Ye gods.

Kitzmiller v. Dover. Just some starting context for Professor Behe's views:

4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)).

Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?

McWhorter says in the opening moments that he initiated this. Blame's all his.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?

I'm betting Behe wouldn't be available for debate with most of the people on that list.

PZ excerpts Ken Miller's review of Behe's book.

Richard Dawkins's review of Behe's book.

Jerry Coyne's review (PDF) of Behe's book. [Added: HTML version found.] [Added] Also, Jerry Coyne's review of Behe's earlier book, Darwin's Black Box.

Quoting bjkeefe: McWhorter says in the opening moments that he initiated this. Blame's all his.

My respect for McWhorter is diminished by this. Behe has been refuted soundly and repeatedly (see the Dover case, e.g., or specific arguments against "Irreducible Complexity".)

Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright review a paper Behe coauthored in 2004.

The TalkOrigins FAQ page on Behe and "irreducible complexity."

Grab the popcorn: this is bound to be a good thread. (Doubtful I'll actually watch the diavlog.)

The reception so far:

Quoting bjkeefe: Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright review a paper Behe coauthored in 2004.

Heh. (This is in reference to a Behe paper mentioned as a prior to this paper.)

Although some in the “intelligent design” community tout Behe and Snoke’s paper as the long-awaited theoretical paper (Discovery Institute 2004), it contains no “design theory”, makes no attempt to model an “intelligent design” process, and proposes no alternative to evolution. In reality Behe & Snoke (2004) is an unmemorable investigation of neutral drift in protein and nucleic acid sequences. As we will show, the paper cannot even support the modest claims it does make.

Mark C. Chu-Carroll's review of "The Edge of Evolution."

Blake Stacey has gathered up a bunch more links related to "The Edge of Evolution." And I do mean a bunch. Great effort.

Nick Matzke (via PZ) looks specifically at Behe's malaria claims.

consider two male proto skunks fighting. Both skunks are equal. Winning the fight or achieving a draw allows the skunk to live another day. Even emitting a slight smell during the fight could drive off the attacker because all other factors are equal. Over generations the smelly skunk gets more odorous and is increasingly able to survive skunk on skunk fights. the 2nd way for the smell to evolve is for the proto skunk to have a 2nd trait that gives it a competitive advantage. Over generations, for every slight decrease in competitive advantage of the 2nd trait, the skunk gains an equally slight increase in its ability to emit an offensive odor.

Quoting kidneystones: how bots try

Points for self-referentiality: 10/10.

Quoting kidneystones: to change (Changey!)

It always comes back to kidley's racism, in the end.

Quoting TwinSwords: The reception so far:

Those guys are adorable.

Quoting kidneystones: you.

No, kidley. I am not "terrified." I'm merely sick of religious nonsense being given such a privileged position, especially when it attempts to pose in scientific clothing that has been unanimously rejected by people who actually know what they're talking about. Keep rooting for wingnuttery for wingnuttery's sake, though. At this point, you've got nothing left to lose.

Quoting kidneystones: Michael and John.

Well, John, you've gained kidneystones as a fan to replace the loss of me. I hope that makes you happy.

That's OK. John has a new fan in me as well. Hi John! Thanks for the wonderful and enlightening interview with Professor Behe!

Quoting bjkeefe: No, kidley. I am not "terrified." I'm merely sick of religious nonsense being given such a privileged position, especially when it attempts to pose in scientific clothing that has been unanimously rejected by people who actually know what they're talking about.

Keep rooting for wingnuttery for wingnuttery's sake, though. At this point, you've got nothing left to lose.

Feh. You posted a series of citations specifically on topic intended to refute an argument. Kidney posted a few oddly formatted, ... what, I don't have a noun, ... a set of posts that add up to an irrelevant ad hominem argument; one that he's repeatedly made to no apparent effect, up 'til now. The juxtaposition speaks for itself.

Oh, my god. It wasn't enough to have that first Discovery Institute guy on, now you have to get Michael Behe? In my opinion, the most basic criterion for being on bloggingheads is that you should be at least interesting if nowhere near right. Seriously, blow your "irreducible complexity" out your ass. What a useless discussion.

We've got a few programmers among us (including me). I bet we could crowd-source a new site. It can't be that hard! It's not like we need to FedEx cameras around the world to do this. We can match what Bob's paying his talkers. We could even get bjkeefe and kidneystones to moderate. If this creationism thing keeps up no one will want to be on bhtv anymore. A spinoff site is better than no site for us regular viewers. Who's with me?

Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development. On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting. I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?

Quoting kezboard: Oh, my god. It wasn't enough to have that first Discovery Institute guy on, now you have to get Michael Behe? In my opinion, the most basic criterion for being on bloggingheads is that you should be at least interesting if nowhere near right. Seriously, blow your "irreducible complexity" out your ass. What a useless discussion.

And when did McWhorter decide he was a scientific expert? What is up with all of his assertions about what's plausible and what's not in molecular biology? Does he really think he could go toe to toe with Dawkins, or PZ, or ERV? Why has McWhorter decided that this ridiculous charlatan, with a long history of having been repeatedly debunked by by his peers, not to mention his shaming in a court of law (decision written by a G. W. Bush appointee,) is worth a public conversation or an hour of a person's time? I'm forcing myself to watch, but, when I mentioned above that McWhorter had lost some of my respect, I had no idea just how awful his contribution was gong to be to this travesty.

John has a hard time imagining how order can emerge from chaos. Maybe he should read Hayek and learn some economics. Incredible orders, way out of bounds for our imagination, arise all the time all around us. Also if he thinks that the step from protein to complete humans is totally incredible, how does he conclude that there must be a design behind it? If it's so incredible then no one could have ever designed it: that's my reaction.

One thing we can all learn from this edition of Bloggingheads is that rational responses to ID are rare indeed. Anger is a response to a real threat. If ID is a ghost idea with no substance then why bother fighting it so hard? I tend to ignore things that are silly rather than get all worked up into a rage. Try it some time, it's good for the blood pressure.

Quoting cragger: Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development.

On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting.

I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?

That's a good question, actually. I think John, unfortunately, is somebody whose reason abdicates when his religious beliefs are challenged. That, at any rate, is how I interpret his stance here.

Quoting idnetdotcomdotau: One thing we can all learn from this edition of Bloggingheads is that rational responses to ID are rare indeed. Anger is a response to a real threat. If ID is a ghost idea with no substance then why bother fighting it so hard? I tend to ignore things that are silly rather than get all worked up into a rage. Try it some time, it's good for the blood pressure.

In various states in the US, ID has been inserted into the scientific curriculum. That is in fact something that frightens and angers me, for one. I take the establishment clause of the US Constitution seriously, and when charlatans promote significant attacks on the border between science and religion, I think the proper response is to do everything you can to refute them.

Quoting idnetdotcomdotau: One thing we can all learn from this edition of Bloggingheads is that rational responses to ID are rare indeed. Anger is a response to a real threat. [...]

Sometimes, anger is a response to a real threat. But not all times. One other common source of anger is irritation at having to rebut the same old nonsense over and over and over and over, from people who are too stupid and too superstitious to merit the privileged attention they keep receiving. Read this.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sometimes, anger is a response to a real threat. But not all times. One other common source of anger is irritation at having to rebut the same old nonsense over and over and over and over, from people who are too stupid and too superstitious to merit the privileged attention they keep receiving. Read this.

keefe, I don't think yer gonna get much of a response from idnet.com.au

Quoting AemJeff: And when did McWhorter decide he was a scientific expert? What is up with all of his assertions about what's plausible and what's not in molecular biology?

Your alarm bells should have gone off within the first minute of the diavlog, when it became apparent that most of McWhorter's previous "knowledge" of evolution came from reading Behe's other book.

Quoting claymisher: keefe, I don't think yer gonna get much of a response from idnet.com.au

Or IRQ Conflict, I suspect. But that's okay. Sometimes it's worth posting a response for the benefit of other readers.

John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Let the wingnut cries of CENSORSHIP!!1! begin. Kudos to John for making such an honorable admission.

Quoting bjkeefe: Or IRQ Conflict, I suspect. But that's okay. Sometimes it's worth posting a response for the benefit of other readers.

Yeah, that's the point.

McWhorter's claim. Read any of the cites Brendan posted and decide for yourself how closely Behe is being read by his critics.

Quoting idnetdotcomdotau: One thing we can all learn from this edition of Bloggingheads is that.......

idnetdotcomdotau: Are you getting college credits for that post? See below.

Quoting TwinSwords: (Source)
College Credits For Trolling the Web?

"Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their requirements. In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made 10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile' websites. There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements?"

Quoting Bloggingheads: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

I would be disappointed if this is taken down.

Quoting Me&theboys: idnetdotcomdotau: Are you getting college credits for that post? See below.

I am so glad you thought to post that.

Quoting AemJeff: McWhorter's claim.

Read any of the cites Brendan posted and decide for yourself how closely Behe is being read by his critics.

He's destroyed the evidence....pathetic.

Quoting AemJeff: I would be disappointed if this is taken down.

It has been...how weak.

Quoting cragger: Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development.

On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting.

I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?

A couple of answers: Only the supple brains at the DI can tease out the works of the Almighty from the grasp of the seeming chaos and confusion

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Let the wingnut cries of CENSORSHIP!!1! begin.

LOL! I'm sure ks and friends just got a soft-on.

Kudos to John for making such an honorable admission.

I hope he explains himself at more length, either here or on his blog. I'm going to withhold kudos until I hear a little more. However much things didn't go the way he wanted, he still has the sole responsibility for the attitude he displayed in the opening minutes of the diavlog (all I could stand to sit through). At the very least, he utterly failed to do his homework on Behe.

And now I will never know what the fuzz was all about... Sometimes it's better not to know. At least that's what some other people say.

Quoting kidneystones: Dawkins and the anti-religious hordes ignore the fact that Darwin himself had no problems working with people of faith.

A grotesque over-simplification and mischaracterization. Oh, let's just say it: another lie from the deluded kidley.

In the opinion of this non wingnut (or leftwing nut): Taking this diavlog down is an appalling act of intellectual cowardice. They filmed it and posted it, they should live with the consequences.

I didn't watch any of it, so I can't comment on it. I was going based on the BHTV comment, assuming it as an accurate depiction of JM's feelings. If it was really a case of trying to destroy the evidence, then I take back my kudos. In hindsight, I agree with Jeff et al that it should have been left up for the integrity of this site.

Quoting kidneystones: Thanks for bringing the flames!

You're most welcome! And score another for Master Prognosticator Uncle Eb!

Not too much. John comes out as a creationist.

Shame on you, Bob.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Let the wingnut cries of CENSORSHIP!!1! begin.

Kudos to John for making such an honorable admission.

I am of 2 minds here. I respect John for doing this if indeed he feels that things just didn't work out but I have a feeling that the reaction on the boards ( honest as it was ) contributed to the diavlogs demise. I can't help being a liberal and not wanting voices that I disagree with to be silenced. Tolerating Intolerance, Understanding Ignorance, these contradictions are part of progress as I see it. There was some value to this exercise. At least I spent a few minutes listening to Behe when before I it would have taken way too much energy to google him and search for a video which at least had a few good questions asked of him. I still get the links and the small thrill of seeing this short lived item. Keep it in the archives I say.

Quoting zookarama: Shame on you, Bob.

I'd say the shame is on McWhorter. BHtv staff is being arguably overly polite in acquiescing, but I think it's his decision that ought to be criticized.

BH goes wedgetarian?! This is very sad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_s...t_and_strategy

Quoting Bloggingheads: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully....

Usefully? Maybe "in a flattering light" would be the better term. And I suspect Behe disagrees with the decision. Based on the expression on his face when he heard McWhorter praise his book, Behe's probably very bummed that this diavlog has been removed. It was surely his only shot of getting on bhtv, probably in hopes that some credibility would rub off on him. Seems to have worked out the other way. Of course, instead of bragging about being on bhtv, now he'll probably just brag about having been deleted because his "truth" was too terrifying. I think the diavlog should stay on for all who want to see Behe in his idiotic glory. And if it isn't so flattering to McWhorter, well......"you dance with the one you brung."

Quoting Me&theboys: Usefully? Maybe "in a flattering light" would be the better term. And I suspect Behe disagrees with the decision. Based on the expression on his face when he heard McWhorter praise his book, Behe's probably very bummed that this diavlog has been removed. It was surely his only shot of getting on bhtv, probably in hopes that some credibility would rub off on him. Seems to have worked out the other way. Of course, instead of bragging about being on bhtv, now he'll probably just brag about having been deleted because his "truth" was too terrifying. I think the diavlog should stay on for all who want to see Behe in his idiotic glory. And if it isn't so flattering to McWhorter, well......"you dance with the one you brung."

I'm disappointed by the dvlog's deletion, and I think, regardless of how poorly received this was, McWhorter should have had the courage of his convictions. I do hope he addresses this issue directly here or elsewhere. btw, Me& - well said.

I agree. At the very least, this shoulda remained up so that Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers etc., could have ripped into it. Not to mention I'm sure John Horgan, Sean Carroll etc., would have had something to say about it. Then again, someday maybe one of us commentors will make a fortune selling bootleg copies in China!!

Removing a vid is a first for BH.tv, isn't it? I disagree with Behe but I wish it weren't removed. John McWhorter should have written an article or added a video that clarified his position rather than remove it since removal looks like an act of cowardice and/or an attempt at denying/rewriting history...

I will read fortunes for anyone who wants to send me their credit card # ;-)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I agree. At the very least, this shoulda remained up so that Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers etc., could have ripped into it. Not to mention I'm sure John Horgan, Sean Carroll etc., would have had something to say about it.

Then again, someday maybe one of us commentors will make a fortune selling bootleg copies in China!!

If anybody downloaded - POST IT! And let us know here. If you don't have someplace else to post, post a comment at my blog, whose address is in my sig.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer:
Then again, someday maybe one of us commentors will make a fortune selling bootleg copies in China!!

I don't want money for my copy... just want to threaten John with distribution to all his students at Columbia... unless he has the mettle to offer an explanation. Until then, we're left guessing and I'm ordering blank discs by the gross.

Quoting AemJeff: If anybody downloaded - POST IT! And let us know here. If you don't have someplace else to post, post a comment at my blog, whose address is in my sig.

BH.tv may sue the poster for stealing their intellectual property. Anyway, this whole drama may be good for BH.tv and the the careers of JM & MB since just the removal itself could become a (minor?) blogging sensation. There is no such thing as bad publicity...

Quoting nautirony: BH.tv may sue the poster for stealing their intellectual property.

Anyway, this whole drama may be good for BH.tv and the the careers of JM & MB since just the removal itself could become a (small?) blogging sensation and there is no such thing as bad publicity.

They offered it for download in the first place. If I were to post it and they asked me to take it down, I'd do it. But I'm not sure how much legal authority they have over digital copies they made available in the first place. (I really don't know.)

I downloaded it before it was removed from the site. In principle, I guess I could upload it somewhere. But I don't feel the need. I wonder if there will be a more elaborate explanation for its removal.

John, this is what happens when you cross the line. They crucify you. Live in fear.

Quoting In a word: Barnacles: I downloaded it before it was removed from the site. In principle, I guess I could upload it somewhere. But I don't feel the need.

I wonder if there will be a more elaborate explanation for its removal.

I vote youTube!!!...or you could always sell it to Mr. McWhorter. "What's it worth ta ya?" Kidding.

Quoting idnetdotcomdotau: John, this is what happens when you cross the line. They crucify you. Live in fear.

Heh. Yup, fear the awesome power of refutation to strip the skin from your bones. Fearsome words may be pointed in your general direction. You might even be asked to support an assertion!

Welcome to Russia. Dissent will not be tolerated! ....Komrade.

Спасибо, товарищ.

Great. The nuts are already spinning their conspiracy theories. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009...gingheads.html Any chance the video can be restored before this whole episode morphs into another IDC talking point?

Yes, Madsen, quick! A little taqqyia before it blows up in our face!! Lol, pathetic. Now, Lock-step everyone. And, a left, a left, a left right left....

Hey, I'm arguing that the video should be put back up. A full explanation should be given as to why it was removed in the first place. Do you agree?

"The nuts are already spinning their conspiracy theories" No, I'm afraid I don't. Calling them names just because they see design in nature and attempt to show the flaws in an old DEAD theory is quite unbecoming of "scientific inquiry" wouldn't you say?

Theads like this make me glad the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. say nothing about electricity.

I wouldn't make too much of it. Democracy has been upheld as some end all be all, but censorship is more natural than democracy. Ideas can also be naturally selected.

IRQ Conflict, I shouldn't have used the word "nuts"; I apologize for that. However, here is a sampling of the conspiracy theories people are speculating about already:

Right. He received missives from those that found it “objectionable” because there were nice/compelling things being said about Behe’s work, so he felt the heat (read: peer pressure) and removed it.

This is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is that some influential biologists sensed the damage that an interview like this could do if it became publicly available, and quietly brought pressure to bear on McWhorter to yank it off the air. However, I suspect we’ll never get to hear about that, as McWhorter is too much of a gentleman to name names.

Mr McWhorter live in fear or you will be EXPELLED.

This is tacit evidence of what ID advocates have stated all along, that there is conspiratorial censorship of the ID position, a form of ‘behind the scenes fascism’ that extends in various directions.

Madsen, I truly appreciate you appolagy and it is most humbly accepted. But I have to assume that you are not too familiar with the theory of ID? Or again I would have to assume you are not familiar with the facts of blatant disregard for those of dissenting views within the scientific community? conspiracy theories are usually branded thus because they have little to no foundation in truth (fact). I assure you, this is not the case. If you would like I could find and give you some links to chew on before you leap to judgment.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: "The nuts are already spinning their conspiracy theories"

No, I'm afraid I don't. Calling them names just because they see design in nature and attempt to show the flaws in an old DEAD theory is quite unbecoming of "scientific inquiry" wouldn't you say?

Are you a wedgetarian or are you unaware that DI's version of 'scientific inquiry' can be described as claiming 'I don't know how certain things could have evolved' while ignoring other answers?

nautirony, neither. I am a Christian that has an extreme bias. But that has little bearing on the facts. I'll let you in on a little something the circle jerk of the four horsemen do not wish you to know... Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 1 Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 2 Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 3 Conspiracy? Not unless you count the pseudo-scientific rejection of ID.

I hope John comes back and has a more "useful" Diavlog with Behe - or explains in greater detail what was wrong with this one. Whatever John's position on I.D - I respect his intelligence and ability to be intellectually curios on various topics.

Quoting Bloggingheads: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

I don't know, I didn't think this was that bad (I had downloaded the podcast already). Judging from Keefe's links Behe is probably guilty of actual deceit. But the worst you could say about John is that he's too gullible. If you're nice you'd say he's too open-minded. Like John, I too have a hard time getting my head around reconciling the incredible diversity of life with how slow mutation and natural selection are. Like John I'm not impressed by different beaks on finches. I want to hear about how a species can gain or lose chromosomes without being horribly impaired. I want to hear about speciation in action. To me 65 million years just doesn't feel like long enough for every different kind of mammal to emerge. I have a nagging feeling there might be more going on than natural selection. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT. There's viruses and bacteria. There's epigenetics. There are brain cells and immune cells that somehow rewrite their

Quoting Bloggingheads:
"He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable."

Would this concluding statement not reveal John's true motive for why he retracted his remarks? It's clearly not that he revised his position, considered over more than a ten year period, but that his position was revised for him. If anything, this lends credibility to the claim that any criticisms of natural causation are not only frowned upon, but prohibited within the halls of science, and by their recruited lemmings that lurk in the underbrush of the blogosphere. Threats and adhoms to get points across merely make the case for a form of journalistic fascism, and in this example, have presented it clearly for all to see.

Clay, I would highly recommend Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge" or Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish." They did a pretty good job for me.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Clay, I would highly recommend Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge" or Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish." They did a pretty good job for me.

Those both look really terrific! I love Zimmer but I hadn't seen that one.

Quoting LeeBowman: Would this concluding statement not reveal John's true motive for why he retracted his remarks? It's clearly not that he revised his position, considered over more than a ten year period, but that his position was revised for him.

If anything, this lends credibility to the claim that any criticisms of natural causation are not only frowned upon, but prohibited within the halls of science, and by their recruited lemmings that lurk in the underbrush of the blogosphere. Threats and adhoms to get points across merely make the case for a form of journalistic fascism, and in this example, have presented it clearly for all to see.

Do you see any threats here? I see some people trying to float grotesque, Godwinesque distortions of simple argument, spinning baseless theories of conspiracies and vaporous threats (the substance of which is merely hinted at) but I don't see any threats.

claymisher wrote: "btw, notice how creationists always talk about "Darwinism," but biologists talk about natural selection?" That would be the difference between micro and macro evolution. You know, the terms "real scientists" are shying away from. Here is a hint. Natural selection stops at micro-evolution.

Quoting LeeBowman: If anything, this lends credibility to the claim that any criticisms of natural causation are not only frowned upon, but prohibited within the halls of science, and by their recruited lemmings that lurk in the underbrush of the blogosphere. Threats and adhoms to get points across merely make the case for a form of journalistic fascism, and in this example, have presented it clearly for all to see.

The fact that some bloggers were out with rocks, pitchforks and fire makes his position understandable to me. Right now much stands as hearsay, as very few of us got a chance to see the whole thing. Though I don't see the big deal, might as well take out the video, stop it from becoming something bigger and let all the fuss die out.

Heh. Some days I wonder if Bob was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a look-alike. I thought I knew Bob, and knew BHTV, after following BHTV since its inception. Then he released his new book and ever since then I don't recognize him, and I don't recognize BHTV. It's just beyond weird. It's as if Bob was hiding this side of himself all the time leading up to the release of his book. I think a lot of us have been hoping for the day that this would all settle down and the site (and Bob) would go back to normal. It can't happen soon enough. But, wow, they removed the video? I wonder if we'll ever get an explanation. (Assuming they haven't already given one.)

Quoting IRQ Conflict: nautirony, neither. I am a Christian that has an extreme bias. But that has little bearing on the facts.

Of that, we can all be certain.

Indeed.

Yer link's broken.

Quoting medstud: The fact that some bloggers were out with rocks, pitchforks and fire makes his position understandable to me. Right now much stands as hearsay, as very few of us got a chance to see the whole thing. Though I don't see the big deal, might as well take out the video, stop it from becoming something bigger and let all the fuss die out.

And I don't see why the big deal either. Keep the video posted and let the chips fall where they will. Don't like what's said? Don't watch it.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yer link's broken.

Mine? I tested them. Prolly UTo0b. Gets swamped sometimes.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yer link's broken.

It works for me, albeit with errors and redirects. I'm currently posting from my Blackberry, which might make a difference.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: And I don't see why the big deal either. Keep the video posted and let the chips fall where they will. Don't like what's said? Don't watch it.

Not as simple as that. While I'd say a good number of us don't think its a big deal, there's always a fair share that do and blow things out of proportion. So why would he tarnish his rep any further? Why 'let the chips fall where they will', when you can do something about the outcome? I don't think keeping the video would've been the smart thing to do. People will soon forget and it will all be over.

Quoting AemJeff: "Do you see any threats here? I see some people trying to float grotesque, Godwinesque distortions of simple argument, spinning baseless theories of conspiracies and vaporous threats (the substance of which is merely hinted at) but I don't see any threats."

We see the insults and adhoms here, but threats are implied. John writes for the NYT and other liberal publications and journals that might exert pressure. John strikes me as having honesty and fortitude, whereby a few catty remarks would surely roll off his back. I could be wrong, but I see evidence of career threats lurking in the wings. Glenn Beck has lost a total of 33 sponsors (so far) due merely to a few far right remarks. Journalistic careers are often threatened if you don't support their clients' positions, and I would say John is heavily science invested. By the way, I'm a science suppoter, big time, and a design theorist.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yer link's broken.

You mean this one?

Quoting bjkeefe: Sometimes, anger is a response to a real threat. But not all times. One other common source of anger is irritation at having to rebut the same old nonsense over and over and over and over, from people who are too stupid and too superstitious to merit the privileged attention they keep receiving. Read this.

Just checked it again. Works fine for me.

Quoting claymisher: I don't know, I didn't think this was that bad (I had downloaded the podcast already). Judging from Keefe's links Behe is probably guilty of actual deceit. But the worst you could say about John is that he's too gullible. If you're nice you'd say he's too open-minded.

Like John, I too have a hard time getting my head around reconciling the incredible diversity of life with how slow mutation and natural selection are. Like John I'm not impressed by different beaks on finches. I want to hear about how a species can gain or lose chromosomes without being horribly impaired. I want to hear about speciation in action. To me 65 million years just doesn't feel like long enough for every different kind of mammal to emerge. I have a nagging feeling there might be more going on than natural selection. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT.

There's viruses and bacteria. There's epigenetics. There are brain cells and immune cells that somehow rewrite their DNA. Who knows, maybe some weird protein folding stuff speeds up evolutionary change? (We're just scratching the surface on protein folding now.) Are there kinds of evolvability we're not aware of? There are all kinds of interesting things

Quoting LeeBowman: We see the insults and adhoms here, but threats are implied. John writes for the NYT and other liberal publications and journals that might exert pressure. John strikes me as having honesty and fortitude, whereby a few catty remarks would surely roll off his back. I could be wrong, but I see evidence of career threats lurking in the wings.

Glenn Beck has lost a total of 33 sponsors (so far) due merely to a few far right remarks. Journalistic careers are often threatened if you don't support their clients' positions, and I would say John is heavily science invested.

By the way, I'm a science suppoter, big time, and a design theorist.

Recorded for hilarity. Also: 'bout time for my favorite pie chart:

I do find it somewhat hilarious, since ID is forensic science, not religion.

Quoting kidneystones: Thanks for bringing the flames!

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so someone else may have made this point already, but if I had to bet, John did not decide to take down the video because he was flamed, but because of the overwhelming preponderence of evidence and rational argument against Behe that was linked to from the forum. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but perhaps John started reading through some of the reviews and suddenly realized he'd been duped. Who knows. As someone else said, I hope we get a fuller accounting of what happened, and I hope John McWhorter is back on soon to talk about it.

Quoting kidneystones: The swarm that greeted John and Michael is pretty much par for the course around here.

No, actually, it was pretty unusual.

Quoting kidneystones: The generally dismal response of the bhtv commentariat aside, why is John McWhorter entitled to what effectively amounts to a 'do-over'.

Coming from anyone but you, this concern might carry some weight. But, given the fact that you actually took the time to delete hundreds of your own comments from BHTV, because you knew they would complicate your transformation from a

Quoting LeeBowman: We see the insults and adhoms here, but threats are implied. John writes for the NYT and other liberal publications and journals that might exert pressure. John strikes me as having honesty and fortitude, whereby a few catty remarks would surely roll off his back. I could be wrong, but I see evidence of career threats lurking in the wings.

Glenn Beck has lost a total of 33 sponsors (so far) due merely to a few far right remarks. Journalistic careers are often threatened if you don't support their clients' positions, and I would say John is heavily science invested.

By the way, I'm a science suppoter, big time, and a design theorist.

I called Behe a "charlatan" here. I stick by that. What other "insults and adhoms" do you see? I see conspiracy theories being sewn, I saw an awful lot of citations posted as refutations to Behe's arguments. Insults and ad hominem, not so much. It's a logical impossibility, btw, to support both science and ID. They're mutually exclusive.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: I'll let you in on a little something the circle jerk of the four horsemen do not wish you to know...

Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 1

Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 2

Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 3

Conspiracy? Not unless you count the pseudo-scientific rejection of ID.

Please google refutations of these arguments...

Quoting LeeBowman: I do find it somewhat hilarious, since ID is forensic science, not religion.

Sorry, IDiot. No one here takes that position seriously but you and your fellow Christianist trolls.

Quoting AemJeff: It works for me, albeit with errors and redirects. I'm currently posting from my Blackberry, which might make a difference.

Must have been a temporary server glitch; it's working for me now. This is what I was getting (still had the tab open):

Quoting AemJeff: posting from my Blackberry

Mind if I ask which BB you have?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I agree. At the very least, this shoulda remained up so that Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers etc., could have ripped into it. Not to mention I'm sure John Horgan, Sean Carroll etc., would have had something to say about it.

Yeah. Even bad publicity for BHTV would still be publicity.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Then again, someday maybe one of us commentors will make a fortune selling bootleg copies in China!!

ROFL. However it's times like this that I really wish I had downloaded the video to my hard drive. Nothing makes you want to watch something so much as something they try to take away from you. Me& is right: This has to be deeply disappointing to Behe. Still, the decision to remove the video is baffling. I can't just be that people complained; there must be some larger reason (like I speculated earlier, that John read some of the links posted and realized he'd made a mistake). If John asked to have the video removed simply because he took some heat, that would be evidence of remarkably thin skin. Anyway, I'm sure we'll hear more about this.

Quoting AemJeff: I called Behe a "charlatan" here. I stick by that. What other "insults and adhoms" do you see? I see conspiracy theories being sewn, I saw an awful lot of citations posted as refutations to Behe's arguments. Insults and ad hominem, not so much.

Except for the sale of two books, what has he gained? A charlatan acts out for gain. No gains have come to Behe, unless you count hate mail and verbal abuse. No, his motives are more likely a penchant for objective science, as are mine.

Quoting AemJeff: It's a logical impossibility, btw, to support both science and ID. They're mutually exclusive.

ID and 'religion' are mutually exclusive, since one is evidence based and the other faith based. The only 'religionists' who have opted for ID have been those pushing religion within science and academia, a distinct minority. It seems that the best ID critics can do is use them for target practice.

Sure, it's Tour 9630, I've had it a couple of weeks.

Quoting nautirony: Please google refutations of these arguments...

Heh you don't think I haven't? I'm biased as can be but I won't lie to protect my beliefs. Not on purpose anyway. From talk origins:

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

Compare this to my already posted link on natural selection As for entropy. When is the last time you saw an organism gain information and order rather than lose it with time?

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry, IDiot. No one here takes that position seriously but you and your fellow Christianist trolls.

Christianist trolls? You're making an assumption my friend. But since I'm science oriented, I'd be glad to debate andthing you'd like to post to support your position. IC, random mutations, name it.

Quoting idnetdotcomdotau: John, this is what happens when you cross the line. They crucify you. Live in fear.

What exactly happened in this thread that you feel was out of bounds? Robust dialogue and debate? Bob spent years building a site around the idea of intellectual discourse. Don't tell us that now we have to all keep our mouths shut and accept whatever psuedo-scientific pabulum is fed to us.

I'd be the only one remotely fitting that description methinks. The Christianist troll thingy...yeah. "Don't tell us that now we have to all keep our mouths shut" I don't recall anyone suggesting that TS.

Quoting claymisher: I don't know, I didn't think this was that bad (I had downloaded the podcast already). Judging from Keefe's links Behe is probably guilty of actual deceit. But the worst you could say about John is that he's too gullible. If you're nice you'd say he's too open-minded.

Like John, I too have a hard time getting my head around reconciling the incredible diversity of life with how slow mutation and natural selection are. Like John I'm not impressed by different beaks on finches. I want to hear about how a species can gain or lose chromosomes without being horribly impaired. I want to hear about speciation in action. To me 65 million years just doesn't feel like long enough for every different kind of mammal to emerge. I have a nagging feeling there might be more going on than natural selection. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT.

There's viruses and bacteria. There's epigenetics. There are brain cells and immune cells that somehow rewrite their DNA. Who knows, maybe some weird protein folding stuff speeds up evolutionary change? (We're just scratching the surface on protein folding now.) Are there kinds of evolvability we're not aware of? There are all kinds of interesting things

Quoting LeeBowman: Except for the sale of two books, what has he gained? A charlatan acts out for gain. No gains have come to Behe, unless you count hate mail and verbal abuse. No, his motives are more likely a penchant for objective science, as are mine.

ID and 'religion' are mutually exclusive, since one is evidence based and the other faith based. The only 'religionists' who have opted for ID have been those pushing religion within science and academia, a distinct minority. It seems that the best ID critics can do is use them for target practice.

What does Behe gain? He's a star! He's the go to guy with a relevant degree who gets to write widely read books on controversial topic. Who was he before this? Some guy teaching at Lehigh? There have. Multiple refutations posted in this very thread. ID is not science. The Discovery institute does not get papers published in peer reviewed journals. Behe's work is disparaged by his peers for sloppiness, for ignoring challenges, fot being honest. There's little more to say.

Quoting AemJeff: Sure, it's Tour 9630, I've had it a couple of weeks.

Nice. Had not heard of that model but just looked it up. I never thought I would be such a geek for a ... phone? Hardly seems appropriate to call them phones anymore. I use mine far more for web browing and texting that talking on the actual phone.

Quoting AemJeff: There have. Multiple refutations posted in this very thread. ID is not science. The Discovery institute does not get papers published in peer reviewed journals. Behe's work is disparaged by his peers for sloppiness, for ignoring challenges, fot being honest. There's little more to say.

Wrong. There is a LOT to say. Be sure to check out the FAQ as well.

Quoting cragger: "Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development."

Attemps are constantly being made, and the TTSS hypothesis has been injected with its own toxins, multiple times. There is absolutely no evidence of flagellar precursers, or an ancestral form. Miller is blowing smoke regarding IC refutation.

" ... even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive."

Random mutations as the sole source of complexity and novelty?! That deserves the 'magic' connotation. "

Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting."

Why?

"I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components?"

It's 'components' are

Quoting LeeBowman: Christianist trolls?

Yes.

Quoting LeeBowman: You're making an assumption my friend.

I'm not your friend.

Quoting LeeBowman: But since I'm science oriented, ...

You're not. Bye.

Interesting comments about this diavlog over at one of the ID blogs, Uncommon Descent. The rapidly forming consensus is that Behe was just so amazingly persuasive and effective that "some influential biologists sensed the damage that an interview like this could do if it became publicly available, and quietly brought pressure to bear on McWhorter to yank it off the air."

Quoting kidneystones: Thanks for bringing the flames!

You're welcome again!

Quoting kidneystones: The swarm that greeted John and Michael is pretty much par for the course around here.

Yep. Dubious claims will tend to get rebutted. But .. "swarm?" Do you wingnuts ever not indulge in hysteria?

Quoting kidneystones: So, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the most voluble crib, copy and parrot book reviews, offering up arguments and observations from others as if they were there own.

The possessive pronoun is spelled t-h-e-i-r. And yeah, I really made it look like "arguments and observations" were my "own" by offering a set of links labeled, for example, "Jerry Coyne's review."

Quoting kidneystones: The generally dismal response of the bhtv commentariat ...

I have noticed you've been posting a lot lately, yes. Isn't it about time for you to have another drama queen moment and storm off for a few months again?

Quoting TwinSwords: Interesting comments about this diavlog over at one of the ID blogs, Uncommon Descent.

The rapidly forming consensus is that Behe was just so amazingly persuasive and effective that "some influential biologists sensed the damage that an interview like this could do if it became publicly available, and quietly brought pressure to bear on McWhorter to yank it off the air."

ROFL. Best echo chamber ever! Because it's "science oriented."

IRQ Conflict has made the diavlog available for download from this URL: http://wfp91g.bay.livefilestore.com/...e.wmv?download Note: You may need to rename the file with a .WMV file extension to get it to play. For some reason my copy downloaded without the proper file extension.

Quoting TwinSwords: Interesting comments about this diavlog over at one of the ID blogs, Uncommon Descent.

The rapidly forming consensus is that Behe was just so amazingly persuasive and effective that "some influential biologists sensed the damage that an interview like this could do if it became publicly available, and quietly brought pressure to bear on McWhorter to yank it off the air."

Quoting vjtorley: This is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is

Yup! Sounds like a concensus to me. Lol.

Yeah, the video isn't the best since I needed to compress it for upload.

Quoting LeeBowman: Attemps are constantly being made, and the TTSS hypothesis has been injected with its own toxins, multiple times. There is absolutely no evidence of flagellar precursers, or an ancestral form. Miller is blowing smoke regarding IC refutation.

Miller:

In 1998 the flagella of eubacteria were discovered to be closely related to a non-motile cell membrane complex known as the Type III secretory apparatus (Heuck 1998) These complexes play a deadly role in the cytotoxic (cell-killing) activities of bacteria such as Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes bubonic plague. When these bacteria infect an organism, bacteria cells bind to host cells, and then pump toxins directly through the secretory apparatus into the host cytoplasm. Efforts to understand the deadly effects of these bacteria on their hosts led to molecular studies of the proteins in the Type III apparatus, and it quickly became apparent that at least 10 of them are homologous to proteins which form part of the base of the bacterial flagellum (Heuck 1998: 410).

This means that a portion of the whip-like bacterial flagellum functions as the "syringe" that makes up the Type III secretory apparatus. In other words, a subset of the proteins of the

Looks like Bob did a little surfing:

Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[41] Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism". In the book, Coulter thanks Behe, Dembski and Berlinski for their assistance with this section.[42]

Link 42. ;^)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Let the wingnut cries of CENSORSHIP!!1! begin.

Great minds think alike. Some just post on Twitter, instead:

Bloggingheads has taken down the Behe diavlog -- so now they can cry censorship. Ugh.

[Added] Previous tweet, three hours earlier. [Added2] More people twittered about this, this past afternoon.

Removing a diavlog and certain people throwing fits in the comment section. Not good for bh.tv.

This is why I like John McWhorter... doesn't oft toe the ivory tower's party line on what is verboten.

ExposureRoom.com - John McWhorter vs Michael Behe (bloggingheads.tv)

Good man. Appreciate it.

Quoting madsen: Great. The nuts are already spinning their conspiracy theories.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009...gingheads.html

Any chance the video can be restored before this whole episode morphs into another IDC talking point?

I think it's hilarious how "Cornelius Hunter" is whining about censorship, yet won't allow any public comments on his own blog.

Quoting TwinSwords: Must have been a temporary server glitch; it's working for me now.

This is what I was getting (still had the tab open):

[...]

Thanks for letting me know, both before and after. (Clearly, the bots were censoring for a while!!!1!)

Quoting TwinSwords: Heh.

Some days I wonder if Bob was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a look-alike. I thought I knew Bob, and knew BHTV, after following BHTV since its inception. Then he released his new book and ever since then I don't recognize him, and I don't recognize BHTV. It's just beyond weird. [...]

Posted in 2001 by guess who?

"This time, though, the evolutionists find themselves arrayed not against traditional creationism, with its roots in biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea: the intelligent design theory."—New York Times, front page, April 8, 2001

With this sentence, the newspaper of record has now granted official significance to the latest form of opposition to Darwinism. As the Times notes, adherents of "intelligent design theory" are doing what creationists have long done, such as trying to change public-school science curricula. But there's a difference: Instead of being a bunch of yahoos, they are a bunch of "academics and intellectuals" with new, "more sophisticated" ideas.

Two obvious questions: What is really new about "intelligent design theory"? And who are these "academics and intellectuals"? The answer to the first question—nothing of significance—is best seen by answering the second question.

The Times piece identifies three "intellectual fathers" of intelligent design theory: Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski.

[...]

Intellectual father No. 2: Michael

Quoting Lyle: Removing a diavlog and certain people throwing fits in the comment section. Not good for bh.tv.

Please indicate by links which comments you would say count as "throwing fits."

No, I won't, but yeah I'm talking about you. Calling people IDiots... immature, characterless, and beneath bh.tv. You know you're wrong.

Postscript: Just to let people know that my suggestion isn't completely off the wall. From S. J Gould's introduction to Goldschmidt's writings; "As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages. . . . In his infamous book of 1940, Goldschmidt specifically invokes rate genes as a potential maker of hopeful monsters: 'This basis is furnished by the existence of mutants producing monstrosities of the required type and the knowledge of embryonic determination, which permits a small rate change in early embryonic processes to produce a large effect embodying considerable parts of the organism.' In my own, strongly biased opinion, the problem of reconciling evident discontinuity in macroevolution with Darwinism is largely solved by the observation that small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults." I have no idea how contemporary evolutionary biologists regard Goldschmidt and Gould.

Quoting Lyle: Removing a diavlog and certain people throwing fits in the comment section. Not good for bh.tv.

Quoting bjkeefe: Please indicate by links which comments you would say count as "throwing fits."

Quoting Lyle: No, I won't, ...

Figured as much.

Quoting Lyle: ... but yeah I'm talking about you. Calling people IDiots...

Deal with it. This is a common term, like wingnuts, and like wingnuts it has a fairly unambiguous meaning. Plus, it has the extra advantage of being punny. Not quite what anyone sane would call "throwing fits," though. So ... looks like yet another unsupportable accusation by Lial!

Quoting madsen: Great. The nuts are already spinning their conspiracy theories.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009...gingheads.html

Any chance the video can be restored before this whole episode morphs into another IDC talking point?

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory as that seems to imply some sort of secrecy. There is no secret when it comes to the motives of Darwinists and their blatant attempts at censoring any dissenters. The brilliant website N.C.S.E. Exposed shows irrefutable evidence of this. What I'm puzzled over is why Darwinists would be so afraid of opposing viewpoints. We're repeatedly told that Darwinism is as proven as gravity. I would think any theory as strongly supported as the law of gravity would welcome the opportunity to crush any dissenters, especially considering the overwhelming percentage of the public which doubts the validity of any form of Darwinism. Yet instead of being crushed, Dr. Behe and the like are having their views misinterpreted at best, and outright censored at worst. As an unbiased observer, it comes across as insecure people using cheap rhetoric to masquerade the flaws of their outdated worldview. I can't help but be reminded of the whole Galileo debacle from the early

Quoting The Allen Factor: ... As an unbiased observer, ...

ROFL! I love this new tactic, where the IDiot trolls try to talk all calm and science-y.* Lends a new meaning to "Be Like Mike." [Added] Oops. I forgot that saying "IDiot" makes the baby Lial cry. Please substitute "creationist" above. ========== * [Added2] Except, of course, when they're howling about censorship!!!1!

Also ...

Quoting The Allen Factor: I can't help but be reminded of the whole Galileo debacle from the early 17th century.

Congratulations! You just earned 40 points! (Item 35.)

Oh... I imagine bh.tv will put you in timeout before they put me in timeout. Who'll be the baby then bjkeefe? Haha. The Allen Factor has got you and others pegged though... you do act like a bunch of Grand Inquisitors at times. Wingnuts! Wingnuts! Wingnuts!

Quoting Lyle: Oh... I imagine bh.tv will put you in timeout before they put me in timeout. Who'll be the baby then bjkeefe? Haha.

Still looking for others to fight your battles for you, I see. Maybe if you didn't put up so many accusations that you couldn't back up, I'd go a little easier on you.

The Allen Factor has got you and others pegged though... you do act like a bunch of Grand Inquisitors at times.

If by "Grand Inquisitors" you mean "people who offer references to debunk nonsense and pseudoscience," I'm happy to accept your label. I'm interested that you equate posting a few links with torture, though, given that you and so many other conservatives spend so much time falling all over yourselves denying actual torture is torture.

Torture? Haha. Way to change the subject bjkeefe.

Quoting Lyle: Torture? Haha. Way to change the subject bjkeefe.

Yeah, from "Grand Inquisitors" to "torture" is such a leap. Has your obtuseness really reached the point of pretending not to understand your own words? Or do you really know that little about history?

Yes, it is... cause Inquisitors didn't get the name from whatever torturing or killing they did, they got it from their questioning of peoples' ideas... which is exactly what you and others do here. Galileo wasn't even tortured for Christ's sake.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, it is... cause Inquisitors didn't get the name from whatever torturing or killing they did, they got it from their questioning of peoples' ideas... which is exactly what you and others do here.

Galileo wasn't even tortured for Christ's sake.

All right, I'll pretend I believe your feeble protestations that you meant to suggest nothing about harshness when you used the phrase "Grand Inquisitors." I'll also ignore your attempt to change the subject by bringing up Galileo. Now, please tell me exactly what your problem is with "questioning of peoples' [sic] ideas." If you're so opposed to that, why do you even read the forums? [Added] You might also explain why this bothers you so much, in light of your love for kneejerk contrarianism.

Quoting bjkeefe: Also ...

Congratulations! You just earned 40 points! (Item 35.)

That a scientist would promote such juvenility is a bit alarming. You would expect to find such behavior being displayed in tree houses the world over, but in science? Quite disturbing. Also note that, as an unbiased observer, I wasn't comparing myself to Galileo but the situation as a whole. The majority of I.D.'s opponents reject it and embrace censoring its proponents because it contradicts their world view. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting The Allen Factor: That a scientist would promote such juvenility is a bit alarming. You would expect to find such behavior being displayed in tree houses the world over, but in science? Quite disturbing.

Yeah, imagine that. Someone with a sense of humor. I understand that this is a foreign concept for Christianists such as yourself.

Quoting The Allen Factor: Also note that, as an unbiased observer, I ...

This is still hilarious.

Quoting The Allen Factor: ... wasn't comparing myself to Galileo but the situation as a whole.

One sentence, two separate lies. Very good!

Quoting The Allen Factor: The majority of I.D.'s opponents reject it and embrace censoring its proponents because it contradicts their world view. Nothing more, nothing less.

There go those complaints of persecution again. You can keep the original 40 points, and a quick skim of the list suggests you've probably earned close to 100 already. There wasn't any "censorship" at play here, Mr. Creationist. The guy who set the diavlog up asked to have it taken down. That is all the evidence supports right now. You do remember the concept of "evidence," I trust. It's that stuff you spend all of your time twisting. ========== [Added] Oh, wait. Did you mean the links that I and others put up that pointed to other reviews of Behe's books are also "censorship?" Because hearing

Quoting TwinSwords: Still, the decision to remove the video is baffling. I can't just be that people complained; there must be some larger reason (like I speculated earlier, that John read some of the links posted and realized he'd made a mistake). If John asked to have the video removed simply because he took some heat, that would be evidence of remarkably thin skin.

What I find hard to believe is that John just a) read this book in a total vacuum of ignorance about the creationism debacles in the US, b) found it fascinating, c) decided to do a public diavlog with Behe without bothering to do any research at all on the issues at hand other than reading Behe's book. For an intelligent person like John, that's akin to having one's brain kidnapped.

Quoting TwinSwords: Heh.
Some days I wonder if Bob was kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a look-alike. I thought I knew Bob, and knew BHTV, after following BHTV since its inception. Then he released his new book and ever since then I don't recognize him, and I don't recognize BHTV. It's just beyond weird.

start a secessionist web site version of BHTV. Only politically correct discussions and comments tolerated.

Quoting TwinSwords: But, wow, they removed the video? I wonder if we'll ever get an explanation. (Assuming they haven't already given one.)

McWhorter is afraid of going against the grain. Or maybe he is sacrificing his credibility to demonstrate how powerful the left is, that it can destroy anyone who speaks contrary to doctrine.

Quoting Bloggingheads: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

I hope McWhorter is reading all these comments. His having the diavlog taken down has opened the door for all the IDers to make claims they otherwise could not. If John has "seen the light" about the errancy of ID claims, then he can't think it is good to keep the diavlog off-limits. On the other hand, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd be inclined to think that John's a true believer in ID and that taking the diavlog off (after a sufficient number of comments were posted to stir up controversy) was his strategy for giving the ID crowd a toe-hold to clamor for legitimacy, exactly as they are doing in the comment section. That's the ID way. Time for John to step forward and explain things himself.

Quoting claymisher: Those both look really terrific! I love Zimmer but I hadn't seen that one.

And Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett. Longer and more difficult than the others, but worth it. And ALL of Dawkins's books, especially his upcoming one, The Greatest Show on Earth. And Coyne's Why Evolution is True.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: Yeah, the video isn't the best since I needed to compress it for upload.

What happened to the link? I get a link broken file not found message.

Go here maybe: http://exposureroom.com/members/TheA...ba06d7877ccd3/

Quoting Lyle: Go here maybe:

http://exposureroom.com/members/TheA...ba06d7877ccd3/

thx.

*amused* So Behe hasnt found the time in *looks at watch* over two years to debate me on HIV evolution, but he conveniently found the time to get a blow-job on BloggingHeads from some random guy. Pathetic. I happily offer to film a replacement show, for this one, with Behe.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009...n-thought.html "...It is interesting that while the ribosome is the cell's protein assembly plant, the ribosome itself is made of many proteins. How did evolution create this protein factory? The blind process would have needed proteins to build the factory, but from where could it get proteins if the protein factory was not yet built. Evolutionists aren't yet sure just how this occurred. ..." at the least, instead of censoring thought and speech, the evolutionists should use the challenges by Behe and others to explain how molecular machines work and how they evolved. Esp interesting and useful would be to use this knowledge of evolution to manipulate their further evolution to the advantage of the planet.

Quoting TwinSwords: Nice. Had not heard of that model but just looked it up. I never thought I would be such a geek for a ... phone? Hardly seems appropriate to call them phones anymore. I use mine far more for web browing and texting that talking on the actual phone.

I like having access to a browser nearly everywhere - but working off site much of the time, the access to email is the real killer app for me. Don't always have to lug the laptop everywhere.

Quoting AemJeff: I like having access to a browser nearly everywhere - but working off site much of the time, the access to email is the real killer app for me. Don't always have to lug the laptop everywhere.

Heh. Just a few years ago, the idea of carrying a five-pound weight that represented a FULL WORKING COMPUTER seemed nothing less than a miracle to me.

Quoting The Allen Factor: I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory as that seems to imply some sort of secrecy. There is no secret when it comes to the motives of Darwinists and their blatant attempts at censoring any dissenters. The brilliant website N.C.S.E. Exposed shows irrefutable evidence of this.

What I'm puzzled over is why Darwinists would be so afraid of opposing viewpoints. We're repeatedly told that Darwinism is as proven as gravity. I would think any theory as strongly supported as the law of gravity would welcome the opportunity to crush any dissenters, especially considering the overwhelming percentage of the public which doubts the validity of any form of Darwinism. Yet instead of being crushed, Dr. Behe and the like are having their views misinterpreted at best, and outright censored at worst. As an unbiased observer, it comes across as insecure people using cheap rhetoric to masquerade the flaws of their outdated worldview.

I can't help but be reminded of the whole Galileo debacle from the early 17th century. I'm not saying that Darwinists are equivalent to modern day flat-Earthers, just that the situations are eerily reminiscent.

This is a silly fantasy. You're

Jeff having dealt with your dismissal by assertion of research such as Miller notes that refutes items in the "irreducible complexity" argument, I'll just note that you go from argument by expression of incredulity that complexity requires magical creation as Behe claims:

Quoting LeeBowman: Random mutations as the sole source of complexity and novelty?!

to the realization that

Magic is just a term for something we don't understand.

without connecting the dots as to how that statement relates to the failings of the IC claims. Hence the resorts to denial, scorn, and incredulity to attempt to bolster a failing logical and scientific argument.

Quoting Me&theboys: What I find hard to believe is that John just a) read this book in a total vacuum of ignorance about the creationism debacles in the US, b) found it fascinating, c) decided to do a public diavlog with Behe without bothering to do any research at all on the issues at hand other than reading Behe's book. For an intelligent person like John, that's akin to having one's brain kidnapped.

During the dv John said he'd read Sean B. Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," so he really should have known better. http://books.google.com/books?id=Cnn...age&q=&f=false

Quoting Bloggingheads: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Just finished the diavlog. That was like watching a train wreck, with the wreckage being the quality of John's intellect and his intellectual credibility. Since his intellect is his stock in trade, no wonder he wanted the diavlog removed. If he had taken a more critically informed stance toward the issues and the facts that bear on the issues instead of tossing cliched softballs at Behe, and if he had demonstrated some basic understanding of the scientific endeavor and how it proceeds, as well as the current counter-arguments to Behe's claims, this would perhaps have been palatable. But he came across as one who is ignorant of both, who is selectively uninformed, and who can be intellectually persuaded by epiphanies experienced in waterside bed and breakfasts (with no subsequent critical examination of them). How does a public intellectual recover from that?

Quoting Bloggingheads: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Don't forget that Bob's spending this week at that yogic silent meditation retreat. Coming back to this mess may tarnish his bliss. Maybe he should book a 2nd week and wait for things to die down.

— Morning Sickness

Quoting Francoamerican: Postscript: Just to let people know that my suggestion isn't completely off the wall. From S. J Gould's introduction to Goldschmidt's writings;

"As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages. . . . In his infamous book of 1940, Goldschmidt specifically invokes rate genes as a potential maker of hopeful monsters: 'This basis is furnished by the existence of mutants producing monstrosities of the required type and the knowledge of embryonic determination, which permits a small rate change in early embryonic processes to produce a large effect embodying considerable parts of the organism.' In my own, strongly biased opinion, the problem of reconciling evident discontinuity in macroevolution with Darwinism is largely solved by the observation that small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults."

I have no idea how contemporary evolutionary biologists regard Goldschmidt and Gould.

IIRC punctuated equilibrium was a big deal in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm not sure if the combatants ever resolved it, but to me the whole complexity/emergence/nonlinearity deal reconciles

I missed ERV's BH chats before. I'll have to check them out: http://bloggingheads.tv/search/?part...ith,%20Abigail

Quoting claymisher: If you drop grains of sand onto a sandpile one at a time nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, avalanche! Inputs of plain old gradualism could output booms and busts of biodiversity as well.

I am not sure that is such a new idea. The marriage of mathematics and probability theory with evolutionary thinking in the 1930s led to similar conclusions. As Fisher put it (more or less), natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability (I got this from reading Julian Huxley). Obviously, if mathematicians can prove that the improbable is probable, anything can be proved.

I downloaded it before it was taken down. I thought your layman's comments and questions were great. Again, I hope you come back with a revised diavlog. Its too bad, you couldn't do a series, first discuss the topic with Behe, and then discuss with a reasonable, intelligent scientist from the other side - show them back to back.

Quoting rcocean: Its too bad, you couldn't do a series, first discuss the topic with Behe, and then discuss with a reasonable, intelligent scientist from the other side - show them back to back.

Good luck with your praise and hope. Apparently John has contracted sudden deafness, blindness and an inability to communicate. The medical journals suggest that the sudden and acute trauma can be initiated by a single embarrassing event.

Quoting graz: Good luck with your praise and hope.

Apparently John has contracted sudden deafness, blindness and an inability to communicate. The medical journals suggest that the sudden and acute trauma can be initiated by a single embarrassing event.

That's what's puzzling, I didn't find anything "embarrassing" about his conduct. Oh, well.

"Michael Behe Censored at Bloggingheads "Yesterday an interview between John McWhorter and Michael Behe about Behe's recent book The Edge of Evolution appeared on bloggingheads.tv. Within hours the interview disappeared with this message 'from' McWhorter posted by the administator: 'John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.'" Read the rest.

Quoting TwinSwords: "Michael Behe Censored at Bloggingheads

"Yesterday an interview between John McWhorter and Michael Behe about Behe's recent book The Edge of Evolution appeared on bloggingheads.tv. Within hours the interview disappeared with this message 'from' McWhorter posted by the administator: 'John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.'"

Read the rest.

Anybody who missed it can see the video here. Claims of censorship will have to be directed toward McWhorter, I think.

Quoting AemJeff: Anybody who missed it can see the video here. Claims of censorship will have to be directed toward McWhorter, I think.

Maybe. Until John provides a more detailed explanation - we don't know. Why would a very intelligent man do a diavlog - agree to its being posted - and then take it down? Outside pressure seems the likely explanation. But maybe John got some blow-back and chickened out. Too bad, I'd like to see more intellectual curiosity.

Quoting AemJeff: Anybody who missed it can see the video here. Claims of censorship will have to be directed toward McWhorter, I think.

Yeah, thank you for making that clear. I didn't mean to suggest I was endorsing the claim contained in title of the post to which I linked. I put it in quotes to indicate I was quoting someone else. My reason for passing it along was just because some of us find the story interesting and are enjoying following it. I am still dying to find out what really happened, though.

Quoting AemJeff: This is a silly fantasy. You're not an "unbiased observer" you're here with a perfectly obvious point of view. It's not "Darwinists" against you; it's You, (ID proponents, collectively) against science. Nobody in that world cares about your personal preferences - if ID proponents could produce science they wouldn't be reduced to calumny and spamming web forums with propaganda. They'd have jobs somewhere outside of the Discovery Institute. There would be peer reviewed articles supporting that point of view appearing in the field literature. Do that, instead of pathetically trying to work the refs here, and if there's anything to your point of view it will out. Until then - conveniently you've mentioned the Flat-Earthers yourself.

Intelligent design is, it seems to me, a more subtle reaction to what science is uncovering about what human beings are and are not, compared to a century ago. Creationists have had a great time pointing to "holes" in the fossil record as "proof" that evolution was wrong. ID continues this trend but zooms in a bit in trying to "prove" they are correct by poking around for some difficult molecular problem that looks thorny enough for another decade of target practice. It's only

Quoting TwinSwords: Yeah, thank you for making that clear. I didn't mean to suggest I was endorsing the suggestion contained in title of the post to which I linked. I put it in quotes to make clear I was quoting someone else. My reason for passing it along was just because some of us find the story interesting and are enjoying following it.

I am still dying to find out what really happened, though.

To be clear, that wasn't directed at you. I'm sorry if it read that way. I was following up on the "censorship" claim.

I had to figure out how to split the video in two with movie maker before I could submit it to my live drive account. Finaly got around to doing that this morning. So, if all goes well here are Parts one and two. Edit: It's the original. The only editing done is a file split.

If we're going to make guesses, there's also the possibility that JM went into the thing from a position of ignorance. In other words he didn't know how soundly ID has been refuted by most scientists and why most who care about science don't even think it should be debated. John did the diavlog and then did some follow up afterwards and realized how foolish the whole thing looked and how damaging it could be to his reputation and career (I'm sure his biologist friends would have had no hesitation in pointing it out.) At which point John decided that it was best to take down the diavlog, because he now regrets having done it in the first place. I'm not saying that this would be the right decision on his part, but it is a possible alternate explanation.

Quoting thouartgob: Intelligent design is, it seems to me, a more subtle reaction to what science is uncovering about what human beings are and are not, compared to a century ago. Creationists have had a great time pointing to "holes" in the fossil record as "proof" that evolution was wrong. ID continues this trend but zooms in a bit in trying to "prove" they are correct by poking around for some difficult molecular problem that looks thorny enough for another decade of target practice.

It's only been a decade since the human genome was mapped with any useful resolution and a lot of useful science has come out of it. As the voids in our knowledge of chemistry and biology are shrunk so will the landscape of choices left for the ID crowd. In 10, 20, 30 years will they be stuck arguing about the Intelligent fingerprints of quantum effects that may still be opaque the science of that day ??

Intelligent design, meet Ramtha.

Come to think of it, Behe's convinced me. It's irrefutable: God really is responsible for making malaria more virulent. God exists, and he is EVIL! God must be DESTROYED! We should use the science of intelligent design to figure out how God works, figure out his weaknesses, so that someday we can, no, WE WILL ultimately triumph over his malevolent workings!

Quoting thouartgob: Intelligent design is, it seems to me, a more subtle reaction to what science is uncovering about what human beings are and are not, compared to a century ago. Creationists have had a great time pointing to "holes" in the fossil record as "proof" that evolution was wrong. ID continues this trend but zooms in a bit in trying to "prove" they are correct by poking around for some difficult molecular problem that looks thorny enough for another decade of target practice.

It's only been a decade since the human genome was mapped with any useful resolution and a lot of useful science has come out of it. As the voids in our knowledge of chemistry and biology are shrunk so will the landscape of choices left for the ID crowd. In 10, 20, 30 years will they be stuck arguing about the Intelligent fingerprints of quantum effects that may still be opaque the science of that day ??

I agree with your broad point. ID is a sharpening of Creationism, made necessary by legal decisions from the 1980's and the desire of certain people to have their point of view

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: If we're going to make guesses, there's also the possibility that JM went into the thing from a position of ignorance.

10 years is a long time to be ignorant. I suppose we should be glad that after that lengthy battle he finally posted at BHTV where all and sunder could lovingly correct his naivete.

In other words he didn't know how soundly ID has been refuted by most scientists and why most who care about science don't even think it should be debated.

I seriously doubt the interviewer was oblivious to the misrepresentations touted as fact by those who wish to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.

I'm not saying that this would be the right decision on his part, but it is a possible alternate explanation.

That's convenient. reminds me of just about any contested argument for macro-evolution. Just wait 5 minutes, we have another excuse coming down the pike. Lol.

Quoting TwinSwords: "Michael Behe Censored at Bloggingheads

"Yesterday an interview between John McWhorter and Michael Behe about Behe's recent book The Edge of Evolution appeared on bloggingheads.tv. Within hours the interview disappeared with this message 'from' McWhorter posted by the administator: 'John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.'"

Read the rest.

The next paragraph is hilarious:

Fortunately someone archived the interview and it has reappeared in several places on the internet. Take a look for yourself and see if you think this interview represents McWhorter, Behe or Bloggingheads (especially given Bloggingheads' claim of being an open forum below. Just another example of the "Expelled Factor" at work.

Even leaving aside the incoherence of the second sentence, aggravated by its lack of a closing parenthesis, the kneejerk IDiot's appeal to "Expelled" just seals the deal. Anyone who still assigns that movie the slightest shred of credibility is indisputably not worth paying attention to.

Quoting bjkeefe: Anyone who still assigns that movie the slightest shred of credibility is indisputably not worth paying attention to.

That's right, ignore the elephant. Lock-step everyone.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: That's right, ignore the elephant. Lock-step everyone.

You'd think that as someone who seems to want to convince others of the value of his own point of view, that you'd put some stock in the idea of whether the things you actually say might help enhance your credibility. It seems that's not the case.

Bob, once upon a time you started taking a fine website that had the highest intellectual standards of any out there and began to start allowing more and more hand-wavy, new age theorists on. There were cries of protest from many of us who love bhTv. We predicted that the end result would make this site into a joke that would begin to attract people who are uninterested in serious debate based on any long-standing principles of rationality and with little regard for hard science. Somehow bhTv was able to keep most of the evangelists-in-intellectuals clothing away. This was one of the reasons this site was such a pleasure to come to, and engage in serious discussion with serious thinkers. But we were all concerned for how quickly that could change. Having a young earth creationist was the first step, which concerned bhTv participants such as Sean Carroll and John Horgan both criticized. Intelligent Design was the logical second step in the sad progression downward. I once vehemently argued that the comments section here was the finest anywhere and certainly far superior to

Quoting IRQ Conflict: That's right, ignore the elephant. Lock-step everyone.

Please tell me how this does not describe you and your IDiot chums. As far as I can tell, Behe is your Jesus and you are his disciples. Everything he says is accepted without question by you, you defend him way beyond any stretch of reason, you describe anyone who doesn't agree with him as being part of a conspiracy to censor, and on and on. Look, IRQ, that movie has been as torn apart as anything I can think of. Its own makers have admitted they had to engage in subterfuge to get some of the participants involved and they have -- if not admitted -- at least not denied many accusations that they took inexcusable liberties in editing. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the myriad of errors of fact in the movie or its hysteria that equates accepting evolutionary theory with supporting Hitler and his ovens. And let's not forget how poorly they themselves tolerated dissent. Post as breathless response to this as you like, arguing how "Expelled" is the GRATEST MOVEE EVAR!!!1!, because I already have no respect for you.

Quoting AemJeff: You'd think that as someone who seems to want to convince others of the value of his own point of view, that you'd put some stock in the idea of whether the things you actually say might help enhance your credibility.

It seems that's not the case.

That's funny Jeff. What have I or even more knowledgeable people than myself not said that isn't buried in mockery, ad hominum or misrepresentation when it becomes apparent that it can no longer be ignored? I posted a very good three part argument from thermal dynamics refuting macro-evolution and the only response I got was, to paraphrase: Google refutations to this argument. Wow. Enlightening. Not.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: That's funny Jeff. What have I or even more knowledgeable people than myself not said that isn't buried in mockery, ad hominum or misrepresentation when it becomes apparent that it can no longer be ignored?

I posted a very good three part argument from thermal dynamics refuting macro-evolution and the only response I got was, to paraphrase: Google refutations to this argument.

Wow. Enlightening. Not.

You're either hopelessly ignorant or willfully obtuse if you think the lack of interest on the part of the sane people on this board in rehashing the same arguments that have been made countless times already means there's anything of substance to your religious zealotry. The point of the "Google" response was to show you how many times your thermodynamic hand-waving has already been debunked, just like every other one of the IDiot talking points. Just because you joined this site two days ago doesn't mean the rest of us were born at that same time. Your act is stale, your arguments have no merit, and the only thing that's of any interest to the people that bother to respond to you at all

Wow. That's the least surprising thing I've learned all year.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: [...]

That's convenient. reminds me of just about any contested argument for macro-evolution. Just wait 5 minutes, we have another excuse coming down the pike. Lol.

I am not sure why I am getting involved in this, as Biology really isn't my thing, but people whose opinion I respect who do seem to know alot about this topic, usually reject the very notion of making a distinction between micro and macro evolution. They feel that macro-evolution is something trumped up by those that are trying to find a way to reject very sound science, and trying to squirrel out of the loads of evidence that has been shown to support evolution that has been collected by scientists working at the molecular level. Edit:
I do know a bit about thermo though, where is this video you mention? I did a quick look through the thread and didn't see it.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: That's funny Jeff. What have I or even more knowledgeable people than myself not said that isn't buried in mockery, ad hominum or misrepresentation when it becomes apparent that it can no longer be ignored?

I posted a very good three part argument from thermal dynamics refuting macro-evolution and the only response I got was, to paraphrase: Google refutations to this argument.

Wow. Enlightening. Not.

I mistype, misspell, screw up grammar far too often to pick on other people's mistakes. But I have to ask: "thermal dynamics?" Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

Quoting bjkeefe: Rant..blah, blah,blah....complain, whine, snivel

I don't want your respect. In fact I would hate to have your respect. That would reflect poorly on what I consider to be reasonable. What I would like is honest, reasoned discourse. From you it seems this would be nigh on impossible. It would be nice if people would give the opposing viewpoint some consideration before blowing them off.

Quoting Charles Darwin: A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question

Quoting AemJeff: I mistype, misspell, screw up grammar far too often to pick on other people's mistakes. But I have to ask: "thermal dynamics?" Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

Hair splitting seems to be your forte. You know very well what was meant. Funny you admit to Freudian slips but because someone opposes your worldview that person making a mistake is branded ignorant. Priceless. Not really.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: Hair splitting seems to be your forte. You know very well what was meant.

I'm fairly well convinced you don't.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: Funny you admit to Freudian slips but because someone opposes your worldview that person making a mistake is branded ignorant. Priceless. Not really.

Let's be clear - it's not about worldview, it's about process.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: Heh you don't think I haven't? I'm biased as can be but I won't lie to protect my beliefs. Not on purpose anyway.

It is called delusion.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: As for entropy. When is the last time you saw an organism gain information and order rather than lose it with time?

Obviously, you haven't googled what I told you to google or (I am sorry to say that) you have no understanding of the issues. Again, if you consider this to be interesting, please pursue this further. (You know, there is always a small chance that an overwhelming number of scientists are not merely Godless leftists and they might have a point...)

Quoting bjkeefe: Looks like Bob did a little surfing:

Link 42.

;^)

Eww. Ick ick ick.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: I don't want your respect. In fact I would hate to have your respect. That would reflect poorly on what I consider to be reasonable.

Glad we have some basis for agreement, then. What you consider reasonable is not anything I would want to be accused of believing. At least as far as I can tell from what you've written so far.

What I would like is honest, reasoned discourse. From you it seems this would be nigh on impossible. It would be nice if people would give the opposing viewpoint some consideration before blowing them off.

As I said earlier, IRQ, you appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that everything winked into existence when you joined this board yesterday. Believe it or not, this is not the first time I've heard this creationist claptrap. Nor is it the first time I've seen it dressed up in its new IDiot clothes. I've been looking at this stuff for decades, and I long ago came to the reasonable, honest conclusion that there was no point in talking to your kind any longer. Your hysteria about "censorship," being mocked, and finding no one who wants to play yet another game of

Quoting bjkeefe: As I said earlier, IRQ, you appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that everything winked into existence when you joined this board yesterday. Believe it or not, this is not the first time I've heard this creationist claptrap. Nor is it the first time I've seen it dressed up in its new IDiot clothes. I've been looking at this stuff for decades, and I long ago came to the reasonable, honest conclusion that there was no point in talking to your kind any longer. Your hysteria about "censorship," being mocked, and finding no one who wants to play yet another game of pattycake with you impresses me not at all -- these are the same tactics used by flat earthers, young earthers, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, birthers, fluoride in the water nuts, EMP bedwetters, those who believe it's all controlled by the Carlisle Group, circle-squarers, cold fusionists, water-powered car enthusiasts, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Sorry for you and your religious beliefs, but the scientific community does not require itself to wait for unanimous consent from every last tinfoil hat wearer before moving on. There will always be wingnuts, moonbats, and other deluded sorts, howling that they should be listened to. That doesn't mean that they

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ... which concerned bhTv participants such as Sean Carroll and John Horgan both criticized.

And Carl Zimmer, too, for the record, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the most loyal site members. Good essay, overall.

Quoting bjkeefe: And Carl Zimmer, too, for the record, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the most loyal site members.

Good essay, overall.

And not a single taker for my schism site. Oh well. I blame the removal of the dv for that.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: McWhorter is afraid of going against the grain. Or maybe he is sacrificing his credibility to demonstrate how powerful the left is, that it can destroy anyone who speaks contrary to doctrine.

So it wasn't the Darwinists who shut down JM but it was the Left...??!!///??11!! Can I join the 'Chinese whispers'? _Maybe_ it is the aliens...

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am not sure why I am getting involved in this, as Biology really isn't my thing, but people whose opinion I respect who do seem to know alot about this topic, usually reject the very notion of making a distinction between micro and macro evolution.

They feel that macro-evolution is something trumped up by those that are trying to find a way to reject very sound science, and trying to squirrel out of the loads of evidence that has been shown to support evolution that has been collected by scientists working at the molecular level.

Edit:
I do know a bit about thermo though, where is this video you mention? I did a quick look through the thread and didn't see it.

As I understand it, the false dichotomy between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" was created when it became apparent to even the most zealous of creationists that they couldn't explain away obvious examples of evolution in species that reproduce on short time scales. To reject that plain-as-day evidence was the scientific equivalent of a guy showing that he was ready to be released from the asylum by smearing himself

Good message. Sadly, I'll be surprised if it gets through to Bob. Don't know what happened to Bob or the site, but it has been weird watching it transform. I have this funny picture of Bob starting to appear for his diavlogs wearing priestly raiments.

Quoting claymisher: And not a single taker for my schism site. Oh well. I blame the removal of the dv for that.

You would have had me -- at least, emotionally -- but you blew it with your moderators proposal. ;^)

I love the scare quotes in the title around the word "evidence." More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science h/t LGF

Quoting AemJeff: I love the scare quotes in the title around the word "evidence."

More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

h/t LGF

Nice. Thanks for the links. And yes, that was a great use of quote marks. I suspect we're in for another decade of cycles of Beehee, Dumbski, et al, holding up one mechanism after another as "proof" of “irreducible complexity,” and discoveries of precursors of these mechanisms being understood and published. I am reminded that we never hear THE EYE, WHAT ABOUT THE EYE??? from the neo-creationists* anymore, so this gives me hope that we'll not be in an endless loop. We should start a pool to guess what will be the next tactic, once "irreducible complexity" goes the way of "On which side of your family was your grandfather an ape?" ========== * I had to laugh when I saw this "neo-creationist" term from Charles Johnson. Maybe "New Creationists" would be even better, at least until people agree to stop saying "New Atheists." I'm glad to see LGF is getting read by other lefties besides me. CJ has his flaws, but now that his anti-Muslim paranoia has subsided, he's been revealed to me as someone worth reading. It's always good to find another sensible blogger, with whom I don't always agree, to look

Quoting bjkeefe: * I had to laugh when I saw this "neo-creationist" term from Charles Johnson. Maybe "New Creationists" would be even better, at least until people agree to stop saying "New Atheists."

I'm glad to see LGF is getting read by other lefties besides me. CJ has his flaws, but now that his anti-Muslim paranoia has subsided, he's been revealed to me as someone worth reading. It's always good to find another sensible blogger, with whom I don't always agree, to look in on from time to time.

Oh boy, when LGF is endorsing Obama and the two-state solution then I'll take a look. Until then not a chance. You let me know.

Quoting claymisher: Oh boy, when LGF is endorsing Obama and the two-state solution then I'll take a look. Until then not a chance. You let me know.

I encourage you to give him a chance yourself, every so often. I'm sure both you and I will always find a few places where CJ offers so little common ground that there's no room for two people to stand, but those posts are easy enough to skip. I think he's got his head on straight when it comes to science, at least, and that all by itself gives him no small amount of credibility, in my book. He also gets props from me for being unafraid to call a wingnut a wingnut, even though that has cost him money (cf. his falling out a few years ago with Pajamas Media) and some serious traffic more recently, what with his ahead-of-the-curve contempt for clownishness like Atlas Shrieks, European neo-Nazis, and the Birthers. I guess it's a matter of taste who to read when you're looking for something to disagree with, but CJ is one of the ones who works for me in that regard. And I always like someone secure enough to laugh at

Quoting TwinSwords: Good message. Sadly, I'll be surprised if it gets through to Bob. Don't know what happened to Bob or the site, but it has been weird watching it transform.

I have this funny picture of Bob starting to appear for his diavlogs wearing priestly raiments.

I think we ought to ease up a little on the generalized nature of these critiques of Bob. While no one is more shrill than I about giving creationists, corsis, and althouses unmerited time and space, we have to accept that if Bob is going to be true to the site's mission of always airing a variety of viewpoints, he is also always going to be pushing at the edges of what some of us consider acceptable. I think a full-throated criticism of specific guests and specific topics is appropriate -- nay, required. But let's not go overboard on seeing trends, and let's not confuse too much the view Bob is presenting with his latest book with the lineup of diavloggers over time. ========== [Added] I should emphasize that when I say "what some of us consider acceptable," I assume the "some" is a changing group, depending on the diavlogger or topic. I would also like

Quoting bjkeefe: I suspect we're in for another decade of cycles of Beehee, Dumbski, et al, holding up one mechanism after another as "proof" of “irreducible complexity,” and discoveries of precursors of these mechanisms being understood and published. I am reminded that we never hear THE EYE, WHAT ABOUT THE EYE??? from the neo-creationists* anymore, so this gives me hope that we'll not be in an endless loop.

bjkeefe, The biggest problem so far in your statement, and where I feel anti-evolutionists have an argument to be made; is when you take a study such as that one talked about in the Wired and similar ones that are commonly populated with "could be", "might have", or whatever; and take such conjectures as "proof" or "facts" that such an even took place. Storytelling is not science anymore than Bible verses are. A bias to wish things to happen, because you believed they had to happen, isn't an act of science, but of faith. Take for example the following statement: "But new research comparing mitochondria... shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Bob, once upon a time you started taking a fine website that had the highest intellectual standards of any out there and began to start allowing more and more hand-wavy, new age theorists on. There were cries of protest from many of us who love bhTv. We predicted that the end result would make this site into a joke that would begin to attract people who are uninterested in serious debate based on any long-standing principles of rationality and with little regard for hard science. Somehow bhTv was able to keep most of the evangelists-in-intellectuals clothing away. This was one of the reasons this site was such a pleasure to come to, and engage in serious discussion with serious thinkers. But we were all concerned for how quickly that could change. Having a young earth creationist was the first step, which concerned bhTv participants such as Sean Carroll and John Horgan both criticized. Intelligent Design was the logical second step in the sad progression downward. I once vehemently argued that the comments section here was the finest anywhere and certainly far superior to

Quoting medstud: [...]

As to the specifics in this case, you might be right. I don't have the expertise to say how likely the proposed mechanism is. Overall, I think you're missing my larger point, however. What I meant by my "decade of cycles" prediction was this: the creationists have a strategy right now that they've been working, which I predict that they'll continue to work for a while, which is to find various specific mechanisms in various life forms and hold them up while exclaiming, "This is far too marvelous for anyone to imagine how such a thing could possibly have come into existence except all at once. Therefore, EVOLUTION FAIL! PRAISE GOD!" Behe's acolytes will no doubt rush in to say I'm oversimplifying, but really, that's the gist of this IDiot PR strategy. As has been noted many times by people who actually do biology, it is going to be very difficult to be sure in each case of the path that led from the proverbial primordial soup to some complex and wonderful thing that we now see. But what you and others ought to take away from the Wired article is not, "Eh, who can be sure? They haven't PROVED anything." What

Sounds reasonable. It's rather unfortunate that we're in a moment in history that much remains too speculative, but its inevitable. Hopefully, we get more concrete answers in my lifetime.

Quoting medstud: Sounds reasonable.

It's rather unfortunate that we're in a moment in history that much remains too speculative, but its inevitable. Hopefully, we get more concrete answers in my lifetime.

Actually, I hope you never get to a point where you feel like you've got most of the answers. That seems like the moment just before death to me. Being aware that we don't know things is what keeps us interested, curious, and energized. And don't forget (although I know it's easy to do) how much we have figured out since we first started thrashing around with this science business, a few hundred years ago. And finally, I think it's better to search for explanations that work for the time being, and not worry overmuch about whether they are actually The Truth. If you've got a theory that explains the data and lets you make useful predictions, fine! Let's go with that! Eventually, something or someone will pop up and either refine things or completely upset the applecart, but so what? There's nothing we can do about that except to try to stay flexible in anticipation.

Quoting medstud: Sounds reasonable.

It's rather unfortunate that we're in a moment in history that much remains too speculative, but its inevitable. Hopefully, we get more concrete answers in my lifetime.

P.S. (from here): Actually, I'd be interested to hear some specific examples of what you consider "too speculative" at the moment, and where you'd most like concrete answers, just out of curiosity. I'm going to guess from your username that they'll be beyond my comprehension, but what the hell -- nothing asked, nothing learned.

Quoting medstud: 2. How this whole mitochondria-less eukaryotic cell lived, is perplexing. I would hope you know a little more on this than me ...

I should have said something specific in response to this before, for completeness, but here it is now. Sorry, I don't know more than you on this, I don't think. In fact, from your question, I would bet I know less than you on this. I would say that, if I stipulate to what you say here:

We know that eukaryotes are less efficient than prokaryotes, even more inefficient were the nonparasitic mitochondria-less eukaryotes ancestors (after all, assuming they existed they died); then:
(a) Should I understand that such an inept mishap (mitochondria-less eukaryote) managed to survive long enough to be infected by mitocondria in the first place?
(b) Being that all mitochondria-less eukaryotes seemed to be parasitic in some way or another, what did it survive on?

then I am inclined to think, first, eukaryotes' comparative inefficiency both suggests unintelligent design and supports the view that evolution is awfully haphazard and tends to settle on "good enough" rather than optimizing, looked at from a distance. (I'm being awfully sloppy with language here.) I am also inclined to think that if the predecessors were even more "inept" then it makes sense

Quoting claymisher: I wonder if when Bob comes back from his week of meditation he'll say, "WHO was on the site?!!!!"

It is to dream, isn't it? Maybe he'll do "The Chewing Out Diavlog" with McWhorter. ;^)

Wow, after listening to all I could stand of this (mayyybe 10 minutes) I went to look at the forum at bloggingheads for the very first time and saw the diavlog was removed. What a lively thread this is and is going to be. I then downloaded the interview again elsewhere and I simply cannot stomach the heaping of uncritical fawning compliments of Mr. McWhorter. Far less surprising was that we would not need to get Bob Wright or Richard Dawkins to crush Behe; most of us posting in this forum could be dispatched to refute him. No need to involve the big boys! McWhorter's Larry King-like softball questions, peppered liberally with kudos, was frankly shocking, and I suspect he just is rightly embarrassed. And part of me feels sorry for him because maybe this is just a case of skimping on the homework. Perhaps McWhorter looked at the arguments on the other side and quickly realized he made a galactic mistake. Maybe Behe's books were the only detailed info he had on evolution; I could not help but think, from literally minute one, that he need only read Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" to get all the

Quoting ToddSmithee: Wow, after listening to all I could stand of this (mayyybe 10 minutes) I went to look at the forum at bloggingheads for the very first time ...

Hope it's not your last. Good post. And welcome.

I didn't see why he wanted it taken down either. It didn't seem that bad. On the other hand John McWhorter was pretty much uncritical about something he has to know he is going to take a lot of heat for. He addressed some important philosophical consequences of Behe's views (like isn't ID a kind of giving up of the scientific project) but he failed to press Behe on what seemed pretty throwaway answers: the speed of light is like natural selection? Is he trying to say he has observed ID? The I don't get it so it must be magic argument is always a terrible one and it seemed weird for McWhorter to let it slide.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Bob, once upon a time you started taking a fine website that had the highest intellectual standards of any out there and began to start allowing more and more hand-wavy, new age theorists on. There were cries of protest from many of us who love bhTv. We predicted that the end result would make this site into a joke that would begin to attract people who are uninterested in serious debate based on any long-standing principles of rationality and with little regard for hard science. Somehow bhTv was able to keep most of the evangelists-in-intellectuals clothing away. This was one of the reasons this site was such a pleasure to come to, and engage in serious discussion with serious thinkers. But we were all concerned for how quickly that could change. Having a young earth creationist was the first step, which concerned bhTv participants such as Sean Carroll and John Horgan both criticized. Intelligent Design was the logical second step in the sad progression downward. I once vehemently argued that the comments section here was the finest anywhere and certainly far superior to

Quoting Me&theboys: I think what is most bothersome about the recent change in bhtv toward greater inclusiveness of ideas and theories is the lack of a sense of principles guiding this inclusiveness. An inclusive approach to the airing of ideas is a good thing, but there have to be some principles guiding the examination of ideas, unless one is of the opinion, or wants to create the impression, that all ideas are equally valid and worthy. Here are my suggestions, some proposed previously by others:

One guiding principle should be that Science Saturday is reserved for diavlogs regarding scientific topics. Not religion, and not religion as a philosophy of science. Percontations seems to be the home for discussions involving the intersection of science and religion and philosophy - leave them there. Another guiding principle should be that diavlogs addressing non-mainstream or fringe or controversial topics should be limited to topics where there are facts of the matter than can be brought to bear on the discussion and should be conducted between two parties whose informed positions on the issue are not in agreement. In cases where the

Quoting AemJeff: I'd like to add that, in principle, Behe being interviewed on BHtv is not something I view as out-of-bounds. I think McWhorter handled this badly, and I would have strongly preferred somebody capable of making a strong skeptical case as the interlocutor. (What I know of Behe is that that last condition would likely have been a substantial barrier to his appearance - but in that case, it's Behe's reluctance to engage in fair debate as the limiting factor. C'est la vie.)

Not sure which condition you mean - the one requiring facts or the one requiring a diavlog with a disagreeing opponent? I gave both some thought, because I agree people like Behe should not be banned outright, if only for the sporting value of including them. What I did not make clear and should have is that the available facts don't have to be on both sides of the issue, but on at least one side of the issue. So flat earthers could come on, but they'd be up against someone armed with facts to the contrary. Similarly, Behe could come on, but only in discussion with someone who is armed with facts in support

Quoting Me&theboys: Not sure which condition you mean - the one requiring facts or the one requiring a diavlog with a disagreeing opponent? I gave both some thought, because I agree people like Behe should not be banned outright, if only for the sporting value of including them. What I did not make clear and should have is that the available facts don't have to be on both sides of the issue, but on at least one side of the issue. So flat earthers could come on, but they'd be up against someone armed with facts to the contrary. Similarly, Behe could come on, but only in discussion with someone who is armed with facts in support of the counter argument. These conditions (that one be willing to confront facts and opposition to one's controversial ideas) may discourage those who expound non-fact-based ideas from coming on bhtv, but it seems the alternative would be diavlogs lacking integrity and not worth listening to.

Sorry if I wasn't clear; the condition I had in mind was "somebody capable of making a strong skeptical case as the interlocutor" in almost any diavlog on a disputed or controversial

You know, I've been mean on these forums here and there. Glib, finger pointing. Etc. I shouldn't drink coffee and comment at the same time. But this thread really convinced me that a couple of regular posters here simply don't care about anything but their persecution complex and their need to derail every conversation they touch. I have a few of them on ignore, but I implore the rest of you: there's nothing censorious or cocooning about ignoring trolls. And when you respond to them, quote them, rebut their temper tantrums -- you're really doing everyone else a disservice. I won't bother naming names because I'm sure everyone already knows who I'm talking about. There's still plenty to talk about and disagree about without them. For god's sake, put them on ignore and take a shot at making the discourse what it should be.

Aren't there two flavors of trolls here. Those on the left that see the right wing trolls in every post, that varies from their world view, and those on the right that see some a left wing trolls that vary from their world view. Which particular set of trolls do you no longer see?

Here.

But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads TV.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: Here.

But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads TV.

Let's flesh out that quote:

Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and it’s understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads TV.

The evidence is here, in this very thread. Does anybody see any evidence of a "scary," "unexpected" "mob" showing up? I agree with Behe that BHtv should have let the interview stand, but his characerization

Because of the magic of the internet, it turns out that shortly after the show’s posting the comments section of the site was overrun by “bitterly virulent” (in the words of one principal in this saga) cyber bullies, some murmuring darkly about a grim future for Bloggingheads.

is somewhat at odds with the facts (which, again, are documented right here.)

Quoting piscivorous: Aren't there two flavors of trolls here. Those on the left that see the right wing trolls in every post, that varies from their world view, and those on the right that see some a left wing trolls that vary from their world view. Which particular set of trolls do you no longer see?

Well, take it as a vote of confidence that I see this post. Like I said, I was talking about people who seem to be deliberately attempting to derail all conversation. Everybody engages in a little hyperbole from time to time, but I do not agree that the trolls come in two partisan flavors. There's only one kind, and it's pretty obvious who they are.

Quoting AemJeff: Let's flesh out that quote:

The evidence is here, in this very thread. Does anybody see any evidence of a "scary," "unexpected" "mob" showing up? I agree with Behe that BHtv should have let the interview stand, but his characerization

is somewhat at odds with the facts (which, again, are documented right here.)

Quite agreed. Beehee (Boohoo?) is wearing his victim cloak and trying his best to milk this situation for propaganda value. Quelle surprise! I guess when you think about it, though, solid rebuttals of his claims are probably pretty scary to Beehee. He can probably smell the end of with Disco'tute wingnut welfare stream. For him to say "unexpected," though ... that's pretty amazing. Has he really been that deep in the cocoon his whole life? Does he really not know how many people find him contemptible? Final point of hilarity: on Boohoo's blog post? "Comments are closed." So much for "guts."

Actually, one minor point where we disagree:

Quoting AemJeff: [...] I agree with Behe that BHtv should have let the interview stand ...

In the first place, if we take the explanation as given at face value -- that John McWhorter asked to have the diavlog pulled -- then I do not think "BHtv should have let the interview stand." It seems to me that it was both considerate of Bh.tv to abide by JM's wishes, and also smart from the point of view of maintaining good relations with a (usually) valued diavlogger. I could even think it was smart as a matter of general policy -- to someone reluctant to appear on this site, knowing that he or she could ask to have something pulled might be a bit of a security blanket that would be the final push to get him or her to do a diavlog. As far as JM asking to have the diavlog pulled goes, I think it makes him look a little bit bad to have done so, but I also think he's well within his rights to ask this. Anyone should have the right to withdraw something that

Quoting AemJeff: Let's flesh out that quote:

The evidence is here, in this very thread. Does anybody see any evidence of a "scary," "unexpected" "mob" showing up? I agree with Behe that BHtv should have let the interview stand, but his characerization

is somewhat at odds with the facts (which, again, are documented right here.)

Completely agree. There were 48 or so posts made prior to the diavlog being yanked. Over 20 of them consisted of links to sites that offer refutations to Behe's ID claims. Almost 20 of them were some one-two word nonsense posts directed at fellow commenters, and replies to them. Fewer than 10, all of them mild in nature, were bemoaning that bhtv aired this kind of diavlog and that McWhorter engaged in it. There was no vitriol against Behe. The comments posted here most certainly did not prompt the yanking. The vast majority of the posts that anyone could consider remotely objectionable were made AFTER the yanking, many of them prompted by it. Perhaps bhtv has a policy that any diavlogger who wants to have his diavlog removed has that right. Who knows. Regardless, if Behe and his minions are even remotely attached to the concept of truth, they should be

Quoting bjkeefe: Actually, one minor point where we disagree:

In the first place, if we take the explanation as given at face value -- that John McWhorter asked to have the diavlog pulled -- then I do not think "BHtv should have let the interview stand." It seems to me that it was both considerate of Bh.tv to abide by JM's wishes, and also smart from the point of view of maintaining good relations with a (usually) valued diavlogger. I could even think it was smart as a matter of general policy -- to someone reluctant to appear on this site, knowing that he or she could ask to have something pulled might be a bit of a security blanket that would be the final push to get him or her to do a diavlog.

As far as JM asking to have the diavlog pulled goes, I think it makes him look a little bit bad to have done so, but I also think he's well within his rights to ask this. Anyone should have the right to withdraw something that he or she doesn't want to stand behind, especially in this Internet

Quoting Me&theboys: What I find hard to believe is that John just a) read this book in a total vacuum of ignorance about the creationism debacles in the US, b) found it fascinating, c) decided to do a public diavlog with Behe without bothering to do any research at all on the issues at hand other than reading Behe's book. For an intelligent person like John, that's akin to having one's brain kidnapped.

Dr. McWhorter mentioned that he's read several attempted rebuttals of Behe's work and none have impressed him. Quite frankly, I agree with this. Strawmen and fairytales just don't quench my intellectual thirst, and apparently they don't his, either. Why do they yours?

Quoting ERV: *amused*

So Behe hasnt found the time in *looks at watch* over two years to debate me on HIV evolution, but he conveniently found the time to get a blow-job on BloggingHeads from some random guy.

Pathetic.

I happily offer to film a replacement show, for this one, with Behe.

Miss ERV (I assume that's in reference to endogenous retrovirus and not your poor feminine hygiene) After being eviscerated by Sal Cordova's superior knowledge and intellect, why would you want any part of one of our greatest living biochemists, Mike

Quoting ERV: *amused*

So Behe hasnt found the time in *looks at watch* over two years to debate me on HIV evolution, but he conveniently found the time to get a blow-job on BloggingHeads from some random guy.

Pathetic.

I happily offer to film a replacement show, for this one, with Behe.

I do hope BHtv follows up on ERV's offer. (Though maybe not paired with George Johnson!) Updated: Duh! The obvious pairing would be with McWhorter - if he's up for that. (Come on, John - what a great way to rebuild and renew!)

One more pull from Behe's response:

Rather, I suspect the folks at the website weren’t expecting the vitriolic reaction, began to worry about their good names and future employment prospects, pictured themselves banished to a virtual leper colony, panicked, and folded.

Anyone who has ever been exposed to the fray associated with the appearance of an Althouse diavlog on this site will understand how closely this speculation matches reality.

Quoting AemJeff: One more pull from Behe's response:

Anyone who has ever been exposed to the fray associated with the appearance of an Althouse diavlog on this site will understand how closely this speculation matches reality.

Speaking of exposed, I'd like to once again draw attention to NCSE Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed!. And to whet your appetites, here's the website's introduction:

In light of the DVD release a few months ago of the terrific Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, we thought it would be a good time to provide a comprehensive listing of articles that correct the various misrepresentations and falsehoods spread by Darwinists about Expelled.

Most of the falsehoods in circulation about the film can be traced to a website called "Expelled Exposed" set up by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as part of its PR effort to smear the documentary last year. “Expelled Exposed” alleges that Expelled made “dishonest attempts to make mountains out of molehills and to create martyrs where martyrdom does not exist.” As John West observed in response, "The basic thrust of [“Expelled Exposed”] seems to be the preposterous claim that pro-ID scientists

[quote=The Allen Factor;127200]Dr. McWhorter mentioned that he's read several attempted rebuttals of Behe's work and none have impressed him. Quite frankly, I agree with this. Strawmen and fairytales just don't quench my intellectual thirst, and apparently they don't his, either. Why do they yours?[\QUOTE] I agree, too, that McWhorter's read at least some of the works on evolution and some of the rebuttals to ID. That was the point of my comment, which is I that I DON'T think ignorance followed by sudden enlightenment via the comments section explains his decision to pull the diavlog. I personally think he's spent 10 years suffering from confirmation bias on several levels and got feedback after the diavlog from peers and colleagues who expected him to have done some better intellectual work on the subject before conducting a diavlog about it. By pulling the diavlog, he's trying to minimize damage to his intellectual reputation. IMHO.

Quoting The Allen Factor: Speaking of exposed, I'd like to once again draw attention to NCSE Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed!.

And to whet your appetites, here's the website's introduction:

They present such strong evidence that I can say with complete confidence that anyone who disagrees that I.D. proponents are being oppressed are almost certainly a part of the oppression to begin with.

What a clever rhetorical gambit! "If you don't think I'm being oppressed, then you're an oppressor!" Bravo! I bow to your unyielding logic.

Quoting The Allen Factor: anyone who disagrees that I.D. proponents are being oppressed are almost certainly a part of the oppression to begin with.

can you define oppressed?

Quoting The Allen Factor: [...]

What a bunch of whining. First, the only right you have to free speech is protection from government sanction. Free speech does not mean that you get to spew your religious babble anywhere you feel like plopping down your soapbox. Second, this whimpering about being excluded from academia is just laughable. If you IDiots think you have some actual contributions to make to the scientific endeavor, you can't be asking for special treatment. You have to play by the same rules as everyone else bucking for a job: do original research and get it published in peer-reviewed journals. And if you're going to complain that your "work" is being "suppressed" in that regard, then I really have no patience for you. This is the same complaint made by every other crank since we developed a peer review system. While there are very occasional problems at individual journals with individual submitted articles, nothing of actual scientific merit stays unpublished forever. To try to claim otherwise is pure tin foil hat nonsense. The truth is, "intelligent" design is nothing more than creationism gussied up with a bit of fancy talk. The core principle is

Did you read Zimmer's "Evolution?" That was probably the best, hands-down, overview of evolution and how it all ties together on the various levels. Positively brilliant. But yeah, definitely check out the other two. You won't be disappointed.

Quoting AemJeff: Updated: Duh! The obvious pairing would be with McWhorter - if he's up for that. (Come on, John - what a great way to rebuild and renew!)

Excellent suggestion. It would be, to coin a phrase, a teaching moment.

Quoting Me&theboys: Don't forget that Bob's spending this week at that yogic silent meditation retreat. Coming back to this mess may tarnish his bliss. Maybe he should book a 2nd week and wait for things to die down.

lol I can only imagine how crazed up Bob will be after he spends a week staring at the wall like a lunatic. He’ll be soo angry at bhtv staff. He’ll go all GOP on them. He’ll teabag McWorther’s ass and put it on youtube. lol lol lol

Razib weighs in.

Some Creationists are complaining that McWhorter had the video withdrawn because he feared career reprecussions. I doubt that, his bread is buttered by The Manhattan Institute, which is a conservative think thank. Though most elite conservatives are not Creationist, there is no shame in Creationism in the modern American conservative movement. Rather, I suspect the pressure was the more informal one of peer group horror which likely came in via email.

and again:

3) Part of the issue really has to do with the impenetrability of "scientese." More clearly, I remember years ago a friend with a legal degree admitting that the Creationist talking point about The Second Law of Thermodynamics would have left him at a loss, as he didn't have the scientific background to parse such issues. Behe is a much more sophisticated and slick player at that particular game.

Anybody interested ought to check the Talk Origins link on creationist thermodynamics.

Quoting AemJeff: Razib weighs in.

and again:

Anybody interested ought to check the Talk Origins link on creationist thermodynamics.

Thanks for the links. I strongly second Razib's point 3 about Behe's ability to baffle 'em with bullshit. BTW, Razib has added a third short post on the matter. Also of note, from Razib's first post:

Beliefnet's resident Creationist, David Klinghoffer is accusing bloggingheads.tv of "Stalinism".

Never bet against the possibility of a wingnut seizing an opportunity to go hysterical about "persecution" and "suppression," that's for sure. Truth during said hysteria is of course optional. Here's a taste:

Something evidently happened behind the scenes at Bloggingheads. So the interview was taken down, at which point an anonymous Orwellian Administrator posted as follows:

(And then the comment about McWhorter asking to have the diavlog pulled is reproduced.) More whimpering along those lines follows, and then Klinghoffer then gets out some of the rest of his usual axes to grind. I guess Abbie (ERV) really threatens his weak sense of his own manhood. You go, girl.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Well, take it as a vote of confidence that I see this post.

Like I said, I was talking about people who seem to be deliberately attempting to derail all conversation. Everybody engages in a little hyperbole from time to time, but I do not agree that the trolls come in two partisan flavors.

There's only one kind, and it's pretty obvious who they are.

Wasn't really looking for a vote of confidence but thanks all the same. I guess that we shall have to live with the differing perceptions as to the diversity of flavors that the trolls come in here as I read both left and right trolls here though I believe that there is an abundance of left over right.

I have never claimed to be, or thought of myself as the sharpest knife in the tool shed, so the following is by no means looking down on people and thinking "they are stupid", but.... Isn't it well, obvious that evolution does not contradict the second law? I have a hard time believing that someone who has not already made up their mind on what side they are on, would place much stock in those claims. At most, the only thing I can see where that claim would mean anything whatsoever to a reasonable person, is if that person had no idea what the second law actually is. But assuming said person is still open minded, I would think the next action would be to look up info on entropy, which would facilitate the realization that any claim to the effect that evolution contradicts that law would become is bogus.

Quoting piscivorous: Wasn't really looking for a vote of confidence but thanks all the same. I guess that we shall have to live with the differing perceptions as to the diversity of flavors that the trolls come in here as I read both left and right trolls here though I believe that there is an abundance of left over right.

Care to give some specific examples, with links?

Quoting piscivorous: Wasn't really looking for a vote of confidence but thanks all the same. I guess that we shall have to live with the differing perceptions as to the diversity of flavors that the trolls come in here as I read both left and right trolls here though I believe that there is an abundance of left over right.

Nice to see that you responded to my even-handedness with a partisan jab.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I have never claimed to be, or thought of myself as the sharpest knife in the tool shed, so the following is by no means looking down on people and thinking "they are stupid", but....

Isn't it well, obvious that evolution does not contradict the second law? I have a hard time believing that someone who has not already made up their mind on what side they are on, would place much stock in those claims.

At most, the only thing I can see where that claim would mean anything whatsoever to a reasonable person, is if that person had no idea what the second law actually is. But assuming said person is still open minded, I would think the next action would be to look up info on entropy, which would facilitate the realization that any claim to the effect that evolution contradicts that law would become is bogus.

To this end, I would like to second Jeff's recommendation that anyone not familiar with the way creationists try to use Second Law science-y talk to buttress their wankery start by visiting the Talk Origins index page on "Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism."

Are hints and innuendo non-partisan or just dodging?

Quoting themightypuck: I didn't see why he wanted it taken down either. It didn't seem that bad. On the other hand John McWhorter was pretty much uncritical about something he has to know he is going to take a lot of heat for.

Of course he was going to take heat for it. Darwinists are crybabies that can't handle opposing viewpoints being given the light of day. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the behavior of bjkeefe and his ilk.

Quoting themightypuck: He addressed some important philosophical consequences of Behe's views (like isn't ID a kind of giving up of the scientific project)

In what way would I.D. be giving up of the "scientific project"? How is saying "designerdidit" any more of a science stopper than saying "chancedidit"? There's no question that a designer did, in fact "do it". What's up for debate is what mechanisms were used. The front-loaded hypothesis is an intriguing. I'd suggest looking into the works of John A. Davison, found in the sidebar of his Word Press blog.

Quoting themightypuck: Is he trying to say he has observed ID? The I don't get it so it must be magic argument

Quoting The Allen Factor: Of course he was going to take heat for it. Darwinists are crybabies that can't handle opposing viewpoints being given the light of day. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the behavior of bjkeefe and his ilk.

Yeah, I'm a real "crybaby" for posting links to critical reviews of Behe's tripe and for calling the creationists what they are. Your mistake is that your canard about "opposing viewpoints" (aka "teach the controversy") is wearing thin. There gets to be a point when we're talking about science where "opposing viewpoints" have been shown to be lacking in substance or merit or both, and we call a halt to listening to cranks repeating their decades-stale talking points. I'll say it again: if you want your "opposing views" to be treated with respect, then play by the same rules as everyone else: do original research, write it up, and get it published in peer-reviewed journals. Putting out books from a vanity press operation just won't cut it. Neither will endless whimpering about suppression. This non-stop playing-the-victim role may still fool the occasional uninformed accommodationist (cf. McWhorter), but it's working less well every day. You

Quoting The Allen Factor: ...
In what way would I.D. be giving up of the "scientific project"?

That was decided in a court of law, remember?

4. Whether ID is Science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain

Quoting DoctorMoney: Well, take it as a vote of confidence that I see this post.

Like I said, I was talking about people who seem to be deliberately attempting to derail all conversation. Everybody engages in a little hyperbole from time to time, but I do not agree that the trolls come in two partisan flavors.

There's only one kind, and it's pretty obvious who they are.

Why don't you name names "Dr. Money" - too afraid?

Quoting rcocean: Why don't you name names "Dr. Money" - too afraid?

Maybe he didn't want to hurt your feelings?

I can't really blame him for swinging at a big hanging curveball. McWhorter made his bed and should have lain in it. If what was said is true, he put bhtv in a really terrible position.

Quoting The Allen Factor: In what way would I.D. be giving up of the "scientific project"?

How is saying "designerdidit" any more of a science stopper than saying "chancedidit"?

There's no question that a designer did, in fact "do it". What's up for debate is what mechanisms were used. The front-loaded hypothesis is an intriguing. I'd suggest looking into the works of John A. Davison, found in the sidebar of his Word Press blog.

I think this really boils down to deeply held philosophical beliefs. One says you can't invoke supernatural causes and the other says you can. I can see how the former would be vexing to a person of faith since run to the end it says God can never be part of the sciencey stuff of science (nothing wrong with praying your experiments will go well though). As for a designer, I think this is just semantics. Richard Dawkins believes in a designer if by designer you mean natural selection.

Quoting themightypuck: I can't really blame him for swinging at a big hanging curveball. McWhorter made his bed and should have lain in it. If what was said is true, he put bhtv in a really terrible position.

Nah, it's no big deal for BH.tv. In fact, they'll come out of it looking better, from the perspective of potential future guests who are nervous about how they'll present. Knowing you can have your diavlog pulled if you change your mind could be the security blanket that gets you to do your first diavlog. As to the only other part -- creationist wingnuts yelling STALINIST!!!1! and CENSORSHIP!!!1! -- let 'em yap. That's all they ever do anyway.

Well I think bhtv is trying really hard to be ecumenical (much to the chagrin of some) and I don't think Bob wants to the site to be just another island of commie atheist do-gooder liberals.

The problem is that science has replaced one of the functions that religion has historicaly provided - explaining the world around us. Hard though it may be these days to convince folks that the sun is driven across the sky daily in the chariot of a god, or that they should seek out a witch who has cursed them in consort with demons and devils rather than seeking medical treatment for infections, there will likely always be something that is not completely understood to which those who so need can point and exclaiim - that must have been done by divine magic. The human ability to deny and avoid distressing realities expands this unknown space for those who seem to need it most.

Quoting bjkeefe: To this end, I would like to second Jeff's recommendation that anyone not familiar with the way creationists try to use Second Law science-y talk to buttress their wankery start by visiting the Talk Origins index page on "Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism."

Sometime in the last year I can across a new paper that viewed the emergence of order/life as the efficient dissipation of entropy. Basically plants and critters degrade the sun's energy better than rocks do. I thought it was some biologists at a Norwegian forestry college, but now I can't find it. Rats.

Quoting claymisher: Sometime in the last year I can across a new paper that viewed the emergence of order/life as the efficient dissipation of entropy. Basically plants and critters degrade the sun's energy better than rocks do. I thought it was some biologists at a Norwegian forestry college, but now I can't find it. Rats.

Hmmmm ... I can believe that plants "degrade the sun's energy better," I guess, and I suppose, thanks to the plants, the same could be said about animals. I dunno, though -- I'm getting just the faintest whiff of purpose here.

Quoting themightypuck: Well I think bhtv is trying really hard to be ecumenical (much to the chagrin of some) and I don't think Bob wants to the site to be just another island of commie atheist do-gooder liberals.

Another example to be filed under Refs, Successfully Worked. Let's see, TMP, you've praised Behe and Althouse in the past few minutes. Why not tell us how much you liked Jerome Corsi, and complete the Trifecta of Wankery?

Quoting bjkeefe: Maybe he didn't want to hurt your feelings?

Ha! Clever, but wrong Go ahead Dr. Money - name names.

Quoting bjkeefe:
I think it would be good for JM to write a detailed post explaining his take on the whole affair, and then that should be the end of it.

Amen to this. We already knew how Behe would respond, that not the interesting one! Plus, am I naive in thinking bhtv would never pull that diavlog if JM had not requested it, which I am sure is and should be within his rights? Of course Behe thinks bhtv is afraid, but obviously Althouse is on all the time so they have no reason to pull on general dislocation from logic. Behe said, "For those who want to watch for themselves the interview that made grown men tremble..." That trembling was not fear but a visceral reaction to seeing science beaten with no protection. Plus, it was boring with JM playing puppy dog. There's a reason I don't watch Larry King interviews.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hmmmm ...

I can believe that plants "degrade the sun's energy better," I guess, and I suppose, thanks to the plants, the same could be said about animals. I dunno, though -- I'm getting just the faintest whiff of purpose here.

I think it's one of those path of least resistance deals. Like how water flows downhill.

Quoting claymisher: I think it's one of those path of least resistance deals. Like how water flows downhill.

Or like how light travels all possible paths and then settles on the one of least action?

Quoting ToddSmithee: Amen to this. We already knew how Behe would respond, that not the interesting one! Plus, am I naive in thinking bhtv would never pull that diavlog if JM had not requested it, which I am sure is and should be within his rights?

I don't think so. AFAICR, they've never pulled a diavlog once it was posted.

Of course Behe thinks bhtv is afraid, but obviously Althouse is on all the time so they have no reason to pull on general dislocation from logic.

LOL!

Behe said, "For those who want to watch for themselves the interview that made grown men tremble..."

That trembling was not fear but a visceral reaction to seeing science beaten with no protection. Plus, it was boring with JM playing puppy dog. There's a reason I don't watch Larry King interviews.

Nice. Hope McWhorter sees that one.

LOL praise. I suppose it depends what you want from a site like bhtv. I like the debate and don't mind the occasional pseudoscientist but I understand how reasonable minds can differ. One caveat: I've lived my entire life in Canada, San Francisco and Los Angeles and have never been forced to deal with fundamentalists in a direct way.

Quoting claymisher: I think it's one of those path of least resistance deals. Like how water flows downhill.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0050142

First of all, I think the world of Bob. I've long been an admirer and fan. And I love BHTV. I watch most diavlogs, and don't expect to stop. That said, I was merely expressing the same sentiment that you have endorsed repeatedly, and, e.g., linked to favorably when you pointed to Sean Carroll's Twitter about the decline of BHTV, or said "good essay, overall" to Uncle Eb.

Quoting themightypuck: LOL praise. I suppose it depends what you want from a site like bhtv. I like the debate and don't mind the occasional pseudoscientist but I understand how reasonable minds can differ.

I don't mind a wide range of views; in fact, that's one of the features of Bh.tv I like the best. I can also write off someone like Althouse to different tastes, and just not watch her appearances. However, there are some limits. As I have gone on at length about, I am strongly opposed to giving a platform -- and respectability by association -- to people who are nothing but intellectually dishonest, like Behe. And if for reasons passing my understanding it is felt that we have to yet again let a con artist like him hold the microphone, then he absolutely must not be allowed to appear with someone who is unprepared to respond to him critically. Let him be fawned over on one of the IDiot sites. Or -- it seems to me that TNR has a video thing going (e.g.) -- McWhorter, who's now on staff, could have pitched his softballs over there.

One caveat: I've lived my entire life in Canada, San Francisco and Los Angeles and have never

Quoting TwinSwords: First of all, I think the world of Bob. I've long been an admirer and fan. And I love BHTV. I watch most diavlogs, and don't expect to stop.

That said, I was merely expressing the same sentiment that you have endorsed repeatedly, and, e.g., linked to favorably when you pointed to Sean Carroll's Twitter about the decline of BHTV, or said "good essay, overall" to Uncle Eb.

Yup. If I sounded too disagreeable, I apologize. I just think we should keep our criticisms as specific as possible, and not make sweeping statements about trends, overall declines, etc.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...

However, there are some limits. As I have gone on at length about, I am strongly opposed to giving a platform -- and respectability by association -- to people who are nothing but intellectually dishonest, like Behe. And if for reasons passing my understanding it is felt that we have to yet again let a con artist like him hold the microphone, then he absolutely must not be allowed to appear with someone who is unprepared to respond to him critically. Let him be fawned over on one of the IDiot sites. Or -- it seems to me that TNR has a video thing going (e.g.) -- McWhorter, who's now on staff, could have pitched his softballs over there.
...

For good or ill, there isn't a universal consensus that Behe isn't respectable - McWhorter's attitude here seem like an ample demonstration of this. It's better I think to have him here (though, I stress, with a more scientifically competent interlocutor) ans subject him to careful skepticism, than it would be for an entirely alternate world to be allowed to arise - the intellectual equivalent of Fox News - from which he could launch his spitballs at science without ever being

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't mind a wide range of views; in fact, that's one of the features of Bh.tv I like the best. I can also write off someone like Althouse to different tastes, and just not watch her appearances.

However, there are some limits. As I have gone on at length about, I am strongly opposed to giving a platform -- and respectability by association -- to people who are nothing but intellectually dishonest, like Behe.

I guess this all depends on how close you think the barbarians are to the gates. I admit to having very little patience for antivaccers and pyramid schemists.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yup. If I sounded too disagreeable, I apologize. I just think we should keep our criticisms as specific as possible, and not make sweeping statements about trends, overall declines, etc.

That's fair. I probably don't appreciate the impact of my words, sometimes, although I still am not sure how they are fundamentally different from the same sentiments expressed by several others. But I guess that's something for me to examine. Just for the record, here's the Sean Carroll tweet I found a link to that tweet from this post. .

Quoting AemJeff: For good or ill, there isn't a universal consensus that Behe isn't respectable - McWhorter's attitude here seem like an ample demonstration of this. It's better I think to have him here (though, I stress, with a more scientifically competent interlocutor) ans subject him to careful skepticism, than it would be for an entirely alternate world to be allowed to arise - the intellectual equivalent of Fox News - from which he could launch his spitballs at science without ever being vulnerable to direct challenge. Behe's value to the movement is his patina of scientific respectability. He needs to be held to that standard, and the only way that's possible is if he can pressured to put up or shut up. If he's shut out, it can't be claimed that he's unwilling to put it on the table.

I think that's the reason Rush has thrived for so long. I remember early in his career when he was still accessible - he sucked in any sort of fair debate. he learned quick and shuut that door as soon as he could. The only way to expose the weakness of Behe's schtick, is to shine

Quoting TwinSwords: That's fair. I probably don't appreciate the impact of my words, sometimes, although I still am not sure how they are fundamentally different from the same sentiments expressed by several others. But I guess that's something for me to examine.

I'm not sure the difference is big enough to worry about. It's entirely possible that what prompted me to write my cautionary message wasn't your post specifically, but rather just the accumulation of several people saying more or less the same thing.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not sure the difference is big enough to worry about. It's entirely possible that what prompted me to write my cautionary message wasn't your post specifically, but rather just the accumulation of several people saying more or less the same thing.

Understood. And it's always helpful to remind folks that criticism should be balanced with context. I do find the trend on BHTV, and even in Bob's diavlogs, to be worrying, but on the other hand, I do recognize that Bob has a book to sell (and I support his doing so, and using BHTV to that end). And I continue to admire Bob greatly, appreciate the gift of BHTV enormously, and enjoy many diavlogs a great deal. Still, I share the concerns more eloquently expressed by you, Uncle Eb, and many others.

Quoting themightypuck: I guess this all depends on how close you think the barbarians are to the gates. I admit to having very little patience for antivaccers and pyramid schemists.

I would go equally mental if we ever had an anti-vaccination moonbat (or many other purveyors of woo) on Bh.tv. The idea of pyramid schemers appearing seems so implausible I won't even worry about it. But yes, I do think the barbarians -- especially the Christianist ones -- are very close to the gates. For just one example, consider the 2008 Republican primary season, in which three of ten candidates for president were willing (eager) to raise their hands when the lot of them were asked on national TV, "Who doesn't believe in evolution?" Among the three: two sitting members of Congress and a former governor. The eventual GOP nominee for Vice President was savvy or lucky enough not to get pinned down quite that explicitly, but I think we all know what it means when someone says that schools should "teach the controversy." Which, by the way, was also the official position of the previous president. And if you really want to see how close they are, look nearer to the

Things I learned from actually listening to this diavlog:
- The Intelligent Designer, whether it's Jesus or space aliens, is on malaria's side
- Machines cannot be simplified or built upon
- John McWhorter's view of evolution is "an amoeba, an armadillo, us"
- Michael Behe plans to devote the rest of his career to deciding what is and what isn't designed Oh my, but this was a crock of crap. I really don't blame McWhorter for wanting it taken down. He really owes us an explanation for why he decided to essentially endorse this silly idea, call Behe's book "very important", and sneeringly denounce its critics. Why didn't he, at the very least, do a cursory google of "criticism of intelligent design" and get some ideas for questions other than "Why are the Darwinists so mean to you, Michael?" Was he too busy sneering? I like when he asked if it wasn't a bit boring to just say that science has hit a wall and God did it. The obvious answer is that once you hit that wall and you've joined the Discovery Institute, you're not bored with all the not doing science, you're spending your time trying to get

Quoting kezboard: [...]

10 points.

Amen to this. That's why I'm here. I feel like Piggy at times though.

Quoting IRQ Conflict: Heh you don't think I haven't? I'm biased as can be but I won't lie to protect my beliefs. Not on purpose anyway.

From talk origins:

Compare this to my already posted link on natural selection

As for entropy. When is the last time you saw an organism gain information and order rather than lose it with time?

I wish I had thought of a response to the above nearly as good as this one:

Irreducible Stupidity

By now, there’s a good chance you’ve already heard about the McWhorter-Behe diavlog on Bloggingheads.tv, and its removal for unknown reasons.

So I have very little to say about that.

I would like to point out this post over at BH’s thread regarding the video removal, written by someone with the handle “IRQ Conflict”:

As for entropy. When is the last time you saw an organism gain information and order rather than lose it with time?

Gee, he’s got us there. [takes bite of sandwich] [swallows] I don’t recall any biological organism ever increasing in order and energy in any way… [takes bite] bwff I suppos thair mai bee [swallows] – sorry, shouldn’t type with my mouth full – but I suppose there may be some way in which living creatures might be able

Came across this. No idea who he is, but it's worth a look. The best point he makes is how and why Behe is seductive to a smart, but uneducated in biology, person like McWhorter:

What makes Behe so seductive is that he’s not openly a Holy Roller creationist. He’s actually a biologist, with a tenured position at Lehigh University. And he — like Stephen Meyer, who I wrote about at Campus Progress – is always very careful to phrase his position in skeptical, scientific terms. He always says that he’s just following the evidence, and says that his method is essentially scientific and compares himself to past scientists whose research lead to paradigm shifts in their fields (like the big bang theory in physics). And since the Darwinian story of mutation and natural selection leading to evolution is so contrary to how humans basically view the world – we instinctively attribute design to complex structures and often see patterns and design where they don’t actually exist — an argument like Behe’s, which lets someone openly express their instinctual doubts about evolution, can be quite attractive. And McWhorter is attracted for all

Quoting AemJeff: I wish I had thought of a response to the above nearly as good as this one:

I remember that one about the sun! I think I saw that on Keefe's blog last year.

Quoting bjkeefe: Came across this. No idea who he is, but it's worth a look.

The best point he makes is how and why Behe is seductive to a smart, but uneducated in biology, person like McWhorter:

I note from his postscript that great minds think alike (they Google).

His other article that he links to, "The Greatest Trick Intelligent Design Ever Pulled," is also worth a look, especially for people unfamiliar with the IDiots' tactics.

I'm not impressed. That's just teleological thinking. It doesn't explain why the IDers believe what they believe. :P

Jeffrey Shallit has a blog post up, criticizing McWhorter and laughing at Behe. The takeaway for Behe and his acolytes (which of course they will ignore):

When you make stupid and unsupported claims, you're going to get criticized -- and sometimes harshly. That's science. Deal with it.