I tire of keiths and his revisionist history. In a recent thread…
Glen: The real question is if Mung has read and comprehended Losos’ book.
keiths: Yes, which brings to mind what happened with Andreas Wagner’s book, Arrival of the Fittest. Mung was blathering about how it was an ID-friendly book, which is nonsense.
I challenged him:
Alan’s review barely touches on what I think are the most important ideas in the book: those concerning the “libraries”, the “networks”, and the extent to which the networks extend across the libraries.
How about summarizing those ideas for us in your own words? That will serve the dual purpose of 1) filling a gap in Alan’s review and 2) demonstrating that you actually understand what Wagner is saying.
Having summarized those ideas, if you still don’t (or pretend not to) understand the implications for ID, I’ll help you out.
Think of it as being similar to an ideological Turing test. I’d like to see if you even bothered, or were able, to understand the book before dismissing it as no threat to ID.
keiths: To no one’s surprise, Mung squirmed, stalled, and then skedaddled.
Here’s what actually happened:
Mung: Thanks Alan. Nice summary. Didn’t petrushla claim the book is some sort of magical “ID killer” or some such?
I’m hoping someone will raise things from the book relevant to ID, since it seems to come up as a book that ID’ists really ought to read. My questions is why?
No one ever did, not even keiths, God bless his soul.
keiths: I think Mung v. Wagner is going to be as embarrassing for you as Mung v. Weasel was.
Mung: keiths, there’s an open invitation to anyone to take an argument from the book they find compelling and defend it. You could start with his discussion of intelligent design, if you can find it.
keiths: Instead of this inane running commentary, why not step away from the keyboard and finish the book first? At that point, if you still don’t understand — or won’t admit that you understand — why the book is bad news for ID, I’ll be happy to explain.
Mung: Promises. Promises. keiths. And we know how good you are at keeping those. This thread is your chance to shine. You and Petrushka. Have at it.
And shine they did. As in shined on. So what really happened is that keiths claimed that he would be “happy to explain.” He never did, of course. The main point here being that keiths made a claim and failed to support it and then he blamed me for his failure to support his claims. Typical keiths. So here’s his chance to step up to the plate and make the case that Wagner’s book is “bad news for ID” [keiths] and even “death to ID” [petrushka].
Prediction: He won’t. And this thread will die, like Alan’s. And then keiths will point to this thread as evidence that I “skedaddled” yet again.