I expect that most here have heard about the situation at Ball State University (in Muncie, Indiana), where a physics professor was apparently including some Intelligent Design in a science class. There was a public fuss. And, more recently, the president of Ball State wrote a letter to the faculty about the situation. It seems to have been a classy letter. She described the issue as one of academic integrity, rather than one of academic freedom as a few commentators had suggested. She apparently agreed that there were first amendment issues, as others suggested. But she saw academic integrity as the main issue. Incidentally, I also thought academic integrity was the issue.
The ID people don’t like what she wrote, because she was blunt about ID not being science. Over at UD, vjtorley has a post “An open letter to BSU President Jo-Ann Gora” where he raises some questions that he would like the Gora to answer. I’m giving my answers here, rather than in a comment at UD, because I think the issues warrant more discussion, and I’m sure others here will want to join in.
Defining ID
Vincent’s first question starts with “how do you define ID”. It specifically asks about fine tuning.
My answer: It is not up to Ball State to define ID. They are reacting to a movement which has been very noisy about what it advocates.
On fine tuning: It does not matter to me whether “fine tuning” is specifically designated as ID. The relevant issues are that:
- “fine tuning” is a religious apologetics argument, and
- it has no scientific content. If the apologetics were removed, it would be philosophy, not science and not philosophy of science.
He also brings up the question of whether the cosmos could be a giant computer simulation. But that, too, I see as philosophy and not science.
Bad science
Vjtorley’s second section opens with:
Would you agree that the discussion of a bad scientific theory – even one whose claims has been soundly refuted by scientific testing, such as aether theories in physics, the phlogiston theory in chemistry, and vitalism in biology – can be productive and genuinely illuminating, in a university science classroom?
To me, this seems a misdirection. ID has never shown any scientific value. By contrast, phlogiston led to a research program of measuring the mass of combustion products. It was the beginnings of modern chemistry, though that very research led to the downfall of phlogiston.
I would class the aether as an hypothesis, rather than a theory. It was a background assumption but played no direct role in research with the exception of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But it did provide a useful background for discussing apparent wave-like phenomena in light transmission. Perhaps it’s role is similar to that of origin-of-life questions in biology. The physics itself did not depend on anything about aether, just as biology does not depend on how life originated. As far as I can tell, ID does not offer anything comparable.
I don’t know much about the history of vitalism, so I won’t comment about that.
Fred Hoyle
The next section begins with:
If you answered “Yes” to question 2, as I expect you did, then I shall assume that for you, the decisive reason for keeping intelligent design out of the science classroom is that it is essentially religious in nature. As you wrote in your email: “Teaching religious ideas in a science course is clearly not appropriate.”
It then goes on to discuss Fred Hoyle’s ideas.
Honestly, Vincent, this is absurd. Nobody would have heard of Hoyle’s view of evolution, if he were not already famous for his astrophysics. An famous astronomer says something laughably dumb about biology, and you really think that’s worthy of time in a biology class?
Now I hope you can see where I’m heading with this line of inquiry. If the discussion of the flaws in intelligent design theory belongs in a university science classroom, it logically follows that discussion of the theory itself belongs in a university science classroom.
Sigh! Creationists and ID proponents are still confusing “theory” and “hypothesis”. ID was never a theory. At best, it is an hypothesis, and a rather bad one at that. Compare it to phlogiston, which was a genuine theory and did lead to useful empirical research. The research we see coming out of the ID community seems to be little more than a search for gaps in which to put your “god of the gaps.” You don’t even need an ID hypothesis for that kind of research.
Richard Smalley
The next section is about Richard Smalley. The whole section reads like apologetics. I am wondering why vjtorley thinks that an apologetics argument would persuade people that ID is not religion.
So my question to you is: if a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry thought that intelligent design belongs in the category of “science”, what makes you so sure that it belongs in the category of religion?
Another non-biologist says something stupid about biology. It should be obvious that this is not useful to discuss in a science class.
Viewpoint endorsement
The Ball State statement said that particular viewpoints should not be endorsed, even in humanities classes. Vjtorley begins his question with:
I’d now like you to consider the hypothetical case of a humanities or social science lecturer at your university who is asked a very direct, personal question by a student: “Do you believe in intelligent design?”
If a student asked me that in class, I would decline to answer and rule it off-topic. If he asked me informally out of class, perhaps I would answer. But, in my opinion, this sort of viewpoint endorsement does not belong in the classroom. I agree with president Gora that this is an issue of academic integrity.
Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of “uncaused”. No, there are no confining rules to will. That’s what “free” means. You can will anything, including the existence of 4-sided triangles, and you can will the denial of the obvious. What there are rules to, and confinements to, is how that will can be expressed and made manifest.
Moral obligation, but there’s a certain amount of enjoyment I get from challenging myself to find new ways to express my views.
I’m just putting water in front of the horses. I can’t make them drink.
You apparently don’t understand what “stolen concept” means. It has nothing to do with who had it “first”.
Well, I can think of a few.
Fer’instance: You can only will what you are capable of imagining. You can only will what you are capable of remembering.
What are the limits to your imagination William? If you believe that there is no limit, is there still a limit?
Heh. I understand what it means. It means you don’t want a level playing field and to have won the argument before it even begins .
Co-operation came before religion, as you tacitly admit, and therefore religion/theism is not a prerequisite for it. So who “had it first” is quite important I think.
In willing the imagination of a four sided triangle William is violating the sacred rules of right reason. It’s not just imagining something that can’t be realized. It’s asserting the infamous a and not a. Something that violates its own definition.
Physics doesn’t command anything or decree anything, as best I can tell. To the extent that there is a regularity to subatomic interactions, it is a statistical regularity, not anything that could be described in terms of commands or decrees.
Translation: “I am the persecuted and suppressed genius who has seen farther than any scientist who has ever stood on the shoulders of giants.”
I suspect that the heart of William’s angst lies with this statement.
This is one of the most common responses we hear from pseudo-intellectuals, pseudo-scientists, sectarian demagogues, and every crackpot who thinks he (it is almost always a he) has single-handedly trumped the hard-won knowledge of civilization.
All of them, to a person, believe themselves to be a prophet of some sort. All of them believe they are being persecuted and suppressed by a cabal of reactionary scientists and intellectuals jealously defending their turf.
And all of them, to a person, can’t explain even the most basic rudiments of what it is that they are opposing. They make assertions about the “evils” of their chosen “enemy doctrine;” and when asked to explain something about that “enemy doctrine,” they can’t tell you even the basics.
Way back when William made his argument from authority using Hoyle and others as “experts against evolution,” he was asked to provide a justification for Hoyle’s “tornado-in-a-junkyard” argument against the origins of life and evolution. This is one of the favorite arguments used by ID/creationists.
And what did we learn from William about this supposed “killer argument” from authority; what do we learn from any ID/creationist about this killer argument? Absolutely nothing; every one of them, to a person ignores the chance to demonstrate that they understand science at the high school level.
William has much in common with the narcissistic crackpots we occasionally encounter at professional meetings and colloquia. They show up and immediately start preaching some weird “theory” that they claim refutes everything scientists have been “foisting off” on society. And, of course, scientists are “The Enemy” who reflexively reacts to oppose and suppress the genius that has just entered their midst.
Many of these characters have been at this game for decades, just as have been the ID/creationists ever since 1970. When they are backed into a corner, every one of them resorts to “philosophy;” which then eventually degenerates into stuff like quantum woo-woo.
I see that William is not unique in this regard.
And what triggered this persecution complex from William? Why the “suppression” of ID/creationism at Ball State, of course. That is always what the “fascist intelligentsia” does to geniuses who have leaped far beyond puny, cabalistic science.
I still don’t understand what is meant by “what physics commands”. From where I sit, “the commands of physics” is like “the color of sleep” — it’s a nonsense phrase. Consider: does it mean, “what the particles command us to do?” That’s nonsense — the particles can’t command anything. Does it mean “what the equations and models command us to do”? No, that’s just as absurd. Does it mean “what the discipline of physics commands us to do”? I don’t see how that’s any more intelligible. If WJM wants to insist that “the commands of physics” has nothing to do with determinism, or reductionism, that’s his right — but then he has to assign a meaning to his phrase, and as of right now I don’t see how it has one.
That aside, there is of course the deep and fascinating problem of how to understand the relationship between (i) rational judgment; (ii) biological function (including cognition as a biological function); and (iii) physio-chemical causation. I take it all three domains are conceptually autonomous — (i) cannot be “reduced to” (ii), and (ii) cannot be “reduced to” (iii). (Put otherwise, none of the attempts to carry out the reduction have been successful, and I’m not holding my breath.) But I also think that (i) is constrained by (ii), and (ii) is constrained by (iii). That is, biological functions are neither violations of nor predictable from the laws of physics, and norm-governed, rational inferences are neither violations of nor predictable from biological functions.
In claiming that (i) “emerges from” (ii), and that (ii) “emerges from” (iii), I am claiming that
(1) the emergent domain is characterized by a distinct vocabulary that has no analogues in the emerged domain (the ’emerged-from’ domain).
(2) the emerged domain constrains the possibilities within the emergent domain.
(3) the emergent domain cannot violate the principles of the emerged domain.
(4) the emergent domain cannot be predicted from the emerged domain.
(5) (1)-(4) can be explained either in terms of epistemology (how we understand the domains) or in terms of metaphysics (what’s really going on). I’d prefer a metaphysical reading, subject to certain caveats — I think that the universe is a nested hierarchy of dynamical systems that differ in spatio-temporal resolution and in complexity — some of which are simple enough to be predictable, and others not.
A domain “emerges from” another domain when the system becomes so complex that the vocabulary used to describe the initial domain no longer applies to the new domain. I think that certainly pertains to the emergent of biological function from physico-chemical causation, and I strongly suspect it pertains to the emergence of “the space of reasons” (our distinctively rational capacities to judge and infer) from the domain of biological functioning, including the kind of cognitive functioning that we share with other animals.
But the ‘moment of emergence’ is not undescribable — biological functions emerged from physico-chemical causation when an autocatalytic set of large polymers became enclosed within a semi-permeable membrane, and rationality emerged from animal cognition when a species of gregarious, social primates developed language.
No, it’s not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what “stolen concept” means.
Why don’t you split those hairs? Go right ahead.
On the basis of our interactions you said that it does not sound like I have free will. Rearrange that as you will.
There is no limit to will, although there are limits to how it can be interpreted, characterized and or made manifest by the mind and the physical world. Will, IMO, is like demiurge – pre-language, pre- visualizations. Language and visualizations are attempts to interpret/characterize what the will is after and will generally follow the current conventions of the mind and the physical existence one finds themselves in; they are not will themselves.
My mind often interprets my will to mean one thing, and have something completely different occur, only to find that what actually occurred perfectly matched the true nature of the will in ways I couldn’t even imagine.
I really feel for WJM. Life must be awful when, every friggin’ time you get on the dance floor, you are the one and only person who’s in step…
Life is great. The only place I’m out of step with others, generally speaking, is when I come here. Do you really think most people in my life are atheistic materialists?
Of course they can be described that way. You just disagree with that description.
It’s not a “rearrangement” or “splitting hairs”. I’m sure Dr. Liddle will back me up on this, but the context of my discussions about whether or not anyone else had free will were explicitly contextualized by my pointing out that my beliefs and views were not held as assertions about reality, but rather were practical means for me to be able to achieve my goals. Additionally, I repeatedly stated that my conceptualization about others as “biological automatons” was not an assertion about whether or not they actually had free will, but was only a convenient view I held to prevent me from becoming frustrated with others at times.
When Dr. Liddle and others pointed out that they were offended by the use of that term and the implication that they did not have free will, I changed my views to hold that everyone had free will, but some elected to use their free will to deny the obvious.
So your implication that I ever asserted that you didn’t have free will is entirely false.
But I guess to you and your ilk, the difference between a falsehood and the truth is is just “splitting hairs”.
William
So what did that mean? I asked you if I had free will, you said it does not sound like it. Seems quite clear.
If you want to spin that into you never asserted (i.e. never said the specific phrase OM does not have free will) then please go right ahead and do so.
Whoever else is in the group “my ilk” I’m proud to be there with them and not with you.
That you rewrote your own past and expect me to go along with it shows your view point is in error.
It’s funny how quick you are with these rebuttals but simply ignore the much more pressing questions you’ve been asked. I would link but you already know where and what those questions are. Why are you ignoring them? Is that a part of making things you can’t deal with go away in your reality?
The difference, then, between you and I is that when I find what you write to be nonsense I cannot understand, I don’t even attempt to respond.
#1 allows you to semantically (and then, conceptually) avoid the necessary metaphysical constraints that must carry through as per #2 and #3. You can call “wetness” an “emergent property” that has a vocabulary not available at the atomic level all day long; that doesn’t change the fact that the experience of “wetness”, under atheistic materialism, is as much the cause and effect product of physics (materials interacting according to the patterns and tendencies we call physical laws) as how electrons are caused to behave in various conditions.
A different vocabulary doesn’t purchase any distance from the issue.
William,
. Anyone can go back and look at the thread and how it developed. Perhaps you should write up a disclaimer with every post and attach it every time you write something so the reader can be fully up to date with your additional conditions that have to be applied to a surface reading of your writing.
So when I asked you if I had free will or not, actually I was asking you about a view you held about me, which was as it turned out that I did not have free will. Which, if I’m understanding you correctly, does not preclude me from actually having free will as it was simply a device you were using as a anti-frustration method? And so when I asked you about me I was actually asking you about the representation of me that you hold, not the actual me? Is that about the size of it?
Riiiiggghhht. That makes total sense. I suggest a disclaimer with every post is probably the way to go.
OMagain:
Let’s look at the post immediately above the one you linked to in that thread. I said:
So, obviously I cannot be making a claim that you do not have free will as a matter of reality, truth or fact.
This is what happens when you quote mine out of context: you end up with a face full of egg.
Whether or not a ‘change in vocabulary’ gains purchase from the issue depends on whether the properties of the emerged domain, as described by the vocabulary appropriate to that domain, can be predicted from and/or explained in terms of the properties of the emerged domain, as described by the vocabulary appropriate to that domain.
This is where things get interesting, because “solubility” is explained in terms of distributions of electrical charge over molecular surfaces. So I might need to say that “solubility” isn’t an emergent property, in the sense that “perception” (for whole living animals) is.
You know things are getting tough for William when he stoops to quote-mining his own comments. (BTW, moderators — please don’t move his comment to Guano, even though he does falsely accuse me of lying. I’d like the accusation to remain in full view) :
As William knows perfectly well, the embarrassing quotations don’t come from either of those two books. They come from a third book, Instant Enlightenment, that he recommended to us in the very same comment that he quotemines above:
So the embarrassing quotations don’t come from something written 20 years ago. They come from a book that William recommended to us on this very blog as “something more current.”
Your behavior is pitiful, William.
As William knows perfectly well, the embarrassing quotations don’t come from either of those two books. They come from a third book, Instant Enlightenment, that he recommended to us in the very same comment that he quotemines above:
So the embarrassing quotations don’t come from something written 20 years ago. They come from a book that William recommended to us on this very blogas “something more current.”
Your behavior is pitiful, William.
To be fair Keiths, that was before he just reinvented reality just now….
True, but when he reinvented reality, he forgot to edit the comment he made last year and to rewrite his book. That sort of thing is supposed to happen automatically, according to William:
How’s that working out for you, William?
No. It makes no difference at all. If causal physics is what generates effects in both domains, the vocabulary used to describe those physical interactions and cause and effect sequences is irrelevant. Capacity to predict from one domain to the is irrelevant.
If one requires such philosophical and semantic contrivances to ward off nihilism, it’s rather obvious that the straightforward consequence of naturalism is, in fact, nihilism.
Why would you write a book on “controlling the universe” when you yourself are driving?
I think the entire train is now officially off the rails, though the cars are still plowing dirt! 😀
I admit I have some fault in this – I had completely forgotten about “Instant Enlightenment”, and for whatever reason your reference to it didn’t even register. I assumed, mistakenly, that you were referring to one of my earlier books. And no, I didn’t recognize any of what you wrote as being from “Instant Enlightenment” because I don’t have it memorized – I don’t have any of them memorized.
Some time late last year I took it down from Lulu because I realized it no longer accurately represented my views. I don’t find any of those quotes “embarrassing” at all – I just cannot at this time be held to them in the same way I wrote them because, as I said, I change my personal beliefs quite often, which is one reason I don’t like to get into arguments about personal beliefs, but rather about belief systems and overarching worldviews. As I made clear then, my beliefs are temporary conventions that serve a purpose and I change them often.
My admonishment stands about addressing my personal beliefs or making comments about them; I’m not bound to your expectation that I should stay ironclad with the same beliefs for my lifetime. I change my beliefs quite often. What you referenced (instant enlightenment) was written 4-5 years ago. It was “more current” over a year ago when I provided that link; but certainly not current now, so if you want to discuss my current beliefs, you’ll have to first inform yourself of them – as I said. I’m sure you can search the internet and find long passages where I ridiculed theists and argued for atheism .. will you expect that I should be held to those comments, as well?
So, I apologize for calling you a liar about it, but the admonishment about being incorrect about my personal beliefs stands. And the way you are attempting ridicule me or portray me as “embarrassed” by my prior/current beliefs says more about you than it does about me. I’m not embarrassed by anything I’ve written or said.
As for your derogatory insinuations and characterizations, well, you’re the one that should be embarrassed, not I.
Even so, I’m sorry I called you a liar. I didn’t catch your reference.
It wasn’t a book about controlling the universe.
“…it can certainly organize the so-called “exterior world” with the same magical precision and non-local, faster-than-light ability.”
Uh-huh.
At first glance, the thread does seem thoroughly derailed. But, on second looks, I’m not so sure.
The plan was to discuss the reaction of ID proponents to the Ball State Presidents statement. And we have mostly been discussing the reaction of WJM, whom I do count as an ID proponent. So we aren’t that far off the topic.
I do suspect that most folk here are laughing at WJM’s reaction, because it is so off-the-wall.
Off the wall; certainly. But not all that different from the garbage truck loads of copy/paste quote mines we see from the regulars over at UD.
WJM doesn’t seem to be all that unique among crackpots and jilted “geniuses;” they all have exactly the same attitudes about science “thugs” and “fascist intelligentsia.” And they all seem a bit off the wall.
As we can see over at UD, with Floyd Lee over at Panda’s Thumb, and with the denizens of UD that have shown up here, they all see the statement by Ball State’s president as confirmation of their beliefs that the jealous “system” is out to beat them down and suppress their “intellectual achievements.”
Notice that he has managed to direct all attention to himself. They all do it. It’s their charicteristic narcissism.
Richardthughes,
You can quote mine all you want, but the book wasn’t about “controlling the universe”. It was about deliberately manifesting experience and separating – conceptually – the “you” as the observer and source of “will” from the “you” as a mental manifestation/interpretation of that will, allowing you to employ will tangentially from your current perception of self and “what the world is”. It was aimed at the willful manifestation spirituality that exists under many different names, which I explained at the time. I still employ most of those same techniques, although I’ve changed my mind about there being “no rules”; there are rules – obviously – since you cannot manifest a 4-sided triangle. I would write that book differently now, but it would still be full of material ripe for ridicule from your ilk.
Of course, this hasn’t really been about understanding my views at all for the sake of debating them, or in any way actually addressing what I actually believe now; it’s about doing whatever you can to generate a sense of ridicule in my direction. But then, that’s what I expect when I come here, and that’s part of the reason I can only stomach so much.
I can hardly be held accountable for what you and others choose to contribute here.
I think it might be better stated that what I provide is the opportunity for you all to behave badly if you so choose by offering honest information about my views that is certainly ripe for ridicule and personal attacks. I don’t disagree with that at all – I certainly know how open to ridicule my beliefs are; but then, I don’t choose my beliefs to avoid ridicule – I choose them to serve my own purposes.
You might try accepting responsibility for your contributions here, and holding others responsible for what they write and to whom, instead of trying to blame me for what you yourself and others have chosen to participate in.
It’s working out great, and it has been working out great for many years now, getting better and better in ways that were well beyond my capacity to imagine. I don’t really think you care about that, though.
One of the points I’ve made in my books is that often what we are willing to consider is hindered by the scorn of others; that there is much potential which we blocked off from ourselves because to explore such things would be to invite this kind of ridicule were we to ever be found out. This kind of thinking is, IMO, inhibiting when it comes to manifestation of experience.
But, that is something else I advocate in my books – developing a fearless disregard for the scorn of others. It’s your life, you can believe whatever you wish; you are not bound to believe or think according to what others find acceptable.
Imagine nicer then, great scribe.
*ruffles William’s hair’.
I think you take yourself more seriously than we do. That first bit, for me, was word-salad with ChopraWoo croutons.
If you to some degree hold the reigns of the universe, you’re not driving very well as far as I can tell. Mystic powers make you happy, but you are sad here. I saw you wrote some footy books – Celtic or Rangers, William? Liverpool myself.
And in this fearless framework you can develop amazing powers:
* Move slowly forward in time
* Become completly visible, even in full daylight
* Change your philosophy constantly whilst accusing others of sophistry
AND MANY MORE! 😉
I’m not sad here, and you’re not in any position to gauge how well I’m driving my carriage. Do you know my state of affairs by which to make such an assessment? Once again, this interpretation can only be about something you need or want to believe because you have no reason to make such a statement.
Are you asking me if I root for a sports team? Yes, I do. Cowboys.
Do you really think such ridicule is beneficial or moral? What’s the point of it? To make me feel bad? To make yourself feel good?
Ah – someome at AtBC posted a list of books by “William J Murray”, I’m thinking you’re a different WJM based on your comment.
You’re correct, I have no idea how things are going for you, and I hope they’re going well. But as you’ve suggested a distate for posting here it seemed fair to conlcude you didn’t find it a joyful endeavor.
Perhaps you are driving your carriage superbly. As you are a very eager giver of carriage driving advice, it is likely people will look at *your* driving. I’m guessing folks feel a disconnect.
Its a little joke, at your expense, because you allude to a fantastic, materialism defying paradigm, and yet still eat your cornflakes with a spoon.
I’m sorry but the guilt-trip bus left without me. If you’re going to pontificate on other’s morality, you’d best have your big boy pants on. Not being able to chuckle at your own expense might make things hard for you. These weren’t even close to the mean words I could have written.
William,
Your entrée into this thread was a comment ridiculing Neil Rickert, and you’ve been heaping scorn and ridicule on people since you first showed up at TSZ.
Hypocrisy fits you like a hideous toupée. Not your best look. As Richard says, you’d best have your big boy pants on when you presume to criticize the morality of others without having put any serious thought into your own.
We laugh because your situation here at TSZ is itself a refutation of the claims you make in Instant Enlightenment. Your new ‘Absolute Arbiter’ shtick isn’t much of an improvement. Our laughter may sting, but at least we are giving you honest feedback, unlike most of the folks at UD. Instead of complaining, how about addressing the weaknesses that we’ve pointed out?
You came here to criticize us, but in the process you’ve discovered that your own position is full of holes. Looks like your beliefs are due for yet another overhaul.
Richardthughes,
Heh. But WJM’s response of course will be that he does have his big boy pants on, that your “childish ridicule” doesn’t sting him at all, that he only asked “why” in a charitable attempt to raise your discourse out of the atheist-materialist pigwallow that is your lot …
Meanwhile he will be completely oblivious to the fact that his odious questions “What’s the point of it? To make me feel bad” – being designed to shame and indict you directly – are far more uncivilized and far less moral than the gently-mocking paragraph you wrote about him.
God forbid that anyone should be allowed to feel comfortable mocking the great man; no, they must be cut right down to size. Not for his own good, of course, he’s above all such petty concerns, but for their own good. Gotta teach those damn kids a lesson.
Before this thread is completely swallowed by WJM’s narcissistic sophistry (while accusing others of nihilism, and ‘atheo-materialism,’ likely a concept unique to WJM), I’d like to address something I found fascinating that the OP’s author wrote 2 days ago (which is already on the ‘older comments’ page):
Now it’s time for me to return the favour, Neil, and ask if you would start another thread on this topic. Specifically, could you elaborate on this: “Philosophers, as a group, tend to look at things from what I consider a[n] intelligent design perspective”?
My first question would be: which philosophers, specifically who? I’m aware of a small few psychologists who speak of (the specific concept duo) ‘intelligent design’ in an intentionally different way from the IDM’s Big-ID (‘Intelligent Design’ as natural scientific inference to transcendent Designer) approach. But who are these philosophers, which you suggest display a “natural way of thinking” about ‘intelligent design’?
You even call those philosophers collectively as “that particular intelligent design community,” which is not politically-oriented as the IDM, and which you suggest is also “far larger” than the Big-ID community. I’d like to hear more about this; what makes them a ‘community,’ what kind of community, etc.
I’ll note that I laughed off that ridicule. WJM got it completely wrong (not unusual for him).
I do not criticize Hoyle for not being an expert in biology. Anybody can study whatever they want, and exercise their free speech about it. They are even entitled to be wrong.
My criticism was of folk at UD, picking people like Hoyle as the “experts” to cite.
Keiths,
Pointing out that Neil’s comment was a case of the pot calling the kettle black is not “ridicule”, nor is it comparable to comments such as “everyone is laughing at you”, others stating that my views should be “embarrassing” for me, or calling me a troll and a narcissist that only wishes to have attention focused on him.
More importantly, when someone points out to me that I’ve made a mistake or have behaved badly, I admit my flaws and errors, apologize, and attempt to correct them. I’m certainly not perfect, and I have on occasion unfortunately applied ridicule – but it’s certainly not something I gleefully double-down on or attempt to justify because someone else has ridiculed me.
I normally don’t even say anything when someone ridicules me, but if everyone here is going to join the mob and gleefully make disparaging personal remarks, then accuse me of somehow coercing everyone to focus their attention on me, I think it’s appropriate to point out the the foolishness of such a position.
In any event, being the object of such mob-like group ridicule here is certainly not making my case against the moral capacity of atheistic materialism any the worse.
You always have the option of keeping your own posts focused on content.
Particularly since you have free will and all.
I’ll have to think about whether to start a thread. However, it is already clear that you did not understand what I was hinting at. You ask for specifics, but my remark was not about specifics.