Sunday, July 15, 2007

A Note from Joe Gallien

Joe has addressed a thread to me on his blog, copied below। As I no longer spend much time on the ID issue, I only noticed it via a thread Blipey posted at AtBC. If Joe wants to develop his theme and needs a response from me, I suggest he lets me know here.

Another Note to Alan Fox

I said on UD: and a note to Alan Fox:

ID still flourishes because educated people know that “Kitzmiller” was a farce and has been exposed as such.
September 20, 2006 @ 9:49 am

Alan replied:
I always thought you saw the world as you wished it to be, rather than how it is. Now I know. I will agree with your remark when Kitzmiller is appealed and reversed because "Intelligent Design" is discovered to have some scientific basis, rather than just being a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Somehow, I don't think I need to worry about having to agree with you in this lifetime. (my emphasis)

Yup Alan. Obviously it is you who chooses to see the world as you want it to be rather than how it really is:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research


Oops- "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement". And that is from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

As far as the "Kitzmiller v. Dover" decision goes, many legal experts have already shown beyond any doubt that Judge Jones went too far. It is also obvious from the decison that the judge took out his wrath on ID because of a few lying and ID ignorant school board members. IOW Judge Jones is still clueless to ID reality and most likely still ignorant of science.

It is also very telling that the best moment for the plaintiffs was a bluff. That being when their attorney threw down some 58 references that allegedly demonstrated the evolution of the immune system via blind watchmaker-type processes.

Judge Jones bought that bluff whole-sale. All judges are not that stupid.

Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful ignoarnce is the evolutionitwit way...
posted by Joe G @ 3:17 рдкрдо
My response:

"Another Note to Alan Fox" which, you forgot to send, Joe. Thank Blipey for posting a link to your blog at AtBC.

You write:

Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful(sic) ignoarnce(sic) is the evolutionitwit way...

Joe, ID died at Harrisburg. Creationism will no doubt continue as a belief system. I defend and fully support your right to believe anything you like that does not lead you to commit or incite others to commit crimes against humanity such as mass murder (or even the odd single murder or assault). Just don't call it science, and that will avoid confusion.

from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

It is not my policy to debate the merits of competing belief systems, Joe. If you get comfort from your particular sect, then I am happy for you. I have always suspected that some people have an innate need for some kind of religious crutch and others don't, and attempts by people of either category to persuade those from another are not usually productive.

What does puzzle me is why my religious convictions are of any interest to you, as yours are of utterly no interest to me.

My wife has asked me to "stop wasting time blogging" so I can't really afford to spend more time here. I will copy this to my blog and will keep a weather eye on it in case you want to respond.

25 comments:

blipey said...

I'll bet it was an accident that Joe didn't send the note on to you. The evidence is clear that Joe likes to spend time in productive open debate.
Shame on you, Alan Fox, for not being able to respond to a claim that was clearly intended as a stealth mission. This is the 21st century, get with it and find the stealth-busting gear!!!

An interesting side note that I have no idea what to make of is Joe's love of the word "reality".

Kitzmiller's reality...
ID's reality...
Scientific reality...
blah, blah, blah

Alan Fox said...

Well, I have reposted my respone to his blog. I note that he posted a comment to you between my first and second attempt at responding, so I wonder if he will allow my response through?

Alan Fox said...

Joe's reply to my post:

At 9:24 AM, Joe G said…

AF asserts:
Joe, ID died at Harrisburg.

ID is alive and doing very well. The Kitzmiller v Dover decision only impacted that one little and insignificant district.

That is a fact.

Creationism will no doubt continue as a belief system.

Creation is also doing well.

It is not my policy to debate the merits of competing belief systems, Joe.

That explains why you never have substantiated any of the claims made by the ToE or Common Descent.

What does puzzle me is why my religious convictions are of any interest to you, as yours are of utterly no interest to me.

The oinly thing of interest about you is your desire to spread lies and your inability to substantiate your assertions. However it is par for the course when it come to evolutionitwits, like you.

My wife has asked me to "stop wasting time blogging" so I can't really afford to spend more time here.

Seeing the best you can do is to lie and post unsupported assertions, your wife has a great point.

However I am sure that even off the internet you are still a waste of time.

Thanks for stopping by and proving my point.

BTW I knew blipey or some other loser would clue you in. Losers stick together like that.

Alan Fox said...

Copy of my reply:

Joe says:

ID is alive and doing very well.

I made a prediction two years ago, when I first heard about ID, that it was crank science and would disappear from public view within five years. Care to bet a bottle of malt whisky that I am wrong?

That explains why you never have substantiated any of the claims made by the ToE or Common Descent.

I don't need to, Joe. I don't pretend to be an advocate for the ToE, just an interested layman. There are plenty of hard-working scientists who are producing evidence and presenting it. Whereas ID science... that is hard to find evidence for.

Seeing the best you can do is to lie...

Substantiate a lie. You do realise a lie involves making a statement that you know to be false, don't you?

Thanks for stopping by...

Well, you seem to have stopped posting at ARN and UD. It wasn't because your posts weren't even appreciated by other ID proponents was it? I strongly urge you to continue to post in as many venues as possible. You are a great ambassador for the free exchange of ideas and good scientific education.


1:16 PM

Joe G said...

AF:
I made a prediction two years ago, when I first heard about ID, that it was crank science and would disappear from public view within five years. Care to bet a bottle of malt whisky that I am wrong?

One bottle of malt whiskey it is.

I don't pretend to be an advocate for the ToE, just an interested layman.

IOW the best you can do is to argue from ignorance.

There are plenty of hard-working scientists who are producing evidence and presenting it.

There isn't one scientist which can demonstrate that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms!

There isn't one scientist who can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

IOW there isn't any scientific data that supports the ToE/ Common Descent.

You do realise a lie involves making a statement that you know to be false, don't you?

So you are still claiming ignorance.

That explains a lot. You may not be a liar, just an ignorant twit.


Whereas ID science... that is hard to find evidence for.

It is for the willfully ignorant.

Heck you can't even find scientific evidence for Common Descent or anything beyond minor variations.

Well, you seem to have stopped posting at ARN and UD.

It's called having a life Alan. At UD I was singing to the choir and at ARN I was debating with a bunch of rocks.

Now I am taking my case to the schools and doing pretty well at it.

And that is why I know ID will be alive and well in 5, 10 and many years to come.

There is only one reality behind our existence. You can pin your hopes on the unscientific sheer dumb luck but most people don't. And that is another reason why ID won't die.

Joe G said...

BTW Alan,

Buy a dictionary- "willful" is the correct spelling.

Is that the best you twits can do? That is pick on typos and imaginary errors?

I would also love to hear about my "religious crutch" seeing that I am not religious...

Alan Fox said...

Welcome Joe,

I am pleased you are prepared to take up the challenge. Maybe the bet was a bit vague. How are we going to agree on "disappear from public view"?

Can I suggest no news item from any mainstream news organisation mentioning "Intelligent Design" (referring to the concept promoted by the Discovery Institute) within the previous six months up to end June, 2010?

Alan Fox said...

BTW Joe,

I am not sure where you got "willfully ignorant" from. We all make typos, but that one wasn't mine.

Firefox has a good spell-check, if such issues bother you.

Alan Fox said...

Ah!

Wilful. It seems you colonials have an alternative spelling. My Shorter Oxford Dictionary entertains no such word as "willful".

Another example of two nations divided by a common language.

Rich Hughes said...

Welcome Joe G.

"Heck you can't even find scientific evidence for Common Descent or anything beyond minor variations."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


ERVs are my favo(u)rite.

Joe G said...

Hi Rich,

I have read that link and even debated Theobald.

His "evidences" can also be used to support Common Design.

The ERVs are a sham. Here is why- Do you know what it takes to get an ERV at the same location on both chromosomes?

Think carefully because each parent only sends half of its chromosomes to its offspring.

Then there is the many generations in which these ERVs have to stay intact enough to still be recognizable as ERVs.

Now you would have us believe that a non-coding, non-functional sequence can stay intact enough to be recognized as a marker all the while other changes are taking place that allegedly gave rise to the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

However reality says there isn't any data that can account for those differences!

IOW if that article is all you have then you don't have squat. I say that because there is no way to verify any of its claims.

Joe G said...

Alan sez:
I am not sure where you got "willfully ignorant" from. We all make typos, but that one wasn't mine.

Willfully ignorant is also spelled correctly. And I got that inference from reading your posts. IOW you are willfully ignorant.

BTW the DI is not ID. They did not start the concept although they do promote it. And mainstream news means nothing.

It's the people that count. And there will always be more IDists and Creationists than evolutionitwits. Always. Live with it.

Also you have accused me of censoring your posts on my blog. Yet they are there for all to read.

Go figure...

Joe G said...

Now I am curious.

What spelling for "willful" do the pompous colonizers use?

and to RH:

My point about the same evidence being used for very different models is that what is evidence for both is evidence for neither.

Common Descent needs to explain the differences- as in physiological and anatomical differences. Yet we have no clue.

For example we can take a HOX gene (PAX6) from a mouse and insert it into a fly genom,e and the fly develops fly-eyes. No one knows where the info for the type of eye is hidden.

Did the common ancestor of the fly and mouse even have eyes?

Joe G said...

and one more for Rich:

Common Descent- why explain the differences

blipey said...

OH BOY! Now I'm excited about the possibility of learning how Joe has embarrassed people. Is there a link or a transcript available for your debate with Theobald? Or is that just lost to the miss of time and another thing we'll have to take your word for?

BTW, do you accept "wilful" as a correct spelling, seeing that it was cited from an actual dictionary?

Otherwise, a previous claim that you never admit being wrong will stand as true?

You could just ignore this matter, of course.

secondclass said...

Welcome back to Alan's blog, Joe!

I noticed your quiz here. Apparently, anyone who disagrees with you on these questions is ID-ignorant, which means that you must have the right answers. This is great, because I'd like to administer such a quiz myself, and I need an answer key. If you can tell me the answers to the following questions, then I can send the quiz to people like Dr. Dembski and compare his answers to yours, thus determining whether he's ID-ignorant. Thanks in advance.

1. Is Dembski's specified complexity criterion the only way to detect design?

2. Does design detection require knowledge of the capabilities of designing agents?

3. The CSI of a computer is the coincidence of physical information, which is the hardware, with conceptual information, which is the _______________.

4. Is it possible for something to exhibit specified improbability without exhibiting specified complexity?

5. Does a sequence have to be irregular in order to exhibit specified complexity?

secondclass said...

BTW, Dembski has already showed signs of being ID ignorant, since he got Joe's #4 wrong.

Joe: "4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?"

Dembski: "Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability."

Doppelganger said...

This is why the JoeG's of the world want to infect high schools with ID - I suspect 9th graders are about the only folks uninformed enough to actually fall for these silly rhetorical tricks and nonsense

There isn't one scientist who can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.


What does Joe mean by 'account for' the differences? Does he mean provide a list of every mutation that impacts development and/or physiology? And why between humans and chimps? It is only YECs and their allies that are interested specifically in the human/chimp issue, and since ID is totally unconnected to YECism, why is Joe mentioning it, unless he is really a YEC or one of its allies?
Back to reality, there have been some recent identifications of DNA-based differences between humans and chimps, and by recent I mean within the last decade or so. Differences, for example, in the sialic acid gene, differences in the regulatory sequence associated with other brain-related genes, etc. Do we know what all such differences are? Of course not. Do IDists offer any explanation other than that we are seperate creations, er, I mean, 'designs'? Do they provide any evidence whatsoever for that claim?

Of course not. They want all situations to be win-win for them. Sadly, reality does not work that way.


The ERVs are a sham. Here is why- Do you know what it takes to get an ERV at the same location on both chromosomes?

Do YOU? I suspect not.


Think carefully because each parent only sends half of its chromosomes to its offspring.



Actually, each parent sends a copy of each of its chromosomes. We actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and thus send a single copy of each one to our offspring.


Then there is [sic] the many generations in which these ERVs have to stay intact enough to still be recognizable as ERVs.



And?
Maybe JoeG can show the math - or better yet, actual data - indicating that ERV sequences are somehow more prone to accruing mutations than any other part of the genome such that they should be unrecognizable after a certain number of generations.

But I suspect that cannot be done, as these 'Can you believe it???'-type rhetorical assertions disguised as questions are little more than unwitting acknowledgements of the author's limited knowledge of the subject.


Now you would have us believe that a non-coding, non-functional sequence can stay intact enough to be recognized as a marker all the while other changes are taking place that allegedly gave rise to the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.


This is an implicit assertion that there must be some sort of genome-wide mass-mutation sweep going on if the YEC-issue human/chimp shared ancestry is correct, and that this mutational sweep must somehow erase ERV signatures while allowing for the genetic basis for the physiological and anatomical changes between humans and chimps to occur.

Perhaps JoeG can explain to us all - supported by verifiable evidence, of course - just what these anatomical and physiological differences between humans and chimps actually and what genetic changes would be required to account for them. For example, how many mutations must have been required to account for, say, a reduction in the canine dentition in humans as opposed to chimps?

Surely, a detailed list will be forthcoming, for mere assertions that the chasm is too large is the antic of the propagandist.

And we all know that JoeG is a scientist, not a propagandist.

Doppelganger said...

For example we can take a HOX gene (PAX6) from a mouse and insert it into a fly genom,e and the fly develops fly-eyes. No one knows where the info for the type of eye is hidden.


Cool!

JoeG can paraphrase tidbits from a creationist book. Now THAT is some in-depth understandin'!

blipey said...

Come back, Joe! Surely you have answers to these pressing questions.

I for one, would like to know why you know more about ID than Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski. Can it be that you are wrong? Nope; it must be Dembski and by proxy the DI.

how is you know more than the collected fellows of the DI? Yes, that is a question for comic effect.

Alan Fox said...

Joe:

Re Wilful/willful.

In UK English "wilful" is the only correct spelling. I see that in US English "wilful" and "willful" are both correct. Sic (Latin for thus) just denotes that the spelling in the quote has been reproduced exactly as in the original, so the reader does not wrongly attribute the perceived error to the person quoting.

Alan Fox said...

Joe writes:

BTW the DI is not ID.

Where did I conflate the Dicovery Institute (an organisation financed by Howard Ahmanson, claiming to be "a nonpartisan public policy think tank conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics and foreign affairs") and "Intelligent Design" for which I would still like to see a convincing definition?

They did not start the concept although they do promote it.

Yes, they do seem to be engaged in PR.

And mainstream news means nothing.

It was a way of testing whether ID could be said to be still in public view. Do you not want to accept the bet, now? Do you have an alternative suggestion?

It's the people that count. And there will always be more IDists and Creationists than evolutionitwits. Always. Live with it.

So, how could we get reliable estimates of believers in ID as Science (ID philosophy is not an issue) and of people who accept the current theories of evolution as a better explanation of the current diversity of life? Will this do as a a decider for the bet?

Also you have accused me of censoring your posts on my blog. Yet they are there for all to read.

Apart from the one I reproduced here as comment 4, which is what I was referring to.

Alan Fox said...

(Copy of a comment posted at Joe's blog, just for the record.)

Despite Alan Fox's lies to the contrary, I am very interested in the data.

I can't recall commenting on your interest or lack thereof in data, Joe. Any chance of an example or two. You have made the "liar" accusation, before, and offered a begrudging retraction when asked to substantiate. To disagree with you is not necessarily synonymous with lying.

(copied to my own blog)

secondclass said...

Joe: BTW the DI is not ID.

Then how exactly do we find out what ID is? Is there an official spokesperson? Can I go through an ID curriculum at my local university? Is there a consensus among ID experts on a core set of core ID claims?

If you want the uneditorialized facts about evolutionary biology, you go to the primary literature. Where is the primary literature of ID?

Doppelganger said...

"Where is the primary literature of ID? "

I believe it would be here:

http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

Note that it has not been published in 2 years, such is the research potential in using ID as a paradigm...