is saying you can't go on with your proselytizing all you want. The only thing we are saying is that what you stand for is not science, so there's no point in wasting any more time pretending that it is. This means there's no room for you in the science classroom and there's no reason to give you undeserved credibility by treating your position as anything other than faith.

By the way, your insistence on saying "Darwinists" instead of "biologists" gives your whole attitude away. All you have left at this point is your sad attempts to demonize what you call your opposition.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

...
In what way would I.D. be giving up of the "scientific project"?

That was decided in a court of law, remember?

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)).

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

How is saying "designerdidit" any more of a science stopper than saying "chancedidit"?

How is selection the same thing as "chance?" What designer?

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

...
I.D. is science and Darwinism is not. This is also why Darwinists are so terrified of I.D. that they feel that all I.D. supporters simply must be silenced.

I guess that's why ID practitioners produce so much peer reviewed work. Most working biologists (read "Darwinists") have far too many demands on their time to spend much of their time worrying about Dembski's weird little religious jihad against rationality.

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by DoctorMoney

Well, take it as a vote of confidence that I see this post.

Like I said, I was talking about people who seem to be deliberately attempting to derail all conversation. Everybody engages in a little hyperbole from time to time, but I do not agree that the trolls come in two partisan flavors.

There's only one kind, and it's pretty obvious who they are.

Why don't you name names "Dr. Money" - too afraid?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by rcocean

Why don't you name names "Dr. Money" - too afraid?

Maybe he didn't want to hurt your feelings?

[themightypuck]

I can't really blame him for swinging at a big hanging curveball. McWhorter made his bed and should have lain in it. If what was said is true, he put bhtv in a really terrible position.

[themightypuck]

Originally Posted by The Allen Factor

In what way would I.D. be giving up of the "scientific project"?

How is saying "designerdidit" any more of a science stopper than saying "chancedidit"?

There's no question that a designer did, in fact "do it". What's up for debate is what mechanisms were used. The front-loaded hypothesis is an intriguing. I'd suggest looking into the works of John A. Davison, found in the sidebar of his Word Press blog.

I think this really boils down to deeply held philosophical beliefs. One says you can't invoke supernatural causes and the other says you can. I can see how the former would be vexing to a person of faith since run to the end it says God can never be part of the sciencey stuff of science (nothing wrong with praying your experiments will go well though). As for a designer, I think this is just semantics. Richard Dawkins believes in a designer if by designer you mean natural selection.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by themightypuck

I can't really blame him for swinging at a big hanging curveball. McWhorter made his bed and should have lain in it. If what was said is true, he put bhtv in a really terrible position.

Nah, it's no big deal for BH.tv. In fact, they'll come out of it looking better, from the perspective of potential future guests who are nervous about how they'll present. Knowing you can have your diavlog pulled if you change your mind could be the security blanket that gets you to do your first diavlog.

As to the only other part -- creationist wingnuts yelling STALINIST!!!1! and CENSORSHIP!!!1! -- let 'em yap. That's all they ever do anyway.

[themightypuck]

Well I think bhtv is trying really hard to be ecumenical (much to the chagrin of some) and I don't think Bob wants to the site to be just another island of commie atheist do-gooder liberals.

[cragger]

The problem is that science has replaced one of the functions that religion has historicaly provided - explaining the world around us. Hard though it may be these days to convince folks that the sun is driven across the sky daily in the chariot of a god, or that they should seek out a witch who has cursed them in consort with demons and devils rather than seeking medical treatment for infections, there will likely always be something that is not completely understood to which those who so need can point and exclaiim - that must have been done by divine magic. The human ability to deny and avoid distressing realities expands this unknown space for those who seem to need it most.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

To this end, I would like to second Jeff's recommendation that anyone not familiar with the way creationists try to use Second Law science-y talk to buttress their wankery start by visiting the Talk Origins index page on "Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism."

Sometime in the last year I can across a new paper that viewed the emergence of order/life as the efficient dissipation of entropy. Basically plants and critters degrade the sun's energy better than rocks do. I thought it was some biologists at a Norwegian forestry college, but now I can't find it. Rats.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Sometime in the last year I can across a new paper that viewed the emergence of order/life as the efficient dissipation of entropy. Basically plants and critters degrade the sun's energy better than rocks do. I thought it was some biologists at a Norwegian forestry college, but now I can't find it. Rats.

Hmmmm ...

I can believe that plants "degrade the sun's energy better," I guess, and I suppose, thanks to the plants, the same could be said about animals. I dunno, though -- I'm getting just the faintest whiff of purpose here.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by themightypuck

Well I think bhtv is trying really hard to be ecumenical (much to the chagrin of some) and I don't think Bob wants to the site to be just another island of commie atheist do-gooder liberals.

Another example to be filed under Refs, Successfully Worked.

Let's see, TMP, you've praised Behe and Althouse in the past few minutes. Why not tell us how much you liked Jerome Corsi, and complete the Trifecta of Wankery?

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Maybe he didn't want to hurt your feelings?

Ha! Clever, but wrong

Go ahead Dr. Money - name names.

[ToddSmithee]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I think it would be good for JM to write a detailed post explaining his take on the whole affair, and then that should be the end of it.

Amen to this. We already knew how Behe would respond, that not the interesting one! Plus, am I naive in thinking bhtv would never pull that diavlog if JM had not requested it, which I am sure is and should be within his rights?

Of course Behe thinks bhtv is afraid, but obviously Althouse is on all the time so they have no reason to pull on general dislocation from logic. Behe said, "For those who want to watch for themselves the interview that made grown men tremble..."

That trembling was not fear but a visceral reaction to seeing science beaten with no protection. Plus, it was boring with JM playing puppy dog. There's a reason I don't watch Larry King interviews.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Hmmmm ...

I can believe that plants "degrade the sun's energy better," I guess, and I suppose, thanks to the plants, the same could be said about animals. I dunno, though -- I'm getting just the faintest whiff of purpose here.

I think it's one of those path of least resistance deals. Like how water flows downhill.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

I think it's one of those path of least resistance deals. Like how water flows downhill.

Or like how light travels all possible paths and then settles on the one of least action?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by ToddSmithee

Amen to this. We already knew how Behe would respond, that not the interesting one! Plus, am I naive in thinking bhtv would never pull that diavlog if JM had not requested it, which I am sure is and should be within his rights?

I don't think so. AFAICR, they've never pulled a diavlog once it was posted.

Of course Behe thinks bhtv is afraid, but obviously Althouse is on all the time so they have no reason to pull on general dislocation from logic.

LOL!

Behe said, "For those who want to watch for themselves the interview that made grown men tremble..."

That trembling was not fear but a visceral reaction to seeing science beaten with no protection. Plus, it was boring with JM playing puppy dog. There's a reason I don't watch Larry King interviews.

Nice. Hope McWhorter sees that one.