A reply to Benjamin C. of post #211:
>> Marc Witt – [sic]
Frequently, people do inadvertently misspell my name. I will give it here for the record: Mark Edwin Witt, IV. However, I feel that the IV is a pretentious affectation of a by-gone era and choose to leave it off.
>> Define post-objectification.
That is easy to accomplish. Post-objectification relates to the ontology of Darwinian reality as a basis of Darwinian epistemology. Instead of taking Bayes' theorem as a sensible starting point and taking the standard, a priori approach to Inductive Logic that any rational person would take, Neo-Darwinians insist on an [unbelievably naive!] a posteriori approach to Inductive Logic, and, in so doing, explicitly post-objectify their theories. This just cannot be helped if they chose to remain willfully ignorant of this classical philosophical problem; even Kant could not surmount this as was implied as an underlying theme in his "Critique of Pure Reason" (I. Kant, 1781).
Another group that is quite blatantly guilty of post-objectification is the group of adherents to M. M. Bakhtin's (possibly one of your countrymen if I read your background properly) theory of literary criticism. Please do note that from like comes like as is evidenced in the Darwinian Literary Studies of Boyd, Carroll, Cooke, Gottschall et al.
>> What are the “neo-Darwinian post-objectivist theories”?
As noted above, all present Neo-Darwinian theories are explicitly post-objectified due to the flawed logic that is evidenced in this post.
>> Define triple-point states and multiple-point state of evolution.
Triple-point states of evolution are specific instances of multiple-point evolution in which the genes are purely intra-telomerically distributed; hence the description as a triple-point state -i.e., telomer, centromer, telomer. Multiple-point states of evolution are less well known and virtually unappreciated by the Neo-Darwinians - they typically involve simultaneous extra-telomeric distribution of genes. Either way, only ID can explain the fine boundary between that which is intra-telomeric and that which is extra-telomeric.
>> Show examples of “academic suppression of (by?) (sic)
>> Big Science”, other than the Discovery Institute’s
>> poster children (i.e. Meyers, von Sternberg,
>> Gonzalez, Crocker, et al).
Come now, the classic case in the mid-90's of Michael Udall Derbyshire, a promising researcher in Dawkins' own department no less, should be more than enough warning against the academic suppression of Big Science! That poor man lost his position, his home, his wife, his children and was driven to commit suicide due to academic suppression in its most vile form. Even now, ironically so if you are so cold-hearted, this item is suppressed by this very department. May Mr. Derbyshire rest in peace. (For further information, just contact the Dawkins Foundation, http://www.richarddawkinsfounda
>> What is the Institute of Theory?
The Institute of Theory is a privately-funded enterprise that was founded to ardently explore new ID-centric theories of life and debunk the NDPO (Neo-Darwinian Post-Objectivist) theories. For the first five years of this mission, we have been granted a very tidy sum as development and research capital. Indeed, it is expected that this enterprise will spark a subsequent generation of development. We stand proudly in the reflected glory of that bastion of freedom, the Discovery Institute - though admittedly they may not yet be acquainted with us. Someday, we hope to doggedly work with them united in this struggle for the freedom of suppressed ideas.
>> You said – “No doubt your next attempt to enhance your
>> standing and to promote your argument will begin by
>> silencing me and the Institute of Theory!”
Of course, this is the standard model of human behavior - no offense to you is meant. One always attacks that which one is ill-equipped to understand - if nothing else, this fact should be quite clear by tracing the above postings to this point.
>> ………What makes you think that I give a rats’ ass about
>> you and the “Institute of Theory”?
Ultimately, it will be necessary for the neo-Darwinians to assimilate to reality. That is why you should care. Though ID's proponents may be loquacious (as am I), (and possibly a bit tiresome on their points), it is truly hopeless for the Neo-Darwinians to resist. One should remember the aphorism "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Unity is good for the collective.
>> You go on- “Big Science can barely contain itself in
>> its irrational attempt to foist itself on school
>> children: it begins with numbers and counting” “see
>> Numbers 1:4-14 or Numbers 3:14-15”
You must admit that Lord's way is, indeed, transcendental - it is as clear as day in Numbers. Just read it and allow the simple truth to guide your mind. The truth is always counts. The Neo-Darwinians should leave the school children alone, or, at least, should give them the choice to stand with the Lord and affirm or deny the validity of any counter-evolutionary arguments like multiple-point evolution. Freedom is not such a stringent demand!
>> ………Now you go from being merely kooky, to certifiable
>> crazy! What in the world do the twelve tribes of
>> Israel have to do with anything here?
Now, now, I have tried to be nice. Ok, maybe I concentrate too much on Numbers, but, if Genesis is also read, you will find the answers in Genesis for sure.
>> DELETED!!
Try to be civil.
>> Benjamin C. Boris-Natashia
>> (Provisional Grand Poobah)
>> Villains, Thieves and Scoundrels Union
>> Local 12
At least, be honest. It would be better if you called yourself Benjamin Boris C. Natashovich if you do not desire to be totally transparent!! I will play along with you, but only so far, Sir!
Good Day!
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No comments:
Post a Comment