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

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Sep 21 2008 - 16:14:33 EDT

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> PvM quotes Nick Matzke:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
I am sure that Matzke meant it as a compliment even though he mentioned you
in close vicinity to William Dembski which may be far more of an ID
proponent but far less informed on the topic of the bacterial flagella. Note
how in No free Lunch he attempted to calculate the probabilities of the pure
chance formation of the proteins involved?

>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Nicks contributions both to unraveling the 'arguments' proposed by Behe
regarding the IC status of the bacterial flagellum and the immune system
have been instrumental in exposing the lack of scientific foundation behind
the ID thesis. In addition, Nick's contributions to Dover v Kitzmiller were
instrumental in educating the plaintiffs' legal team in the likely defense
arguments, the definitions of Intelligent Design, the likely arguments
presented by its expert witnesses and the history of Intelligent Design. He
was involved in locating the transitional between creationists and design
proponents, a species identified as cdesign proponentsists

Your approach has been far more open, partially because you seem to be
preferring a position of front loading rather than intervention which places
the initial conditions most likely outside our direct observation. By
merging seamlessly with the science of evolutionary theory, you have
presented a position which remains a logical possibility, even though we may
never be able to find the 'smoking gun' that would trigger a 'design
inference'. As such, you are indeed prominent if not a rarity amongst ID
proponents.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 21 16:15:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 21 2008 - 16:15:09 EDT