Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ID movement ... in the US splintered? (was Hello and is there any rebuttal?)

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Group ... NI Certainly. I am an immunologist by training, though in an earlier stage in ... Thanks to NI. *** Moderator (hat on) In case members might think I
    Message 1 of 1 , May 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Group

      On Thu, 09 May 2002 09:11:19 -0700, Noone Inparticular wrote:

      >SJ>Welcome to "Noone Inparticular". Maybe he will tell us more about himself?

      NI>Certainly. I am an immunologist by training, though in an earlier stage in
      >my career (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I dabbled in marine
      >biology. I prefer to have my name anonymous for the time being. Once, in a
      >perfectly innocent exchange on a web board, I crossed paths with some
      >neo-nazis. As a consequence, I received some veiled and some not-so veiled
      >threats that included the fact that they knew where I lived, my wife's name
      >and my son's age! I will NOT repeat that mistake again. I prefer to wait to
      >see if other board members here can be "trusted". I do apologize for my
      >reticence but once bitten, twice shy.

      Thanks to NI.

      *** Moderator (hat on) In case members might think I am inconsistent in
      applying the new rule about new members identifying themselves to the
      Moderator, NI had already provided me confidentially with his name and
      location. I will respect that confidentiality absolutely and in fact will not use
      it to check up on NI (unless there was later some compelling reason to do
      so, e.g. reasons to doubt NI's identity, etc), for both ethical reasons and in
      case I let it slip accidentally. Indeed, with my sieve-like memory for names,
      I cannot now even remember NI's name, so now I cannot reveal it
      accidentally! ***

      >>NI>By way of introduction, I would like to hear from IDers on
      >>>this board. Would you like to comment on Richard Wein's critique of
      >>>William Dembski's No Free Lunch? ... http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

      [...]

      >SJ>There are 60+ members on this list. They cannot all be expected to all >go
      >>off to look at other sites.

      NI>Indeed. I do not expect it. But SOMEONE might.

      Perhaps. But we have been through all this before. Since this is a debate on
      *this* list, between *members* of this list, it is better to post an excerpt
      from such other sites, prefaced by the *member's* own words, so other
      members can then debate that *member*.

      [...]

      >SJ>Why doesn't NI post the relevant parts of Wein's critique to this list,
      >>prefaced by >NI's own words, so members can then debate *NI*?

      NI>OK. An odd, but not unreasonable request.

      It might seem "odd" to NI, but this is standard practice on *this* list. We
      have had at least one person before whose posts consisted mainly of links
      to evolutionist sites. But when it came to the crunch, he did not even agree
      with all that was on some of the links he posted!

      That is why it is better for a member to state in his own words what he/she
      claims, and use excerpts from other sites to support his/her claims. It is the
      *member* who we are debating, not non-members on other lists.

      NI>First, a comment so that members can have an idea where I stand on this
      >issue. Personally, I find the ID movement here in the US splintered between
      >those who have ulterior motives (the new creationists, who wish to force
      >their brand of religion on others and by co-opting the ID movement, hope to
      >sneak it in through the back door) and another group, a bit more serious,
      >who though they too are alarmingly coy about their motives, at least attempt
      >to apply a patina of scientific merit to their arguments. Dembski falls
      >(IMO) into this second category, though I find it telling that he shows
      >little or no interest in peer review of his ideas.

      Perhaps NI can elaborate (with *evidence* from *ID* sources) on: 1) this alleged
      splintering in the IDM? and

      2) who he sees (*names* please) as: a) "the new creationists"; and

      b) who else is in this "another group", apart from "Dembski"?

      [continued]

      PS: for NI's benefit I recently stated my new approach:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/3090 [...]
      I can't remember whether I have mentioned it, but I am going to try a new
      approach of breaking my responses to long posts into smaller chunks and
      answering those. That way I should be able to post more regularly and my
      opponent and I can perhaps agree (or agree to disagree) on some issues
      within a long post and put that behind us, while still continuing the
      debate on other unresolved issues in that post. [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The reason for this is that I now have my hands full doing a Biology degree
      full time, plus writing an outline of a future book on Progressive Creation
      (see http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/prgcr000.html). This latter
      project I have started several times but each time it ground to a halt. I have
      concluded that the only way I am ever going to get it done is to: 1) write it
      in outline first; and 2) try to write a little bit of that outline every day, first
      thing in the morning, as a higher priority than my email. This I am doing.

      I hope to be able to get to the rest of NI's post concerning Wein's critique
      of Dembski's NFL, but I make no promise that I will. I am still only part
      way through NFL so I really cannot comment on claims that Wein makes
      about NFL that I have not yet got to.

      But as a matter of interest, has NI himself read Dembski's NFL?

      Steve

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed
      by a human (Figure 1 a). The flagellar filament (propeller) is a 10 um-long,
      thin, rigid, cork screw-shaped structure, with a helical period of about 2
      um. The filament is connected to the hook by two junctional proteins.
      Named according to its shape, the flexible hook acts as a universal joint
      permitting the filament and motor to rotate about different axes. The
      filament, junction, hook, and drive shaft all appear to have a common
      helical design. The remaining flagellar parts are rings. The L and P rings are
      believed to act as a bushing through which the rotating drive shaft passes.
      These two rings are anchored in the outer membrane and peptidoglycan,
      respectively. ... In the periplasm, the drive shaft inserts in a socket just
      above the S ring. The M ring is a 25 nm disk, which traverses the cell's
      inner membrane. Extending into the cytoplasm from the extended M ring is
      the C ring, a 45 nm annulus. A ring of about 10 membrane particles known
      as studs surround each flagellar motor. These probably sit in the L-shaped
      shelf made by the M and C rings." (DeRosier D.J., "The Turn of the Screw:
      The Bacterial Flagellar Motor," Cell, Vol. 93, April 3, 1998, pp.17-20, p.17)
      Stephen E. Jones sejones@... http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.