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

From: PvM <>
Date: Sun Sep 21 2008 - 22:15:04 EDT

And yet he did acknowledge you by calling you a prominent ID proponent,
which of course is different from a mainstream ID proponent. You yourself
have argued that ID moves on and thus while some may still hold to abrupt
appearance others have come to embrace more realistic positions.

In one of your responses you argued:

"In the end, we can see that Matzke's mind is conditioned to perceive
"˜creationism' whenever it is presented with "˜intelligent design.' Whether
this reflex is genuine or just part of a political strategy doesn't matter.
What matters is that while some of us think in dynamic terms and focus on
the arguments, concepts and their development, Matzke thinks in static terms
and focuses on whether or not someone can be labeled a creationist."

I do not think you do Nick's position justice with these comments.

As to your assertion about Nick below, I have not found any relevant data
yet. Do you remember the circumstances of the quote?
Is this the one?
Or this one where Matzke states "*Pandas* wasn't obscure, all the major ID
players contributed to it or endorsed it. ". Perhaps Mike felt left out but
given the context I find the omission of a prominent ID player when
discussing the major ID players to be quite understandable.

I think Nick btw has accepted your position

Basically unparsimonious wishful thinking is all that's left once you've
admitted, as Mike Gene does, that ID isn't science, that IC systems can
evolve, and that natural selection is an effective design mimic. Basically
all he can do is hide his IDer way back in the origin of life, ignore all
the evidence that even the Last Common Ancestor was the product of a lot of
evolution, and then try a few cheap tricks like asserting that cooption is a
"pure chance" thing (wrong) and therefore taking the massive evidence of
cooption as evidence for his emergency-backup
completely-baffling-how-it-could-possibly-work ID option, front-loading,
instead. I may get up the gumption to slay the slain one more time sometime
this break, but no promises.
Given your interests in the bacterial flagella, and the frequent references
to your work and Behe, and not to mention Dembski, I am not sure why you
object to Nick given reference to your 'status' as an ID proponent.
I am not sure where you are taking this thread.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Nucacids <> wrote:
>  Hi PvM,
> "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."
> Sounds fair to me, but there is one problem – Matzke is unwilling to
> publicly acknowledge such things about me and my position and instead
> insists on using his broad brush to paint me as a creationist.  On Telic
> Thoughts, he once attempted to defend his stereotyping by citing the
> textbook, Pandas.  When I informed him I had nothing to do with the book,
> nor have I ever seen the book, and I clearly did not agree with the book, it
> did not matter to him.  In his mind, he is completely justified in
> stereotyping me because of an obscure book I have never seen or read.
> If I am to be a "prominent ID proponent," then one is ethically obligated
> to acknowledge my views  (since they are the views of a prominent player)
> when making claims about "ID."  Alternatively, one should specify what
> form of ID they are talking about (Demsbki's version, Behe's version, the DI
> version, etc.) when making public claims about ID.
> - Mike
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 21 22:16:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 21 2008 - 22:16:18 EDT