Or, what exactly do you think the Watchtower got right about college professors? A FEW REFERENCES that explain what I mean: 1. Betrayers of the Truth. Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (Broad and Wade) Simon and Schuster. This is the classic book on this topic. 2. The Lecherous Professor; Sexual Harassment on Campus (Dzeich) Beacon Press 3. Poisoned Ivy. (Hart) Stein and Day. I have close to 50 more books on the same topic by major publishers. There is no point in my repeating my experience when it is well documented in the literature. Check the primary sources.
My response to Gerhard Besier
by Jerry Bergman 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Great, a whole weekend and not ONE point raised in my rebutals has been addressed by Jerry It is clear to me that you (as I have found is common among Darwinists) are only interested in putting down a group of people that you do not like and seem to hate (theists) and have no interest in learning from others who hold ideas different from you. I have offered to send you my papers in progress for your feedback (which I have no doubt will be helpful) but have never heard from you. You have no interest in advancing knowledge, only in slamming others. As a Witness I was slammed for years by the "world"and am very tired of this approach and people who respond in this way to those they disagree. No matter what I say and what evidence I present, you will find some way to put me down even though you know virtually nothing about my life and background. I do not want to be around people like that, and have now found a large group of friends (mostly scientists and science college professors) that are supportive and do not spend all their time hurting others, but rather trying to help others. This situation with you is exactly like trying to convince a committed Witness. They are true believers and no amount of information will convince them.
-
Jerry Bergman
PS
Another reason is I am working on a paper about CPU which I will put on this site.
-
Jerry Bergman
A few thoughts. Lynn Margulis (mitochondria), Carl Woese (origins), and Joan Roughgarden
(sexual selection) have all
1) added to scientific knowledge (so far as we know) and;
2) stated that they found Darwinism very unhelpful if not harmful in the process. These folks believe neo-Darwinism is not sufficient. However, on the philosophical point
they are still materialists, i.e., "blind watchmaker" adherents -- they
believe that the introduction of these novel genes was by chance.
To get somewhere in understanding what is going on
in nature, these researchers had to step outside the Darwinian paradigm.
That is bad news for a paradigm.
Darwinism is in danger of ceasing to be "the best idea
anyone ever had" (Dennett). That's because it just isn't giving
ground-level researchers the explanatory power they need.
Here is my question: Is Darwinism slowly being relegated -- in practice
-- to a minor subset of explanations for some changes over time?
Of course, it will be relegated quietly unless someone chooses to draw
attention to the process. Key people have stock in the business, after
all, and they need time to get their assets out.
Meanwhile, good and honest science teachers will be shouting themselves
hoarse at school board meetings in defense of a proposition that
researchers are quietly abandoning, not because of changed religious
beliefs, but so they can get something useful done.
As to the relationship between Darwinism and methodological naturalism,
well, Darwinism is one of MN's showpieces. You can certainly be a
methodological (or metaphysical) naturalist without believing in
Darwinism. But then you must go down the basement and invent another
"universal acid." The amount of time that may take is unforeseeable.
Moreover, at least some of your time must be spent propping up
Darwinism, at least in public.
There is definitely a market out there for a better idea. Whether ID is
the better idea depends on whether it produces fruitful research.
Researchers take their grants and prizes where they find them, I am sure.
Thus, they help the anti-Darwinist slightly by arguing that the
existing mechanistic/ materialistic theory is insufficient, but try to
bolster the pro-Darwinist materialist philosophical program by
providing another mechanism that can by chance and
coincidence explain the complexity of life -- the "apparent design" -- as we
find it today. For example, entirely new proteins and genes can just show
up and work without having to pass gradualistically through the
vast functionless/non-folding space that separates one protein from another
in the neo-Darwinian model. The chance of them "just showing up" at the
right time may be improbably small, but we know it happened since they
are there today! The multiuniverse hypothesis will take care of the underlying
probabilistic difficulties (in some universes they didn't show up at the
right time and biological systems never got so advanced).
To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com
The book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the
Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) was published in the Fall of 2003. -
hurt
Dr. Bergman,
Abaddon has raised some critical issues. You should address them. From what he's written, there's no clear indication that he is bent on putting you down. Perhaps you perceive that to be what others want to do. You can do no better good to your position on the issue than to address his points.
-
Jerry Bergman
OK I will. One at a time. First is the CPU issue. My paper on this is so far 12 pages long.
-
Jerry Bergman
Here are some recommendations which cover the other side (theism): A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000010.html Obsessively Criticized but Scarcely Refuted: A Response to Richard Wein by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000051.html Addicted to Caricatures: A Response to Brian Charlesworth by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000055.html Mike Gene's Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey"
http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/index.html
http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag2/index.html
http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag3/index.html
http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag4/index.html
http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag5/index.html Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000053.html Evolution's Logic of Credulity: An Unfettered Response to Allen Orr by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000046.html Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000025.html Does Evolution Even Have a Mechanism? by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000020.html The Chance of the Gaps by William Dembski
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000013.html Here's another interesting exchange:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000008.html -
Jerry Bergman
So you working on your ninth degree? May I ask from what U? Medical college of Ohio in Toledo (a major state medical school)
-
Abaddon
Jerry; I was very excited when I thought that the long awaitted rebuttal of my response to your argument had been made. I'm very disappointed to find it hasn't.
It is clear to me that you (as I have found is common among Darwinists) are only interested in putting down a group of people that you do not like and seem to hate (theists) and have no interest in learning from others who hold ideas different from you.
Wonderful. Here we get an ideologically based lecture that can be spun on its axis and pointed at creationists with equal if not more validity.
We have the use of loaded language; “Darwinists”.
We have no less than two ad hom arguments, “are only interested in putting down a group of people that you do not like and seem to hate (theists)” and “have no interest in learning from others who hold ideas different from you”.
The ad hom arguments are assumptive and untrue. Is your argument so weak Jerry, that you have to lie about those that disagree with it?
Whilst some people may not like or hate theists, applying that to me is a joke; I love and live with a theist. Many evolutionists believe in god in some way, even if it isn’t in the guise of a creator deity. I have no problem with theists as people, whatever my feeling about the irresolvable nature of god’s existence and the inherent illogic nature of this when viewed with the characteristics of god in mind, as described in certain traditions.
I do have a problem with an overly literalistic interpretation of scripture that seeks to validate the Universe’s origin as it was imagined by a human some thousands of years ago, even if this requires selective vision and brute force. But I don’t even ‘hate’ such people; I’m baffled and bemused by them, yes, but hate? Evidence please.
As for “no interest in learning”, have you any evidence for this claim? I have virtually begged you to respond to questions I have raised regarding your beliefs. If finding fault with your beliefs regarding the origin and development of life, and giving you detailed reasons why I find fault is “no interest in learning”, then you have no interest in learning from me by your own definition.
Shame on you for lying, in a thread where you were trying to prove the opposite was true!
I have offered to send you my papers in progress for your feedback (which I have no doubt will be helpful) but have never heard from you.
I have corrected this omission on my part.
You have no interest in advancing knowledge, only in slamming others.
That's another ad hom. Again, I have to point out I could say this about you with more or equal validity. If you are going to make personal attacks on me, please put more effort into them, as reversible playground taunts are rather dull.
As a Witness I was slammed for years by the "world"and am very tired of this approach and people who respond in this way to those they disagree.
As a side note I see no consideration of why people disagree, it is the act of disagreeing you dislike here.
As a Witness you believed what could be reasonably described as an unsubstantiated load of cobblers. OF COURSE PEOPLE DISAGREED WITH YOU, YOU WERE WRONG! People could PROVE you were wrong then, but it made no difference to your beliefs for a long time, did it?
Now people disagree with you… and maybe, just as you thought you were right as a Witness, you think you are right as a Creationist, and the fact that people can prove your beliefs to be erroneous is having a similar lack of impact on your beliefs? This doesn’t seem to have even occurred to you.
I see a pattern of behaviour. This is no logical fallacy; just as I think you cannot substantiate the lies about me you started off your post with, I feel I can give evidence from your own posts that support my theory. Description of behaviour with proof is not name calling Jerry; you’re the one who has been "name calling" here.
No matter what I say and what evidence I present, you will find some way to put me down even though you know virtually nothing about my life and background.
Is that an ad hom, or a an inductive fallacy? Jerry, what you say and the evidence you present are what I disagree with you about. Your background and life have no bearing on the validity of your argumentation. A fourth logical fallacy.
I do not want to be around people like that, and have now found a large group of friends (mostly scientists and science college professors) that are supportive and do not spend all their time hurting others, but rather trying to help others. This situation with you is exactly like trying to convince a committed Witness. They are true believers and no amount of information will convince them
Like “that?” Like what? I think I’ve shown your characterisations of me are not true, nor are they even pertinent to the argument. Show me otherwise.
All you are saying here is ‘I don’t want to be around people with an imaginary set of attributes I ascribe to them because I cannot make them agree with my opinion’. Fine. Don’t be. Demonise those you disagree with. Seek those who allow you to maintain your worldview if being around people that challenge your worldview distresses you so much you go into cognitive dissonance to cope with it. You used to go to a place like that called a ‘Kingdom Hall’.
This is funny;
They are true believers and no amount of information will convince them
WHAT information? I think I’ve responded to every point you’ve raised, you on the other hand haven’t even dealt with all of the points I raised. Who starts off a thread with an ideological diatribe ascribing false characteristic to me in order to undermine me? You, and that really sounds like a Witness, doesn’t it Jerry?
Address the issues, your personal attacks against me don’t stand up, and completely destroy any moral high ground you might have been attempting to secure, as it seems that you are the liar, in a thread where you said such allegations were unfair and untrue.
Your next post starting “A few thoughts. “ didn’t address one issue I’d raised, as others noted, so I’ll ignore it like a basket of smelly old red herrings. It was followed by one promising some research paper which I await with interest.
Your final post was a collection of links that you yourself describe as “recommendations which cover the other side (theism):”, rather than specific responses to the issues I raised in response to your defence of Creationists.
It is now almost a calendar month since I presented a rebuttal to your claim that Creationists did not deserve the reputation for bad science and lies that they (according to you) had. In that time you’ve;
- Not dealt with one of the issues I raised
- Claimed you would answer them when you has time (unconvincing if you have time to find a 2 year old post and respond to it (in a rather irrelevant fashion))
- Posted general pro-Creationist, ID or theism material and (especially) book reviews rather than respond to specific points
- Lied about me.
You have done more to prove my rebuttal than I could have done! Now, stop shooting yourself in the foot and deal with the issues I raised in response to your original post - which in case you’ve forgotten actually gave an example of a good scientific attitude on a Creationist website along with the examples of;
- Bad science (which you’ve provided more of)
- Lies (which you’ve provided more of)
- Logical fallacies (which you’ve supplied more of)
This is not name calling. I can prove every single one of these points both in general and with regard to you, in the latter example just using posts you’ve made on this board.
I can do no more than say as I did in my first response to you on this thread;
"So, to me, very often the authors of Creationist material only have themselves to blame if their works are doubted or torn apart in review. Bad science is bad science. Lies are lies. Theories that leave out inconvenient data are unreliable. Circular reasoning is circular reasoning."
-
Jerry Bergman
I sat down to respond to some of your material on another thread and the entire thread is gone as is the thread about Lonnig. Where are they? Who do I contact? You better read this before it also disappears. My concern is reviewed below: A new book was based on Forrest's article in Pennock's anthology. Here's a
paragraph from a review in the American Catholic Philosophical
Quarterly.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001. 804 pages. Pb. $45.00. ISBN: 0-262-66124-1.
... If there was any question whether this would be a balanced treatment of
the issues, that doubt is dispelled in the first article. This book is not
designed to engage the opposing side, but rather to put down an insidious
movement.
Just how insidious is shown in Barbara Forrest's historical overview. With
a tone like that of an investigative reporter, Forrest quotes from an
"internal CRSC [Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture] document,
titled 'The Wedge Strategy,' that surfaced from an anonymous source in
March, 1999" [3]. According to this document, the ultimate goal of the
Wedge is to overthrow the naturalistic hegemony and replace with something a
bit more friendly to theists. And like all good revolutionary movements,
Forrest sees this one as having a clear plan. Among other things, "CRSC
creationists have taken the time and trouble to acquire legitimate degrees,
providing them a degree of cover both while they are students and after they
join university faculties" [38], implying that people join the ID movement
and only then decide to get their doctorates as a means for advancing their
sinister Wedge Strategy. Just like modern terrorists, their M.O. is to
"blend more smoothly into the academic population" [39]. There is no
biographical information to support these claims, but shadowy figures like
these are just the kind of extremists who would do something like that.
Forrest's goal is to reveal the "deep" motives behind ID, all in a
what-they-don't-want-you-to-know tone. And a researcher added: I know you asked for a private reply, but what I have to say does not
concern the authenticity of these claims. Rather, it concerns the sort
of tactic apparently engaged in by these authors (assuming this
publisher's description is accurate). It is a tactic mastered quite
proficiently by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Instead of
engaging the case for an increased welfare state, McCarthy and his
allies sought to link those who held this position with "communists."
(For the record, I'm not a big fan of the welfare state and believe
that the allocating of social goods is best done on the local level;
however, I don't think liberals are communists). Having said that, I
believe that we should call the Forrest/Gross approach by its real
name: guilt-by-association McCarthyism. It is a despicable tactic that
does no intellectual work whatsoever in refuting any position on
origins, whether it is ID, creationism, or evolution in any of its
forms.
The AAAS, for example, is a pressure group that releases press
statements, hires lobbyists, and offers public commentary on a whole
array of issues including intelligent design. And yet, if I were to say
that the AAAS comments on these matters ought to be dismissed because
the AAAS constitutes a "pressure group with a materialist agenda rather
than a group of scientists with common interests holding up one side of
an ongoing debate within science," any thoughtful person would
recognize that my observation, even if accurate, has no bearing on the
plausibility of the positions offered by the AAAS.
Although you may be right that "silence gives consent," the ad hominem
fallacy--no matter in how high-minded a disguise it is offered--is
still a fallacy. (Forrest, a philosopher, knows that, and thus her use
of it is particularly egregious). One way to combat this is for some
of us--especially those who are not public on their ID sympathies--to
offer to review the book for leading periodicals. The book, of course,
may be more fair-minded than its description let's on. And if so, then
it should be reviewed in the spirit in which it is offered. But if it
is not fair-minded, and employs the ad hominem and other disreputable
tactics with relentless promiscuity, then it and its authors should
suffer the painful fate such illegitimate tomes deserve.