A challenge to kairosfocus

A few weeks ago, commenter ‘kairosfocus’ (aka ‘KF’) posted a Pro-Darwinism Essay Challenge at Uncommon Descent. The challenge was for an ID critic to submit a 6000-word essay in defense of ‘Darwinism’, written to KF’s specifications. The essay would be posted at UD and a discussion would ensue.

The challenge generated no interest among the pro-evolution commenters here at TSZ, mainly because no one wanted to write an essay of KF’s specified length, on KF’s specified topic, in KF’s ridiculously specific format (and presumably double-spaced with a title page addressed to ‘Professor Kairosfocus’). We also had no interest in posting an essay at UD, a website that is notorious in the blogosphere for banning and censoring dissenters. Kairosfocus himself, in a ridiculous display of tinpot despotism, censored no less than 20 comments in the “Essay Challenge” thread itself!

(Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link)

The commenter in question, ‘critical rationalist’, was banned from UD and has taken refuge here at TSZ, where open discussion is encouraged, dissent is welcome, comments are not censored, and only one commenter has ever been banned (for posting a photo of female genitalia).

Given the inhospitable environment at Uncommon Descent (from which I, like most of the ID critics at TSZ, have also been banned), I had (and have) no desire to submit an essay for publication at UD. However, I did respond to the spirit of KF’s challenge by writing a blog post here at TSZ that explains why unguided evolution, as a theory, is literally trillions of times better than Intelligent Design at explaining the evidence for common descent.

In his challenge, kairosfocus wrote:

It would be helpful if in that essay you would outline why alternatives such as design, are inferior on the evidence we face.

I have done exactly that, and so my challenge to kairosfocus is this: I have presented an argument showing that ID is vastly inferior to unguided evolution as an explanation of the evidence for common descent. Can you defend ID, or will you continue to claim your bogus daily victories despite being unable to rise to the challenge presented in my post?

49 thoughts on “A challenge to kairosfocus”

  1. Alan Fox

    I doubt anyone could better Douglas Theobald’s “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”. Just dipped in again myself on seeing references to it here at TSZ. An hour gone but not wasted!

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

    Not to pile on but it would be a first for the Intelligent Design “movement” to produce an argument, let alone a hypothesis or theory, of intelligent design that did not follow the familiar pattern of identifying some perceived problem with an aspect of evolutionary theory and concluding “therefore intelligent design” by default.

    Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

    -Paul Nelson 

  2. Toronto

    You can see their arguments are 90% “Darwin was wrong” and 10% “The designer is too busy for an interview today!”.

    If kairosfocus was serious, he would show up here, but that would mean a fair debate and their side isn’t ready for that.

  3. Toronto

    kairosfocus: “A lie: it seems, supernatural intelligent design is the default.”

    But KF, a designer who can “fine-tune the universe is clearly at least one level above nature.


  4. Toronto

    Toronto: “But KF, a designer who can “fine-tune“ the universe is clearly at least one level above nature.

    Joe: “Or before it, ie a pre-natural designer.”

    We are talking about hierarchy here Joe.

    Just as a General is “above” the level of a Private, the “designer” is “above” the level that nature occupies.

    Imagine an electronic circuit that represents nature.

    The engineer who “designed” that circuit does not operate at the level of the circuit.

    He is completely free at any time, even when the system is powered up and operating, to “fine-tune” values and power supply voltages.

     

  5. Toronto

    Toronto: The engineer who “designed” that circuit does not operate at the level of the circuit.

    Joe: He is bound by the same physical laws, just as that circuit is. And also he came before the circuit.

    But the designer is there and actively involved while he is “fine-tuning” the circuit the same as KF would be when he is designing one.

    As far as physical laws, KF would not be bound to in any way behave like a Zener diode would in his circuit! 🙂

     

     

  6. dr who

    Joe:

    “Or before it, ie a pre-natural designer.”

    Before? Before time? Or is it the I.D position that time is not natural?

    As Kairosfocus says that a supernatural designer is not implied by I.D. , I wonder if he could give us a 6,000 word essay on whether the spontaneous formation of a functional, natural, non-biological intelligent designer is more or less likely than finding a needle in a giant universe sized haystack.

  7. keiths

    Alan,

    I doubt anyone could better Douglas Theobald’s “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”. Just dipped in again myself on seeing references to it here at TSZ. An hour gone but not wasted!

    Just think of the time that would be saved in these discussions if every ID supporter were required to read and understand Theobald before participating.

  8. keiths

    KF responds:

    Joe (& Keiths)

    The offer made includes the possibility of a parallel post here and elsewhere, which would allow a comparison of the discussions.

    The objection, in short, is a thinly disguised personal attack.

    AS IN, WHAT PART OF I THE UNDERSIGNED WILL PERSONALLY HOST THE POST HERE AT UD, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

    KF, what part of the following do you not understand?

    Given the inhospitable environment at Uncommon Descent (from which I, like most of the ID critics at TSZ, have also been banned), I had (and have) no desire to submit an essay for publication at UD.

  9. petrushka

    I invite Mr. Focus to take the 29 Evidences of Macroevolution essay and pretend it is the entry of those who post here.

    It is almost certainly better than most of us could produce, but it satisfies the primary objective of the challenge. It is on topic and represents one of the best available short essays on the evidence for evolution.

    It’s been around for some time with no response from any of the major gurus of the ID movement. Not from Behe, Dembski, or any of the Fellows at the Discovery Institute. It would make a fine jumping off point.

  10. keiths

    At UD, kairosfocus posts a lengthy excerpt from Stephen Meyer’s 2004 paper on the Cambrian explosion.

    KF, I understand that you and Meyer are skeptical that unguided evolution was responsible for the events of the Cambrian Explosion. However, you are avoiding the issue raised by my post, namely:

    1. We are examining two competing explanations for the complexity and diversity of life on earth: Intelligent Design and unguided evolution.

    2. Unguided evolution specifically predicts the existence of an objective nested hierarchy.

    3. Intelligent Design does not predict the existence of an objective nested hierarchy. Any of the trillions of alternate possibilities are open to ID.

    4. We observe an objective nested hierarchy. This is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, to an astounding degree of accuracy.

    5. Out of the trillions of possibilities, the theory of unguided evolution made the correct prediction.

    6. ID makes no prediction at all.

    7. Unguided evolution is thus trillions of times better at explaining the evidence.

    8. Given a choice between two theories, one of which is trillions of times better than the other, a rational person would choose the one that is trillions of times better. Why don’t you?

    Unguided evolution’s successful prediction is overwhelming evidence against your (and Meyer’s) contention that Design was involved in the Cambrian Explosion. However, even if by some miracle you and Meyer turned out to be correct, you would still have a huge problem: explaining why the Designer, out of trillions of options, chose one that makes unguided evolution appear to be true.

    ID makes no sense either way. Unguided evolution is by far the better theory.

  11. dr who

    Kairosfocus:

    The first thing I note is the usual failure to address the OOL challenge,

    I propose natural non-telic chemical reactions/processes including chemical evolution as a general, non-detailed explanation of the OOL.

    I.D. proposes intelligent design by an unknown and (necessarily) non-living intelligent designer(s) as a general, non-detailed explanation of the OOL.

    As we can establish the existence of both creative chemical processes in the wild and chemical evolution by direct observation, and we cannot establish the existence of the proposed I.D. non-living being, there is effectively virtually infinitely more evidence on my side than on the I.D. side.

    If Kairosfocus wants to demand detail from my position, he’s welcome to do so when he has established the existence of the genre of being he proposes (non-living designers), thus putting him on my level, and when he is prepared to offer the same level of detail in his hypothesis as he demands from mine.

    I think that about covers the OOL, and Kairosfocus can feel free to take up Petrushka’s suggestion that he can consider Douglas Theobold’s essay as an answer to his proposal at U.D.

  12. keiths

    Joe responds:

    I invite petrushka to read the whole article by theobald because theobald clearly states it does NOT pertain to any mechanisms, which means it does NOT support unguided evolution.

    Joe,

    You’re confusing Theobald’s intent with what the evidence actually accomplishes. Theobald wants to separate the argument over common descent from the argument over the mechanism of common descent. He deliberately limits his discussion to the first question and does not directly address the second. 

    The evidence he presents, however, can be used to argue for mechanism, which is exactly what I have done.

    The evidence makes no sense under an ID interpretation, but it makes perfect sense if unguided evolution is operating.

  13. Toronto

    Joe: “Time started when nature did, duh. “

    Then pre-natural is pre-time, which is impossible!

    You cannot establish an event on a “time-line”, before time actually exists!

     

     

     

  14. Toronto

    kairosfocus: “F/N: Above there was a clip from Toronto to the effect that matters linked to the cosmological inference on design per fine tuning point to an intelligence beyond the observed cosmos. They do, as I have argued here. But Toronto knows full well that this has nothing to do with the context of discussion, regarding the world of observed life on earth and inference on sign of FSCO/I, where I have repeatedly pointed out that the evidence would be sufficiently [not necessarily and sufficiently] accounted for by a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter.

    Any designer capable of fine-tuning the laws of nature is clearly not only unnatural, but supernatural, if he has the ability to make nature as he sees fit.

    As far as a molecular lab, just who would be running this lab?

    Clearly not any life-form, since this is the precise task that has been assigned to the lab to develop.

    You have yourself a bit of a logical mess KF.

    Life cannot be the source of life.

    According to ID, nature cannot be the source of life.

    Therefore, nature and life are both fine-tuned products of the designer.

    In order to impose his structure on nature, the designer must be supernatural.

  15. Allan Miller

    We can anticipate some of the counter-arguments here:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

    They are Creationist counter-arguments, of course. So I would be interested in an ID response, which would help demonstrate the oft-offered correction that clear blue water lies between ID and Creationism. 

  16. petrushka

    Step one in any discussion is to get some agreement on the historical fact of common descent. Particularly on the descent of eukaryotes. Single celled critters are “sexually” promiscuous, so the path of descent is not clean and clear. Koonin argues that at this level, one can trace the history of genes, but not the history of the organisms that carry them. Perhaps an unintended homage to Dawkins.

    One consequence of this is that it renders moot the question of how the flagellum arose. One cannot trace the detailed history of E.coli, but one can look for the individual genes as they occur in non-motile organisms and look for plasmids as horizontal carriers.

    This leaves open the question of whether there is an invisible designer twiddling with the genomes of things to bring about complex combinations of genes. Perhaps some day an ID advocate will present evidence for this happening.

    Edit: Somehow this got linked to the wrong post. Oh well.

  17. Allan Miller

    KF has a problem with thinly-veiled personal attacks, let’s make a more direct one: Are you really that naive? Your personal offer to host the essay is all well and good, but since most potential authors cannot post at UD, how on earth are you going to offer them any means of responding to the inevitable flurry of comments? Then every time someone … ooh, let’s see, mphillips, critical rationalist, onlooker et al … disagrees with you, or ‘misrepresents’ ID, you take your ball home and refuse to talk to them any more. (Meantime, ID’s misrepresentation of evolution is the very lifeblood of TSZ!).

    And you have a deplorable habit of inline editing comments.

    And you complain endlessly over every imagined slight, while we at TSZ take on the chin what Joe can get away with on UD, plus his much more direct insults on his blog and elsewhere.

    Because ultimately, the emptiness of this cat-calling speaks volumes about the quality of the arguments that might otherwise be pursued. Many people, from Darwin onwards, have had the courage of their convictions and stuck their necks out in spite of criticism. But you hide in UD towers, apparently afraid even to read TSZ – you appear to get all your information on it from Joe – “Joe tells me that …”. You will allow in one essay, over the response to which you want full editorial control, and even the author may not post to comments. If the boot were on the other foot, would you bother?

  18. Allan Miller

    Focus on the Cambrian explosion, like other ID favourites such as whale evolution, attempt to undermine ‘Darwinism’ on the gradualist account, by coming up with something ‘too fast’ for such a viewpoint. No attempt is made to quantify what would be too fast for ‘gradual’ change. It just is.

    Approximately how much morphological change is ‘too much’, in a given time period? And how much genetic change underlies that amount of morphological change? And what does Design actually do to accelerate this change above the assumed ‘naturalistic threshold’, or escort lineages across assumed seas of detriment?

    The phylogenies of multicellular organisms are robustly tree-like, with inevitable anomalies because evolution is stochastic, and signal degradation and LGT do occur, with increasing influence over such long timescales. But whatever the Designer did during the Cambrian, it left no apparent trace, other than the overall transitions seeming ‘a bit quick’, and a historically unusual number of species founding dynasties – ‘new phyla’ (though they would hardly be classifiable as such at the time). Which is obviously a damn sight easier to do given empty niches and 500 million years of change than on a planet replete with multicellular forms and a couple of hundred.

  19. critical rationalist

    A comment that never made the light of day… 

    ——

    KairosFocus, 

    Why don’t you, or someone else, start a new post on my “bigotry issue” so we can discuss it there, rather than here. Otherwise, I have no actionable options at this point as I myself cannot start new posts and comments here are deleted. 

    Of course, if you started the thread, you would need to make an exception so I could actually comment there. 

    However, if you are suggesting there can be no discussion on the issue, because it is not based on any sort of facts that can be discussed, then it would seem that you, personally, find something specific objectionable in my criticism, which is simply a deal breaker on your part. 

    If this is the case, then, as I already indicated, I would stop commenting on your threads because the issue would be unresolvable. 

    In the absence of such a thread, It would seem inaccurate to suggest that I know to “contact” you or how to actually “resolve” the issue, when no such clear objections are made. 

    Again, I think criticism is how we make progress. It’s part of the explanation for the universal growth of knowledge as a whole. So, if we stop criticizing something, this indicates we are no longer interested in making progress on this issue. 

    As such, Critical Rationalism is our current, best conjectured theory that explains the universal growth of knowledge. LIke all theories, it contains errors to some degree and is incomplete. It does not hold a corner on knowledge, as if it was one unchanging X Y coordinate that is error free, but it is a vector which is becoming more accurate as it travels toward some specific X Y point, in reality, which we cannot positively prove. It too is constantly improving and discarding errors. We have already discarded forms of naive empiricism, such as positivism and verificationism, so our conception of human knowledge has already left the station as well. 

    To say that I think CR has a “corner” on knowledge indicates a fundamental confusion about it. This fundamental confusion about CR would also be a fundamental confusion about Darwinism.  

  20. critical rationalist

    The OOL “challenge” is simply justificationism in disguise. 

    We can reasonably predict when water will boil despite the fact that the movement of each water molecule is untraceable given today’s supercomputers. Even then, we would need to know their exact initial conditions, along with the initial conditions of anything else that might effect them. 

    This does not stop us from solving the problem of how to make tea. 

    The thing is, we keep making progress, despite claims that we have not and cannot. 

    IOW, the best sort of refutation is the progress we have already made, which would supposedly be impossible, according to their standards. Yet, we’ve made it anyway. 

  21. critical rationalist

    Here’s another comment that was deleted, despite being a factual issue.

    If we cannot point out that Darwinism is a better explanation because it explains something that neither Creationism or ID explains, then how could any such essay be accepted?

    KF: If CR wishes to participate in these threads, he knows what he needs to do, which is reasonable. KF

    Which I’ve already addressed. Apparently, I need to spell it out in excruciating detail. 

    KF: Here CR IS WILLFULLY DEFIANT.

    Where is the quote for this supposed infraction, in context? Why is it absent? 

    It seems I have to do KF’s work for him…

    CR: Mung,

    Resources are not scarce. What’s scarce is the knowledge of how to utilize them. Again, unless it’s prohibited by the laws of physics, the only think that would prevent us from using energy from the sun, the massive amounts of hydrogen in intergalactic space, or even an entire uninhabitable solar system is knowing how. For example, have you ever heard of a Dyson sphere?

    Not to mention, we cannot predict the impact new knowledge we will create will have in the future. For example, people in [the year] 1920 didn’t consider nuclear power or the internet unlikely. They didn’t conceive of them at all. As such, it’s unclear how they could factor them into how they will effect the future.

    This is why I keep pointing out the genuine creation of knowledge is the key point of conflict between creationism (and it’s variants, such as ID) and Darwinism.

    What I have done here is group creationism and ID based on properties they share, or lack, in regards to the following…

    CR: Any theory of an organism’s improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? 

    Creationism and ID are variants in that they both lack an explanation for [how] this knowledge [was created]. That is my criticism of them both. 

    If there is some falsehood that I need to apologize for, then KF should point out which of the following two are false – therefore invalidating my inclusion of Creationism and ID in the same group. 

    A. Creationism doesn’t explain how this knowledge is created. To do so would make Creationism internally inconsistent as it thinks this knowledge was eternal and therefore could not be created. (See StephanB’s explicit claim regarding God’s knowledge above) 

    B. ID [does not] explain how this knowledge was created.  

    Which of the above claims are deliberately falsehoods I presented, which requires an apology on my part? 

    Does KF disagree with StephanB on [A]? Is KF suggesting that ID provides an [explanation] for how this knowledge was created? If so, what is it? 

    Or perhaps, KF is suggesting that ID is *not* completely agnostic about the designer because it proposes the knowledge said designer used to build our biosphere was eternal? If so, how is this assumption “empirically grounded”? Also, this would rule out other intelligent design scenarios, such as the biosphere being created by a highly advanced, ancient alien civilization. How would is ruling out this intelligent design scenario for our biosphere be “empirically grounded” as well? 

    In fact, if anyone should be making an apology, it should be KF for misrepresenting my criticism of ID as merely “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo”, which would be false unless he denies [A] or [B].

    KF deleted the comment rather than address it.

  22. Flint

    But ID in fact DOES make a prediction. It predicts that everything whatsoever that might ever be observed, COULD have been Designed by the Intelligent Designer! After all, the Designer created the universe!

    If the Designer selected out of trillions the one single option that produces exactly what we see, why, of course! That’s the way It did it. If the universe happened to obey any of those other trillion options, then THAT is the way it was Designed.

  23. Toronto

    Mung,

    Mung: “I can’t think of a better example of people who deliberately misrepresent ID than you folks over at TSZ. Most of you have apparently been banned from one or more ID sites for doing just that.

    We repeatedly ask you all for your evidence, and even created this thread specifically to give you an opportunity to make your case.

    The response so far has been underwhelming.”

    It’s underwhelming, because we’re banned.

     

     

  24. Toronto

    Mung,

    Try and convince KF that an uncensored debate is what ID really needs.

    Get him to shake his head, draw some courage, and then come over here and see his arguments properly criticized.

  25. Toronto

    Mung: “It’s not by definition, it’s by inference to the best explanation. When you can come up with a better explanation we’ll drop our claims because the inference will no longer be warranted. “

    An “inference to best explanation” is not a good explanation for what we are discussing since your inference leads to a more improbable entity than the one you are trying to explain.

  26. keiths

    KF is still complaining that no one has responded to KF’s challenge to write an essay of KF-specified length on a topic dictated by KF and in a specific format laid out by KF, to be published on a blog where comments are censored at KF’s whim.

    KF,

    While you’re waiting, I have a challenge for you.

  27. damitall2

    Quite apart from the authoritarian, arbitrary, and biased nature of the “moderation” at UD, why on earth should anyone attempt to condense the truly huge amount of evidence for evolution that already exists and and is easily available for a few mouse-clicks?

    Particularly when it’s for the benefit of one who, after years of attempted education in the matter STILL fails (or refuses) to understand the theory behind it; and who operates only in a forum where inconvenient facts can be blandly “disappeared”

    Mind you, I can see why, in general, the UD inhabitants don’t come here – those few commendably brave souls that have ventured into the sunshine and got their arguments out have, on any reasonable interpretation (and where they are able to make a coherent case with well-defined terms and premises), seen them politely but firmly crisped.

    I regret that KF won’t come here – it would do him good. Very character-forming.

  28. Toronto

    Mung, does KF just pretend he doesn’t read this? 🙂

    kairosfocus: “There is no equivalency and an attempt to pretend that you cannot simply go to the IOSE intro-summary page as I have linked from the very beginning or — for every post I have ever made at UD — link a longstanding reference note through my handle is transparently insincere. It is a patent attempt to find any excuse not to provide a reasonable, empirically grounded case for the blind watchmaker thesis materialist model of origins.

    The offer as long since made — over a month — is made in good faith, is a more than fair offer and stands on its own terms.

    Remember, onlookers, every tub must stand on its own bottom.”

    Provide your best arguments that the designer could actually generate life and guide it to the state it is in now.

    Negative comments on “Darwinism” don’t count and neither does anything addressing the improbability of being here.

    We are here, regardless of how, so show us how we got here, not how we didn’t.

     

  29. Toronto

    kairosfocus: And, if you had a case that was solid on the merits in a context of my personal guarantee to host this here at UD, if you had the solid case you would jump at the offer.”

    I, like others here, have been banned at UD.

    Your offer is insulting from that point of view alone as none of us could defend our essays.

    Those not banned might have their comments edited or deleted and there is considerable empirical evidence of that.

    Of what use are you to a movement if you don’t even have the courage to champion their cause when called upon.

    Yes you might look foolish, but that’s a chance you have to take when you have an issue you claim to care about.

    If you don’t have a good positive case for ID that you can table, don’t ask for a debate.

     

     

  30. Toronto

    Upright BiPed: ” The simple fact remains that we have material evidence that points to a material event in the deep past (the onset of recorded information at the origin of life) and that event dictates the sufficient and necessary condition of recorded information, which intractably infers the act of an agent. “

    No, it doesn’t, anymore than seeing the sun rising in the east and setting in the west allows me to infer that sun orbits the Earth.

    UBP, answer a few questions for me.

    Which has more “FSCI”, the intelligent designer or a living cell?

    If the intelligent designer has more “FSCI” than a living cell, why is his existence less improbable than something that has less “FSCI”?

     

  31. Toronto

    kairosfocus,

    Explain to UBP why something with more “FSCI” is more improbable than something with less, unless I’m wrong and “FSCI” is not a factor when it comes to the improbability of complex objects.

     

  32. petrushka

    I note in passing that UBP has finally done what we asked, which is relate his theory to design.

    Is is, as everyone suspected, a god of the gaps argument that breaks no new ground.

  33. Patrick

    petrushka,

    I don’t want to give UD any traffic — could you summarize what he said?  Alternatively, could you leave a trail of semiotic bread crumbs to lead him back here to answer all the outstanding questions?
     

  34. petrushka

    I’m just noting the post above. I don’t go to UD unless there’s a link to topic under discussion here.

  35. Toronto

    That should be:

    Explain to UBP why something with more “FSCI” is more probable than something with less, unless I’m wrong and “FSCI” is not a factor when it comes to the improbability of complex objects.

  36. keiths

    kairosfocus:

    KS: Your desperation to avoid actually posting an essay justifying your view on actual empirical evidence, is duly noted in your attempted “challenge.”

    I’ve already posted such an essay, and I challenged you to respond to it more than a month and a half ago. You haven’t done so. Instead, you’ve been pretending that no one has responded to your challenge. Your cowardice and duplicity are noted.

    And BTW, every one of those removed or asked to remove themselves were put in that state by their repeated uncivil conduct.

    The evidence says otherwise.

    P.S. Do you plan to retract your false accusation against me, or will you continue with your hypocrisy?

  37. keiths

    kairosfocus,

    I have explained why unguided evolution fits the evidence literally trillions of times better than ID — including those forms of ID that accept the reality of common descent. No one has been able to rebut my argument.

    I challenge you to do so, if you can. Unlike you, I am making no silly demands about the format of your response. It can be an essay, a sonnet, an opera or a comic strip for all I care. It can be 600 words in length, or 6000, or 60000 (and knowing you, the latter is the most likely). You are completely free to make your argument in the best way you can, in your choice of format, under no threat of banning or censorship.

    I want the confrontation, because I know that if our positions are laid out side-by-side, mine will win. You know this too, which is why you are making excuses in order to avoid the confrontation.

    That speaks volumes, to borrow one of your favorite phrases.

  38. Mike Elzinga

    Despite all their projections onto the scientific community, it has always been the ID/creationists who have engaged in the haughty, condescending, scolding of scientists.  It began in earnest back in 1970 when Henry Morris formalized his attacks on the science community by starting the Institute for Creation “Research.”  We have the complete history, documented in books and in court records.  It is even in the writings of their own leaders.

    This kairosfocus character over at UD is simply demanding that scientists argue about ID/creationism on ID/creationist soil, using ID/creationists definitions and mischaracterizations of science, while at the same time accusing and scolding the science community of engaging in all the intellectual atrocities committed routinely by the ID/creationists themselves.  This is what UD is all about.

    ID/creationism has become one of the stupidest and most brazenly bizarre attempts at imitation on the planet.  They have their David L. Abel creating papers with phony references that turn out to be references to himself, funded by “grants” from organizations created by himself out of his own house.  Abel’s papers are cited with awe among the ID/creationist crowd, and it induces sneering condescension on the part of its followers who wave these papers in the faces of “evilutionists” with the implication that evilutionists are too stupid to understand them.

    They have their William Dembski and Robert Marks, whose papers they have never read, whom they cite as proof that ID is a respectable science published in peer review journals.  Yet they cannot for the life of themselves tell you what any of the math in those papers means.

    They have their Granville Sewell, whom they have never read and cannot read, who claims to have found a fundamental flaw in fundamental physics.  The use of gradient operators and the divergence theorem in his paper means that Sewell is a master scientist who can run circles around evolutionists and can make physicists look stupid.  Yet Sewell cannot even check the units of the variables he plugs into his equations. But that doesn’t matter to ID/creationists.  The math is “advanced” (it’s really second and third semester calculus).

    They have their Philip Johnson, the self-proclaimed “philosophical founder” of ID, whose medieval pseudo-philosophy opens the door and allows all the naive and superstitious believers in all kinds of fantasy to call themselves thoughtful scientists and proclaim what is right and what is wrong without ever having to set foot in a laboratory; or even learn any science at any level.

    They have their pseudo-philosophers at the “Discovery” Institute rewriting history and philosophy so that their followers can feel smug superiority in being able to “philosophize” debates into endless Gordian Knots from which they can emerge victorious just by exhausting and exasperating their opponents.

    They have their own reviews of real published papers in the real scientific literature of work done by real scientists; and they use this “publication hijacking” to tell their followers how to “interpret” the work of real scientists doing real work that an ID/creationist couldn’t do if his life depended on it.

    They have attempted to create an imitation of the real science community by making it appear that there is an entire industry of published and peer-reviewed ID/creationist research and research activity that has been going on for generations.

    They not only have done this, they actually outlined the plan and their intentions to themselves in their famous Wedge Document.  That blew up in their faces; just as any of their attempts at lab work does.

    ID/creationism has become a surreal clown show of imitation, posturing, pretense, and pure chutzpa in its attempt to appear to be real science.  It fails miserably in plain sight because its practitioners have never learned – let along ever done – real science.  They imitate what they think science is.  And they are so cock sure that they know science better than scientists that they become hyper inflated with ego and self-confidence in their haughty and phony challenges to “prove them wrong.”

    They think science fails because what they think they know about science is not real science.  They believe their own fantasies and concoctions about science.  They can’t comprehend, let alone pass, simple concept tests at the high school level.  Yet they pretend to jump directly into advanced topics and concepts in science by doing enormous copy/paste dumps of material they have never read and can never comprehend.  They do this thinking that they are intimidating their opponents, not knowing their opponents are laughing at them for just this stupid ploy alone.

    ID/creationism is nothing more than the habitual self-puffery on the part of sectarians who believe they are morally superior to everyone else.  They are simply trying to enhance their illusions of moral superiority by propping up sectarian dogma with a pseudo-science that is supposed to make their dogma look more rational and compelling than all competing dogmas.  It is a subculture that generates the egotistical, pretentious, and science-envious characters like kairosfocus.

    It has always been a sectarian war on the rest of society.  ID is a premeditated spin-off from the failed “scientific” creationism that was supposed to get around the courts.  It too failed; and it now tries to become even more pretentious.  These characters are incapable of learning anything except how to become more devious.  They just end up looking more stupid.

     

     

  39. keiths

    kairosfocus,

    The only thing standing between us and a serious discussion is a lack of courage on your part.

    I’ve shown that unguided evolution fits the evidence far better than ID, even if common descent is accepted on the ID side. Can you defend ID, or are endless recitations of grievances the best you can do?

  40. petrushka

    I’m working on a 6000 word essay on why I support evolution. I will post it at UD if I’m allowed.

    As I expected, 6000 words in not a trivial length if one wishes to sum up several hundred years of science. It is both long and too short. 

    I expect it to take a week or so, depending on real life concerns.

    I do not request any favors from UD other than the ability  to post to the one thread and to any follow-up threads.

    I will note that a previous offer to debate kariosfocus was turned down.  I don’t see this as the same offer. This is a response to KF’s challenge. I realize that some time has passed, but this is  a challenge in every sense of the word. I am not cutting and pasting, nor am I simply repeating things I have already written. This is a clean slate.

  41. keiths

    kairosfocus:

    F/N: Today marks three months since this challenge was originally given. Let us see if Petrushka or another Darwinism advocate will provide a response. KF

    KF, I responded to your challenge on October 8th, and issued a counter-challenge on October 16th:

    I have presented an argument showing that ID is vastly inferior to unguided evolution as an explanation of the evidence for common descent. Can you defend ID, or will you continue to claim your bogus daily victories despite being unable to rise to the challenge presented in my post?

    It’s now December 23rd. I responded to your challenge long ago. Why are you afraid to respond to mine?

Leave a Reply