[asa] Re: [asa] Nick Matzke: Mark Pallen on Namba on the flagellum/ATPase homologies…and me

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Sat Sep 20 2008 - 13:17:28 EDT

PvM quotes Nick Matzke:


“At the time, prominent ID proponents who commented on the Big Flagellum Essay – notably William Dembski and Mike Gene – dismissed, based on irreducible complexity arguments.”


Thanks for bringing this to my attention. And it indeed is looking like I was wrong:




In my book, I explored how the concept of IC interfaces with cooption and intelligent design and offered the following as part of my approach:


<blockquote> Instead, independent evidence is needed to support such a hypothesis of cooption cobbling a machine together. This does not mean we need something that amounts to a proof. Nor does it mean that an exhaustive Darwinian explanation is needed. On the contrary, the evidence we need is extremely modest and lacking in detail……First, if an irreducibly complex machine did evolve into existence through cooption, then the parts must have predated the machine. They must have been doing something else prior to being recruited into the machine. Thus, some evidence of this pre-machine activity is needed. Since we cannot travel back in time, we will have to settle for traditional evidence of common descent. Do the various parts of the machine have homologs that are in turn part of a system that is more ancient than the machine? </blockquote>


Multiple points of homology between the components of the F-ATPase and TTSS would clearly qualify as “various parts of the machine” having “homologs that are in turn part of a system that is more ancient than the machine.” Thus, if I were to assign a Discontinuity Score to the flagellum, it would reside within the negative realm of the continuum (it evolved).


BTW, since no less that Nick Matzke has conferred the title “prominent ID proponent” to me (right up there next to Dembski), I think it is time for members of this list to recognize such a prominent figure is among you. LOL.


But seriously, why is it so many critics want to have it both ways when it comes to yours truly?


Matzke is himself a prominent opponent of the ID movement, having served as the PR guy for the NCSE and playing a role in the Dover trial. If such a prominent person confers the “prominent ID proponent” status upon me, then I suppose that makes me prominent.


But prior to retiring from Telic Thoughts, I demonstrated that one journalist’s criticisms of ID all failed against me and my views:





Yet this apparently annoyed many critics, who were quick to deny any such prominence to my views and acted like I did something wrong in pointing out the failure of such stereotypes. One critic wrote:


“You're missing the point, Mike. By your own admission, you are a red herring. If someone writes about ID they usually have in mind more typical specimens. The Wikipedia entry on intelligent design lists Dr. Dr. Dembski, Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, among other. It doesn't mention Mike Gene.”


And another critic wrote:


“Mike, you can't criticise him for writing statements that don't fit your version of ID when your version is not what people mean when they say ID in the general parlance.”


Another critic even went to the trouble of contacting the journalist to discover that the journalist was unaware of the views of this “prominent ID proponent.”


Okay, so I am a prominent ID proponent who is not a prominent ID proponent. LOL. I suppose the next time people start opining about what ID is all about (and is not about), ya shouldn’t be surprised to see this “prominent ID proponent” weigh in as Da Authority. :)


- The Ever Prominent Mike Gene (and don't you forget it!)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 20 13:17:56 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 20 2008 - 13:17:56 EDT