Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

monotonic

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I found I started making more of those weird errors when I started to use text chat a lot for communicating with business partners. It bleeds through into forum posts as well. Sometimes I will pause writing at a can/can't and then figure out how to write the rest of the sentence. Then I go back and discover the can/can't is wrong. Often I will start the sentence with "can" in mind, then decide on a different wording after the fact that requires a "can't" or vice versa (usually in explaining some kind of mechanical process where either word can be used but I want to find the most intuitive way to say it). Then I will forget to change it until I either send the message or proofread it and find the mistake.
 

Aeneas

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Perhaps Socrates had the best strategy: Corrupt the youth! :halo: If you can present a reasonable "third option", I think a lot of young people would be able to get on board with it - before their minds have had the chance to harden into the shape of true believer in either Darwin or "Jesus wrote my DNA". But even that might be wishful thinking.
Caesar also agreed in the session with him a few years ago that the youth is where the biggest chance is. I have a small experience that illustrates this. When I was in Denmark in May, I brought the subject up at an evening dinner, where also a brother of mine and his 18 year old son (my nephew) were present. The discussion on Darwinism got a bit intense at certain times, but I noticed that my nephew was the one who was most open to hear me out, even trying the tell others to do the same. I had at that point read about 6-7 books on the subject, so I was not so easily put off ;-)

So when this great article by MI came out about a modern fairytale, I posted it to my nephew with an accompanying comment. He responded a few days later and thought it was a most interesting article that made him think in a new light of things he had always taken for granted. He also admitted that he probably would need a bit of time to accept the thoughts that it had stimulated, but that he thought it was an interesting theory and a source for constructive reflection. Those were his words and in my view quite mature. Very encouraging, I thought and also highlighting how the use of humour and sarcasm can sometimes better bypass the defenses of Darwinian thoughts...the Kundabuffers.
 

sid

Jedi
See, that's exactly what random mutations do. They make things wrong and broken just like that. Evolution, my ass.
Mutations are like viruses and harmful bacteria which work against the organism and its nervous system in order to bring down its defences, ie the immune system. It seems there are minute physical deviations permitted in the components/organs of all organisms including home sapiens directed by process of homeostatis to ensure survivability and to keep fighting those viruses/bacteria. Those deviations may have side effects of which there are acceptable tolerances in the design as long as the organism can fight its way back to optimal functioning and reverse the deviations/mutations. Not fighting back would lead to shortened life spans and early termination of the organism.

Bit like a punctured tyre in a car. A spacesaver will keep the car running albeit with reduced performance and steering drag which can cause accidents but the original sized wheel would be required sooner than later to resume optimal function. Replacing all 4 tyres with spacesavers will bring some balance however its a deviation from optimal function. Someone go and ask those birds which grew longer beaks to forage for food buried deep in the ground. How were their wings handling the extra weight of the longer beak during flight. Were they spending more time on the ground due to getting tired from flights? Good thing, it didn’t last too long.

I have bit more to write but after I have finished Polotical Ponerology which I am re-reading and having some Eureka moments.:-)
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Quite a pedantic bunch really, and they excelled at missing the crux of the matter. It was fun for a while - I never expected to change anybody's mind obviously - but eventually I got tired. They beat me at stubbornness, I guess.
or, Wk, sometimes it is plain old 'experience' as the place I sometimes have coffee at says on their wall (after trying to have a conversation on say, AGW) whereby it can seem to come down to -

30773
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
After a few glasses of wine, he admitted that he witnessed phenomena that materialist "science" couldn't explain, but that it was his "job" to tell people that such phenomena do not exist. So there is intellectual dishonesty as well...
Not only that, but a lot of scientists have a clear and very personal conflict of interest in protecting the dominant scientific paradigm under which they labor. Most of them have published papers etc that are based on that paradigm. If it were to change fundamentally, then all of their precious work would be undone, so they are naturally dead set against that happening. Reminds me of the maxim: 'it's impossible to get someone to accept something as true if their paycheck (and reputation) depends on them not accepting it.'
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I don't know why people imagine that the scientific types are smart, they are not, they just do their job within the framework of what that job requires. They hide behind degrees, fancy sounding words and whatnot, but the majority of them are dumb when you come to know them personally. Some of them are obsessed, maybe single minded, but the smart ones are few. [...] So there is intellectual dishonesty as well...
That intellectual dishonesty is like clockwork, and I think much of it is also fueled by pure and simple narcissism (in addition to the "economic" factor).

Not long before I came to France, I had dinner with a couple I knew well. They're good peoples, but both are physicists of the materials science variety. I mentioned a (considerate) version of what I was coming here to do, including Ark's work as a physicist/mathematician.

Well, they looked at each other, did a little eye-roll thing, and one of them said basically, "Oh, he's one of THOSE physicists..."

That was pretty funny, because here we have 2 very smart people, both with PhDs in physics. Yet, when confronted with a simple description of the kind of math/science that Ark does, they instantly had categorized him as "crazy" without seeing a single piece of evidence, no reading of papers, no real interest in anything except reaffirming to themselves that they were "better" in some vague way. Naturally, these two would be viewed as "scientists and experts in physics and materials".

But then it got better. The woman was my ex, and the topic of 9-11 came up. He (hubby) said something about A-rabs stabbing you in the back, and she readily agreed and even expanded a bit. That nearly knocked me off my feet, because it was my first real introduction to how many people mirror back to you who you are, and you mistake it for who THEY are.

The whole experience was quite eye-opening. When I think about it again in the context of current events, I'm not sure we need to worry about Artificial Intelligence. The fact is that the vast majority of human beings already are AI...

They can be terribly book smart, highly capable, and even rip-roaringly successful and authoritative professionally, but they are not truly intellectually capable, there is very little real self-reflection, there is no deep thought there, there is certainly almost no emotional intelligence or even emotional depth of any real description, and they are in effect already human robots.

And these are the "experts" who are telling us what is good, what is bad, what is real, what is fake, etc...

When you're a child, you dress up and pretend to do grownup things based on what you've observed and learned. When you're an adult, most of the time it's the same thing... Only now you have a degree or professional training, you've learned how to do grownup things the "right" way, and so on. But most people are literally just "playing" as adults.

Except it's worse, because an adult is playing as an adult, and thinking it's real. A child plays as an adult, but KNOWS that they are just pretending. No wonder the world is a mess...

Save me, Jeebus! :shock:
 

Ennio

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
And these are the "experts" who are telling us what is good, what is bad, what is real, what is fake, etc...

This point was brought home to me (yet again) when I came upon Wikipedia's bio for Michael Behe:

Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific[2] principle of intelligent design (ID). He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature.[3]

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[4][5] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[6][7]
The authors of the bio could have just as easily, or more accurately, stated that Behe was an advocate of the "highly controversial" or "hotly contested" principle of intelligent design - but come off denigrating ID right off the bat by calling the whole study pseudoscientific. And claiming that "the vast majority of the scientific community" share this view with, of course, no mention of the numbers of prominent scientists who have come out in favor of it.

If a person read the whole bio having no other exposure to ID, or Behe's work, they would be left with the impression that there's no reason to look into it further, or question the accepted "consensus" of the science authorities.

For more on Wikipedia's efforts to suppress knowledge in science and health, see:


Google attacks alternative health information by burying Mercola in their latest search engine update - Part 2: Wicked Wikipedia
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I think many people are attracted to the 'abyss.' The unknown. It has a certain power over people. That's why, I think, people might choose to go to war, sail on the seas, jump out of airplanes with parachutes, and search after truth. It is the infinite unknown that has a certain power and some kind of very deep power over people. But when it comes to seeking after truth many, if not most, want it both ways. They may have an interest in truth until they get that paycheck! Then the paycheck and narcissism takes over and becomes an end in itself. So they want to jump 'half way' into the abyss (which is not possible!) as long as their precious little life and security is not jeopardized and stays in tact, like a dog who won't move if it sees it's toys are threatened in some way. Contemporary scientists want it both ways! They won't make the choice to go 'whole hog' into the abyss (like Castaneda did in one of his books when jumping off that cliff) while pursuing the truth if it threatens their 'toys' and comfortable little life.
 

genero81

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The whole experience was quite eye-opening. When I think about it again in the context of current events, I'm not sure we need to worry about Artificial Intelligence. The fact is that the vast majority of human beings already are AI...

They can be terribly book smart, highly capable, and even rip-roaringly successful and authoritative professionally, but they are not truly intellectually capable, there is very little real self-reflection, there is no deep thought there, there is certainly almost no emotional intelligence or even emotional depth of any real description, and they are in effect already human robots.
That's an interesting take! The second highlighted above is something I figured out a while back and really boosted my self confidence. There may be a lot of people out there who are technically smarter than myself; who could score much higher on an IQ test. But, that doesn't always translate into them having a more accurate understanding of things. Which is kind of bizarre, but I guess the whole learning thing is obviously contingent on more than just raw intellectual power.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If a person read the whole bio having no other exposure to ID, or Behe's work, they would be left with the impression that there's no reason to look into it further, or question the accepted "consensus" of the science authorities.
And the control system is relying on that, which is why a critical open mind is never encouraged in the standard educational system. The drive to learn and being curious makes the whole difference between digging yourself a hole or opening new doors to unlimited possibilities.

Here's Behe response to his colleagues at Lehigh:
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
But most people are literally just "playing" as adults.

Except it's worse, because an adult is playing as an adult, and thinking it's real. A child plays as an adult, but KNOWS that they are just pretending.
I guess that's why the Cs say we're in third grade.

People should also keep this in mind for their personal, familial, and intimate relationships.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The authors of the bio could have just as easily, or more accurately, stated that Behe was an advocate of the "highly controversial" or "hotly contested" principle of intelligent design - but come off denigrating ID right off the bat by calling the whole study pseudoscientific.
I think they could have just as easily said: "I obey my authorities 100% and everyone who doesn't is a traitor. And oh yeah, I'm not in the least interested in one of the most important questions of humanity."

It's really sad. I always thought the infamous "Rational Wiki" is the perfect embodiment of this kind of slavish non-thinking, because it is just so in-your-face stupid and authoritarian.

I also think this kind of mindset contributed a lot to the rise of postmodernism, which in a sense is kind of a secular counter-reaction to slavish materialist science. Having grown up in a "postmodern" intellectual milieu, I can tell that a lot was about the sense that humanity is richer than the scientific-materialist number crunchers admit, with things like art, poetry, psychoanalysis etc. that are not "scientific". But the tragedy is that this movement was die-hard atheist itself and poisoned by Marxism, which is materialist and authoritatian in its own right.

The more you learn, the more a kind of an epic Cosmic Mindjob becomes apparent IMO. It's always about creating two opposing sides, which both have a little chunk of the Truth mixed with lots of Lies and then pitting those sides against each other. It's the perfect Entropy Machine.
 
Last edited:

sid

Jedi
The more you learn, the more a kind of an epic Cosmic Mindjob becomes apparent IMO. It's always about creating two opposing sides, which both have a little chunk of the Truth mixed with lots of Lies and then pitting those sides against each other. It's the perfect Entropy Machine.
Could that be extended to personality splitting within an organism’s mind I wonder? Creating two or multiple personalities with their respective ideas, beliefs via carefully orchestrated damaging shocks and never letting them recover/reconcile - talking about normal people here with healthy mental faculties.
Then let loose the wolves (psychopaths) amongst the confused sheep and allow ponerogenesis to run its course till nothing remains standing upright. Abnormal becomes the normal. Theory of Evolution just happens to be one of the tools in the arsenal. One can come up with any convoluted theory and then orchestrate events to help it spread.
What is the most powerful thing in the world which could bring both positive and negative changes at a global level?
An idea.
 
Top Bottom