Search This Blog

Sunday, August 05, 2012

Who is William Dembski and why are Darwinists afraid of him? Part Two!

Saturday, August 04, 2012

Who is William Dembski and why are Darwinists afraid of him? Part One.

Saturday was part one of a series on William Dembski, who is one of the movers and shakers of the Intelligent Design movement.   Here is a continuation of the interview that is linked on Saturday's blog post.   TBS is The Best Schools' interviewer in bolded green.   WD is William Dembski in black.

 

"...TBS: We understand that what many consider to be your masterpiece so far—The Design Inference—is based on your Ph.D. dissertation completed two years earlier at the University of Illinois at Chicago. During the period when you were formulating the notions of specified complexity and the design inference, with whom were you in contact? Whom were you reading? What were the main intellectual influences on this seminal work?

WD: I owe specified complexity and The Design Inference to Richard Dawkins and, specifically, his book The Blind Watchmaker. I say this with some irony, but there’s also some truth here. In the late 1980s, I was on my own. I had finished my Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988, gone to MIT on an NSF postdoc, and sensed that what was fundamentally amiss in the academy was the failure to discern that God was an agent exercising real causal powers in the world. But I had no conversation partners related to this concern.

I therefore decided at MIT, against the advice of my mathematics and physics mentors, that I was going to pursue a second doctorate, this time in philosophy. Why philosophy? I knew that “philosophy of” could be attached as a prefix to just about any field of endeavor, and thus I saw philosophy as an umbrella discipline in which to explore the question of real discernible divine action, though I realized it would need to be cashed out in terms more acceptable to secular philosophers.

As I was pondering this question, I read Dawkins’s Blind Watchmaker. I found reading it a galvanizing experience, not because the book fulfilled its promises or warranted the high praises of its endorsers, but because it was so wrong that it provided insight for anyone with eyes to see. At one point in that book, Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone.” Right, random chance can’t do it. But natural selection (or “cumulative selection” as he called it there) could? Really?

 



As I reflected on his argument, it became clear that natural selection would only have this capacity if it could overcome the improbabilities faced by random chance (hence his 1996 sequel, Climbing Mount Improbable, which nonetheless fails to extend his argument). But what if it couldn’t overcome these improbabilities? Dawkins, without any real argument (the only thing he offered was his ridiculous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL example), simply asserted that natural selection had that power. And it would have to have that power if naturalism was correct. But the empirical evidence simply does not support the creative power of Darwinian processes. So, the question remained: How to explain specified complexity now that the divide-and-conquer Darwinian strategy—in which natural selection would gradually build up biological complexity—could be seen to have failed?

My field in mathematics was probability, so I developed my critique of Dawkins probabilistically. Some of my critics have argued that probability is irrelevant to these discussions, but in doing so they are either uninformed or disingenuous. Whenever a Kenneth Miller, for instance, cites some experimental evidence for the power of natural selection, he appeals to some experimental set-up in which selection pressure—with high probability—brings about some biological structure/function previously lacking. But if high probability provides confirming evidence for Darwinism, why can’t low probability provide disconfirming evidence? Parity of reasoning demands that if probabilities can support Darwinism, then they can also put it in harm’s way empirically.

So, working alone, with my background in probability, I began to look at the probabilistic hurdles facing Darwinian natural selection and how this might provide a pointer to design. Initially, I didn’t see these probabilistic arguments as making a positive case for design so much as making a negative case against naturalism. Naturalistic processes without teleology are incomplete. But it soon became clear that when probability and specification worked together, they were doing more than underscoring the incompleteness of naturalistic processes—they were pointing to a designing intelligence.

I wrote a long paper outlining the key issues for the 1991 meeting of the Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences, which I presented at Wheaton College. It’s in their proceedings volume, though not widely cited: “Reviving the Argument from Design: Detecting Design through Small Probabilities.” What’s missing from this paper is a full development of the concept of specified complexity and, in particular, the specification part, namely an explication of the sorts of patterns needed to infer design.

After that paper and two other things I had written (“Randomness by Design” in Nous and “Converting Matter into Mind” in the ASA Journal), I came on the radar of Steve Meyer and Paul Nelson, who then connected me with the circle forming around Phil Johnson. But before that, I was feeling my way. On the one hand, it seemed clear that my work had connections with Paley-style natural theology. On the other hand, I wasn’t trying to do the traditional sorts of natural-theology things, like drawing conclusions about divine attributes, which seemed to me beyond the remit of my methods.

Two people whom I tried to interest in my work on design prior to joining the circle around Phil Johnson were A. E. Wilder-Smith and John Warwick Montgomery. I had corresponded with Wilder-Smith in the late 1980s. He was in Switzerland, and our Briefwechsel was quite cordial. In the summer of 1990, I went to Montgomery’s summer institute on human rights in Strasbourg. Not that human rights were central to my interests, but I was single, awash in NSF funds, and I wanted to interest Montgomery in these probabilistic arguments, thinking that they had application in the field of legal evidence, a field he had worked in. However, he had no insights to offer me.

Wilder-Smith, who was not too far from some friends of mine in Freiburg, was also no help. He was a young-earth creationist and had some insightful things to say about information theory as it applied to life. But when I laid out my arguments, he was dismissive. Nevertheless, I pressed ahead. I was convinced my approach had merit, and neither Wilder-Smith nor Montgomery offered substantive refutations.

Once I got introduced to Phil Johnson’s circle, however, I did find a terrific group of conversation partners. It was as though God had independently raised up a number of individuals all interested in the question of design and how it might take down Darwinian naturalism. Steve Meyer and Paul Nelson became my closest colleagues, with Jonathan Wells and Mike Behe close behind. And Phil was, at the time, the grand old man coordinating our efforts.

As for Dawkins, I should probably dedicate one of my forthcoming books to him—but that might be misinterpreted.

TBS: How were your ideas initially received? Was it possible to discuss your skepticism about the ability of the natural selection mechanism to produce specified complexity freely and openly in academia at that time? If so, when did the tide begin to turn, and natural selection begin to become a sacred cow that could not be questioned without jeopardizing one’s career? Was there a decisive turning point, or was it more of a gradual process?

 

WD: If you’ve read my book The Design Inference, and can bracket out my subsequent notoriety, you’ll realize that the book is agnostic about chemical and biological evolution. I show, for instance, how this mode of inference applies to the origin of life, but I don’t say that it leads to one conclusion or another.

Specified complexity, as a criterion for detecting design, is a method. Methods get applied to particular problem areas, but there’s nothing about a method that demands it give a particular answer to a given state of affairs. So, by simply presenting the method, but not applying it to controversial areas in biology and not drawing troublesome conclusions, the book neatly sidestepped the controversy that with hindsight we see the book engendering.

Trouble, however, was not long to be avoided. The problem is that within a month of publishing The Design Inference, I also published Mere Creation, the proceedings of a 1996 conference at Biola on creation and design. In that book, I did put my cards on the table regarding where I saw the methods developed in The Design Inference leading. So, Darwinists quickly made the connection and started going after the earlier book.

Another thing that worked against the book is that I was hired shortly after its publication to found and direct Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center. This gave me national prominence, to the consternation of Darwinists in- and outside of Baylor, and thus incentivized them to refute the book at all costs. When the Polanyi Center was dissolved a year later (more about this below), many who had their finger to the wind and wondered whether to back intelligent design, backed down. I stayed on at Baylor to complete my contract, but was persona non grata the entire time.

In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast..."
 

So we see some very relevant facts.  William Dembski had acquired degrees and had acclaim.  To quote his own words. "In the late 1980s, I was on my own. I had finished my Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988, gone to MIT on an NSF postdoc, and sensed that what was fundamentally amiss in the academy was the failure to discern that God was an agent exercising real causal powers in the world. But I had no conversation partners related to this concern.

I therefore decided at MIT, against the advice of my mathematics and physics mentors, that I was going to pursue a second doctorate, this time in philosophy. Why philosophy? I knew that “philosophy of” could be attached as a prefix to just about any field of endeavor, and thus I saw philosophy as an umbrella discipline in which to explore the question of real discernible divine action, though I realized it would need to be cashed out in terms more acceptable to secular philosophers."

Dembski had a doctorate already and was going for post-doctorate certification.  To pursue a post-doc in philosophy was actually a logical decision, the kind of decision a true scientist might make.  All sciences have been born in the hotbed of philosophy and thus we use the term "Ph.D."  Going in that direction led him to a position of being to an extent an overview scientist, a man trained to use his specialized knowledge in mathmatics to study and speak to the bigger overall concerns of science in general.   At that time he was still an accepted member of academia.  Repeating the end of Part Two of the interview:

"...Trouble, however, was not long to be avoided. The problem is that within a month of publishing The Design Inference, I also published Mere Creation, the proceedings of a 1996 conference at Biola on creation and design. In that book, I did put my cards on the table regarding where I saw the methods developed in The Design Inference leading. So, Darwinists quickly made the connection and started going after the earlier book.

Another thing that worked against the book is that I was hired shortly after its publication to found and direct Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center. This gave me national prominence, to the consternation of Darwinists in- and outside of Baylor, and thus incentivized them to refute the book at all costs. When the Polanyi Center was dissolved a year later (more about this below), many who had their finger to the wind and wondered whether to back intelligent design, backed down. I stayed on at Baylor to complete my contract, but was persona non grata the entire time.

In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast..."

Dembski didn't have a stroke that affected his brain.  He didn't obtain his degrees by proxy, he had done the work and earned the awarded degrees.   He had continued to study works by people who were prominent in the fields of study that interested him and had published peer-reviewed papers and books that were well-received.   What changed?   He allowed people to see that his worldview was being changed by his research!

Dembski's CRIME that turned him from a respected rising star of science into someone who was "persona non grata"  was simply the results of his research.  His inquisitive scientific mind caused him to  investigate the claims made by people like Richard Dawkins and he discovered that they were falling far short of the mark they claimed to reach.   When he published the results of his research and then wrote a book in which he allowed the evidence to lead to a worldview conclusion, the secular science community shunned him as a body and began criticizing the earlier work he had done that they had previously acclaimed.   


Next post we'll then investigate what Dembski decided to do when secular science decided to censor him in every possible way - refuse to hire him, dismiss his work, make derogatory statements about him.  They cannot take back his degrees and honors but they can expel him from their inner circles of peer review and acceptance and of course a job in his chosen profession.   Those measures they could take against him for daring to reveal the lack of clothing on the Darwinist Emperor they have taken.


Some men might have decided to back down from their stance and retract the idea that design means there is a Designer in order to win back job and acceptance and prominence.   But there are those who will continue to go their own way, believing that knowing what is right is more important than money or fame or acceptance.   The nightmare of most men in his position is to be denied a job and not attain tenure.   But for Dembski his personal need to know truth was far more important than those things.  William Dembski is one of those guys who is not afraid to tug on Superman's cape or to go against the wind.

Kind of like the Bob Seger song?
 




TheBestSchools blog is a very interesting source of scientific discussion.  I cannot place it in my links list and perhaps I need to cull that list so there is room?


William Dembski opines on the Uncommon Descent blog.  He has an online listing of articles he has written which is found online here.   Dembski and I have not communicated yet, although I have corresponded with some of his fellow Discovery Institute members.   Once this series is done I will probably reach out to him to ask for his opinion.   So far all the scientists I have met or corresponded with who are devoted to science even if it means rejecting Darwinism and the benefits of the "in crowd" have been gracious and in some cases we've developed friendships with the exception of Dr. John Hartnett, who never did answer my questions put to him.   That doesn't mean he is not a good guy but simply it may be he is too busy with his work to communicate with random bloggers.  For that reason the charges against him stood for far too long before being refuted.


It is rather interesting that both William Dembski and Jonathan Sarfati tend to work off of the output of Richard Dawkins.  Whenever Dawkins publishes another book trying to promote Darwinism then Jonathan publishes a book that rips the Dawkins assertions to shreds, not by attacking Dawkins personally but rather dealing strictly with the ideas and the science involved.   Now it seems that Dembski has done this as well.   


Dr. Sarfati has told me he would be very willing to debate Richard Dawkins and in fact would relish the opportunity.   I suspect Dembski would also enjoy the opportunity.   


I had the greatest respect for Christopher Hitchens, who welcomed a series of debates with Douglas Wilson on the concept of whether Christianity was good for the world, bringing both philosophical and scientific arguments to bear and also acknowledging the religious implications of the arguments.   I do mourn the death of Christopher Hitchens, ironically named for Christ but certainly devoted to arguing against the idea of Christianity.  You can access their debates and relationship (because the two men became friends despite their philosophical differences) in the DVD COLLISION which you can obtain on Amazon.com easily.  






What if Richard Dawkins or Philip Gingerich sought out a debate against William Dembski or Jonathan Sarfati?   Can you imagine how popular a series of debates between such men would be, how many auditoriums and arenas could be filled as the champions of two sides of the worldview debate locked horns?   Suppose the proceeds from such debates would be given to charity after a reasonable honorarium was given to both men?  It is a pipe dream, I know, because the Darwinists know full well that they cannot stand on science and win minds to their side.  They need the help of continual propaganda and they must weed out all dissension as Ben Stein's EXPELLED movie illustrated beautifully.




By the way, I did create an online publication concerning information that sits atop my links list.  I call it the !Ultimate Information Post It is my first (so far) online publication on a subject and I think it is a great overview of the question of information and whether it has a natural source.   Darwinist commenters absolutely hate the fact that it exists and complain about it continually.   Considering the concerted efforts of Darwinists to propagandize and censor non-Darwinist sources of information (what is the NCSE, after all, but an organization devoted to censorship?) and to try to ruin the careers of scientists and academics and journalists that is still happening today all over the United States and much of the Western world, their discomfort and complaints seem remarkably ironic to me.   That I took a set of posts along with their comments threads and converted them into a book that will stand as a monument to the discussions much as COLLISION was a record of Hitchens versus Wilson?  It makes the Darwinists so frustrated!  For doing that I am called a hypocrite by the very hypocrites who rule the world of science with an iron fist.   I probably should wear that label like a badge of honor. 

I will stand like a rock on the truth.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

More to the point: why do you think Darwinists are afraid of him?

Anonymous said...

"By the way, I did create an online publication concerning information that sits atop my links list. I call it the !Ultimate Information Post. It is my first (so far) online publication on a subject and I think it is a great overview of the question of information and whether it has a natural source."

Nonsense. Check your history. It was a retreat because you couldn't answer questions posed to you on this subject.

Now you're spinning, "re-branding". Do you think Jesus would be proud of your actions?

radar said...

"By the way, I did create an online publication concerning information that sits atop my links list. I call it the !Ultimate Information Post. It is my first (so far) online publication on a subject and I think it is a great overview of the question of information and whether it has a natural source."

Nonsense. Check your history. It was a retreat because you couldn't answer questions posed to you on this subject.

Now you're spinning, "re-branding". Do you think Jesus would be proud of your actions?


First I did not retreat from anything. I recognized that commenters had nothing new to say anymore. All of their arguments had been refuted and they were like an old vinyl record stuck on one track playing over and over. That is when I realized they had used up all their ammunition and it was time to make it into a short book.

Clearly I am quite sure Jesus Christ is very pleased by my actions. I started this blog on a whim, not sure what to do with it. Opine politically? Discuss sports? Post a few poems or short stories? But very soon I realized that this was not a hobby, it was a calling and as such I eventually understood what to do with the blog.

Now I deal almost entirely with the evolution-creation tug of war for the hearts and minds of the general public. It has caused me to read countless books, publications, technical journals and so on. It has prompted me to join some organizations. I have taught classes on the subject to both teens and adults. I arranged for a Creation Ministries International mini-conference in my area last year.

I am not spinning, you commenters are spinning. You know quite well that you could go ahead and give me an answer for the source of information if you had one. You don't have it. Furthermore, the post I converted to a book? It had comments that were published and available for all to see. They were not blocked. But they were not new, either. So when I copied that post and took it off of this blog and made the !Ultimate publication the comments don't come along with it. I would have had to copy them all and publish them as my comments, which would be absurd.

So I have invited one and all to go ahead and post anything you think was missed. You know what came back? Natural selection and mutations!!! Obviously NOT sources of information but descriptions of what happens to pre-existing information. Darwinists need to demonstrate a natural source for information to eliminate creation by God.

I am, as usual, waiting for the first commenter to actually give an answer to that question still.

Anonymous said...

"Who is William Dembski...?"

Well, we get a taste right here:

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/discovery-institute-william-dembski-biologos/

"...and why are Darwinists afraid of him?"

What's there to fear from a man who chickened out when at last he had to chance to prove in court what a bunch of hogwash the theory of evolution actually is?
No doubt he made your friend J. Mastropaolo cry.

radar said...

Whereas Joseph M. has devised a means to use a court setting to produce evidence and argue on evidence only, the Dover Trial was not about evidence at all. Darwinists used religion as a weapon to dodge evidentiary arguments.

In any event, science is not decided in courts of law, as the example of Geocentric versus Heliocentric Solar System dogma proves. Christians who were dedicated scientists, like Copernicus, challenged the ruling paradigm and risked being charged in court as heretics for daring to challenge the elites. Eventually the truth won.

Darwinists are much like the church-state rulers of that day, declaring that no one can question Darwinism and shunning, banning, firing and slandering all who try. Yet opposition to Darwinism is growing from the bottom up. Ordinary students who do not go into scientific disciplines may not know it, but those who actually study the cell or specialize in physics and many related fields walk smack into the Intelligent Design wall.

What is that wall? It consists of life, consciousness and information that have no natural source. It consists of the "spooky" (as Einstein said) results of quantum mechanics, in which we find that subatomic particles interact with conscious thought, which should not be possible. In fact there is some evidence to suggest that in QM you find future conscious thoughts apparently impacting events in the past!

Walk away from QM and you still have the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis which proved that life arising from non-life does not happen and demonstrate that evolution is actually a description of the deterioration of organisms and the loss of information and variations and eventually leads to the extinction of organisms rather than their creation. You also have laws of information and statistics that kill off Darwinism in their disciplines. Real science and Darwinism do not mix. Darwinism is simply a naturalist religious belief based on wishes and fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

He still chickened out....

radar said...

As to Dembski, that attack piece on S.curmudgeon is absolutely full of straw men and falsehoods. For instance, the Discovery Institute is not a Christian nor a Creationist organization. Believe me, the Jews and Islamists and Deists and others who are part of the institute would testify to this.

Whether Dembski is now personally a Christian is irrelevant to the points he makes. SC tries to pick apart Dembski's statements and spin them so they seem like jumbled thoughts whereas he is simply logically presenting the case for detecting design and how one would consider a way to have a control group outside of the influence of a Creator if a Transcendent Creator does exist. The answer is obvious enough - you couldn't!

But that does not prevent people from detecting design in the world. Dembski has already made that clear. While SC claims that he is not "cherry picking" in fact he begins his post with ad hominem attacks on Dembski and those organizations he is associated with to set the stage for his attacks on logic. SC jumps into the middle of a discussion that is truly a rabbit trail that Darrell Falk wishes to follow. Dembski addresses the subject but in fact does not consider that subject a working part of the ID field of study.

Notice he is quoted as saying "all the design proponents that I know and who are Christians would agree that God is as much active whether acting through nature or over and above nature."

Guess what? David Berlinski is a Discovery Institute fellow and he is a non-practicing Jew, just as one example. Dembski clearly states that only the Christians he knows in his circle of ID people believe this. Not the entire institute. Not the ID community.

You do realize that we could go down a list of Darwinists and discover that the vast majority are Atheists or agnostics, right? So every scientist who admits to having a worldview should be tossed out of science and ridiculed? That would eliminate every single one of them!

Anonymous said...

And yet, he still chickened out...

radar said...

Wow...chickened out? Hilarious!

Dover was a kangaroo court. In fact usually the Darwinists take the focus off of science and scare and bully judges into ruling "for science" when in fact they are ruling for the religion of Naturalism.

Betcha Dembski would debate Dawkins as well!

Anonymous said...

He still chickened out, because he didn't even dare to try. Hilarious!

"Christians who were dedicated scientists, like Copernicus, challenged the ruling paradigm and risked being charged in court as heretics for daring to challenge the elites. Eventually the truth won."

You know, Radar, you're actually right. Eventually the truth will always win. Just like the Butler Act and the Scopes Trial couldn't silence the theory of evolution.
Indeed, the truth will eventually always come out on top.

"They were not blocked. But they were not new, either. So when I copied that post and took it off of this blog and made the !Ultimate publication the comments don't come along with it."

Well, there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth. You unilaterally deleted the comments, with equals censorship. Nothing would have prevented you from leaving the original post there - including the comments - while still including the article in your "book".
Yet you chose to delete the comments. Why? Because those comments were damning to your position. You were cornered, so those comments had to go. Now you try to spin it in such a way that those comments weren't anything special. Easy of course with the original comments gone. No evidence left to prove you wrong. Except that everyone saw what you did and caught you red-handed.

And that's why your demands for 'an explanation' are so childish and dishonest. You got an explantion, only you didn't like it so chose to remove it.

Why would anyone do any effort to explain anything to you if you are just going to delete it again?

That's what this little stint of censorship did for you Radar. You thought you could get away with it; but instead it completely destroyed whatever credibility you had left.

Nothing you can do about that...

radar said...

Here is a lie: "Yet you chose to delete the comments. Why? Because those comments were damning to your position. You were cornered, so those comments had to go. Now you try to spin it in such a way that those comments weren't anything special. Easy of course with the original comments gone. No evidence left to prove you wrong. Except that everyone saw what you did and caught you red-handed.

And that's why your demands for 'an explanation' are so childish and dishonest. You got an explantion, only you didn't like it so chose to remove it."


No, I did just what I said I did. There were no comments that were new. It is time for put up or shut up. Go ahead and give us the explanation I was "afraid of" which is ridiculous on several levels because:

1) There was nothing new on that comments thread and in fact that was an impetus to make the book.

2) The comments were posted and displayed on the blog site until I took down the post and made my online book/publication. So even though nobody said anything new, they were up for awhile.

3) I could not bring the comments along without making them myself and since they were all the same old stuff there was no point.

Now let me predict what happens now - You will not be able to produce a new argument that falsifies my stated position and neither will anyone else. I know this because I have seen every commenter's arguments and they are the same ones over and over. Your charges are just ludicrous and childish. If there is something new to say, go ahead and say it. We all would LOVE to see something new from the comments thread for once.

It is a legend, but I feel a bit like the people standing around looking at the Sword in the Stone while day after day strong men try to pull it out and fail. For years you commenters try to answer the information question and not even come close. Heck, I would be really happy to see something different for a change. Censor it? I would probably devote an entire post to it!!!

So bring it on...

Anonymous said...

As I've said: pretty childish to ask for an explanation when you already had one and chose to censor it.

By removing comments you already defaulted. Game, set, match.

radar said...

The last comment is a lie. It is a deliberate lie and the reason it is being used is to cover Darwinist failures to address the information issue.

One of the reasons I used the post I used was that the very few comments made were all repeated claims from earlier posts and as such they would still be up on those posts, all of which are linked and active. So everything on that one had already been said, which made it the perfect basis for my online book. Nothing was lost, it was easy to convert to a publication and the links to previous blog posts where Darwinists had already made their arguments were still up and the comments still there.

Therefore you are lying now. There has never been a comment on information that I could not answer and that remains true, which is why you are beating a dead horse. You can pretend that someone had a mythical answer that was wiped out. But when all commenters are asked time and again to present such an answer they cannot do it.

Prove me wrong, give me something we have not yet seen. How many times do I have to ask? We are ten miles past "put up or shut up" already and I would think the readership would all be thinking that the ball is in your court.

Anonymous said...

"Here is a lie: "Yet you chose to delete the comments. Why? Because those comments were damning to your position. You were cornered, so those comments had to go. Now you try to spin it in such a way that those comments weren't anything special. Easy of course with the original comments gone. No evidence left to prove you wrong. Except that everyone saw what you did and caught you red-handed.

And that's why your demands for 'an explanation' are so childish and dishonest. You got an explantion, only you didn't like it so chose to remove it." "

It's not a lie. I was there and I saw it too.

Not just that, but you were clear about your intentions back then. All this "online book" stuff you're talking about now is a recent re-branding of the problem. You only started talking about this much more recently.

"Prove me wrong, give me something we have not yet seen."

Why should it be something we have not yet seen? You're still blind to the argument as it is.

Which reminds me, you seem to have abandoned the thread on this subject. What are you afraid of?

radar said...

One reason I posted this thread was to disprove the false accusation that I deleted any comments that were new. I transferred one post to another URL and the comments don't come with it when you do that. But the very few comments that were there were just the same old same old propaganda.

"Here is a lie: "Yet you chose to delete the comments. Why? Because those comments were damning to your position. You were cornered, so those comments had to go. Now you try to spin it in such a way that those comments weren't anything special. Easy of course with the original comments gone. No evidence left to prove you wrong. Except that everyone saw what you did and caught you red-handed.

And that's why your demands for 'an explanation' are so childish and dishonest. You got an explantion, only you didn't like it so chose to remove it." "

It's not a lie. I was there and I saw it too.


No, you didn't. You didn't because it didn't exist. If you saw it or posted it then post it now. I know you cannot because it was not there.

This is my blog. I let you lie and pontificate and make all sorts of false accusations such as the one in italics above. The reason the italicized commment has been made is because the author has no such comment and cannot make it, so he resorts to lying about it.

Again, I am the author here. I chose to put one post up as a monument to Darwinist futility. I needed to use a post that had few comments and nothing new as a basis and I had a perfect one to use. I took it and then linked numerous posts to it.

Commenters can make comments on all the linked posts but they began crying aloud that I took one post away. Despite the fact that I do not moderate comments (other than for language) unlike most blogs.

So now the new theme is that some magic new answer was given that I wished to erase. That is simply nonsense. In fact, I put up a thread to give the commenters a chance to post such a comment if they thought something important was lost.

Crickets.

Yes, there are many comments on that thread but none of them answer the question. Some of them are going far afield seeking to somehow take the discussion towards Shannon's Law or who knows where?

But I am telling the truth. No new comments were lost. All comments that were displayed on the post I took down to convert were the same old stuff. I have been asking commenters to prove me wrong. I even devoted an new post to the concept.

If you say I took down an answer then YOU are the liar. Because as God is my witness I did not do that. Since I believe in God, I do not say that lightly. In fact, if anyone EVER came up with a new response to the question it would be interesting. So put up or shut up. What comment did I not want seen? Put it up! Prove me wrong!

Anonymous said...

"One reason I posted this thread was to disprove the false accusation that I deleted any comments that were new. I transferred one post to another URL and the comments don't come with it when you do that. But the very few comments that were there were just the same old same old propaganda."

Why do you find it so easy to try to be so deceptive all the time? Your pride is really doing you no favors. "deleted any comments that were new" is your latest tack, is it? Well now that you deleted them, how can anyone tell, right?

"No, you didn't."

Did too.

"You didn't because it didn't exist. If you saw it or posted it then post it now. I know you cannot because it was not there."

You want us to post the stuff you deleted? Oh that's very cute.

"If you say I took down an answer then YOU are the liar."

Nice try, but quite a few people here witnessed you do this. You did take down answers.

What would Jesus do? Okay, for starters Jesus wouldn't delete responses from people he argued with, he'd think of something clever to say instead...

Okay, what would a Christian do? I dunno, confess to their wrongdoings and be honest instead?

Why would a Christian lie? That's something I never understood.

radar said...

Do you not realize how silly you all sound? If I did moderate comments I would delete all the foolishness but I don't. You claim I took down a comment that was in some way an answer to the information question, so I put up an Information thread and now there are over 100 comments there and still no answer.

If I censored comments I would censor all this blather. But I let you go on and on. You were given the chance to put up any comment you felt was taken away, any answer you thought had been censored, anything at all. But all you do is complain and make empty charges.

The truth is that I told everyone what I was doing and I did it. I am the author of this blog and I have the right to do it. There was nothing wrong with taking a post off of this blog and using it to convert a set of posts into an online publication, which is what I did. I said I was doing it at the time and I repeated it again on a couple of different comment threads.

Most blogs moderate comments. You get to say what you want. But you are sounding incredibly childish now. You are not responding to posts, you are just arguing for the sake of argument over and over again.

Is it possible for you commenters to at least attempt to act like adults? Or are you so bereft of any evidence that you have nothing left to do but simply make noise?

Anonymous said...

"I put up an Information thread and now there are over 100 comments there and still no answer."

So what are you afraid of? We're in mid-conversation over there. The questions aren't that hard to answer.

Is 100 comments some kind of magic number? Quite a few of them were taken up with you talking about how you think information can't be quantified, which incidentally blows all your claims about information loss out of the water.

"Is it possible for you commenters to at least attempt to act like adults?"

There's nothing childish about correcting you when you try to misrepresent what happened. For example:

"The truth is that I told everyone what I was doing and I did it."

Not true. You did it, then people wondered what was going on, then they complained about it, and more than a year later you re-labeled what you did as "an online book".

"But all you do is complain and make empty charges."

The charge that you have deleted comments on your blog that you couldn't answer is not empty; it's true.

Serious question, Radar: why not confess what you did, apologize and move on? Why keep coming up with new evasions and new spin?