Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Uncommon Dissent

An interesting event occurred at William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent. I was banned! (Dembski is supposedly one of the leading Intelligent Design "theoreticians".)

The moderator of Uncommon Descent is DaveScot (who claims a genius IQ). He made a series of misstatements (see comments). He apparently highly resents being corrected. He likes to ridicule people who disagree with him — no matter how valid and reasonable their criticism might be. (I try to abide by these rules when commenting on blogs.)

I checked the moderation policy, and yes indeed, "ID-critics" are not welcome. Apparently, Intelligent Design doesn't hold up well under close examination. DaveScot would even inject pointed questions into my comments, then 'neglect' to post the response.

I found the situation rather amusing, but it wasn't of any major concern because most of the posts on Uncommon Descent lack substance and are unlikely to convince any general readers, and because DaveScot's behavior clearly undermined whatever influence he might have had.

Or in the words of DaveScot, "What’s the matter [church burnin’ ebola] boys, cat got your tongues?" I suppose I didn't measure up to the level of discourse required.

The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara.Addendum: Apparently DaveScot has been banned from Panda's Thumb for threatening to hack the site and for using another person's nym. That might explain his bitterness.

Labels:

23 Comments:

At 6/29/2006 9:21 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

This is a summary of all the threads I have contributed to on Uncommon Descent. Even if you disagree with my position, I believe I have stayed relatively on-topic and made valid points in the hopes of advancing the discussion or correction misstatements.

New Evidence Supports Natural Selection
DaveScot waved away new evidence of natural selection's role in speciation.

The argument from incredulity vs. The argument from gullibility
Tried to argue that plants use a majority of the available solar energy (they only use ~45%), but ended up just talking sideways on the issue by constantly referring to "visible light" while claiming I was confused on the issue. He also incorrectly stated that plants do not utilize any green light, which is incorrect, as carotenes transfer a significant amount of this energy.

Perform Your Own Darwinian Evolution Experiments At Home!
Conflated mutation (which occurs in individuals) with evolution (which occurs in populations).

Haldane’s Dilemma and peer-review
Handwaving. Basically ignored my point.

Evolution as Alchemy
Defending a bad analogy.

Glen Davidson - Candidate for Stupid Question of the Year
Stated "gravity is the strongest force in nature," then attempted to support this assertion by quoting a scientist out of context.

--

Incredibly, this is the post which got me banned.

Michael Shermer Admits Science Is Religion To Him
Falsely claimed that Scientific American is a "hard science journal".

 
At 6/29/2006 11:45 AM , Blogger Doppelganger said...

As one of the people that the misanthrope attempted to impersonate at PT, I find him a most unappealing fellow.

What is more is that he was accusing me of being "Great White Wonder", which I was not, am not, and have never been. In fact, he still believes this. Because he is so delusional and cannot acept being wrong, I suspect.

The odd thing was, I had not even posted at PT for several months when out of the blue, Springer brings up my name, hurling all manner of accusations and disconcerting statements, such as contacting my employer/colleagues.

I wonder how the folks that serve with him on his neighborhood association would feel about the fact that so ornery, angry, confrontational, bombastic, obnoxious, a dullard lives amongst them.

Not that I would alert them - I am not that sleazy or cowardly.

 
At 7/02/2006 6:45 PM , Blogger Alan Fox said...

Join the club, Sir. You have discovered David Springer is not a gentleman, but is, in fact, a psychopath. Losing Dover has made the ID camp very defensive. It is a compliment to be banned at UD: being on-topic and polite is not the issue, pointing out the obvious flaws in their "scientific" position means you're oughta here.-dt.

I have enjoyed your incisive posts at ISCID immensely. Do you ever visit PT or ATbC (espescially the Uncommonly Dense thread, of which Dave Sprnger is an avid reader)? A warm welcome awaits.

 
At 7/02/2006 6:48 PM , Blogger Alan Fox said...

'xcuse typo

You're outta here -dt.

 
At 7/03/2006 8:44 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

alan fox: "Do you ever visit PT or ATbC (espescially the Uncommonly Dense thread, of which Dave Sprnger is an avid reader)? A warm welcome awaits."

Yes, I do; but mostly as a lurker.

I do feel welcome. Thanks.

 
At 7/03/2006 9:20 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

By the way, the circumstance of my banning at Uncommon Descent more than made the point concerning the validity of their claims.

 
At 7/13/2006 12:23 PM , Blogger Darwin said...

Nice to know I'm in good company. I got banned at pretty much the same time -- or at least I assumed I was. My comments simply stopped appearing, and a after a while I gave up.

I guess you have to police the opposition pretty hard when you're obviously wrong most of the time. :-)

 
At 7/15/2006 8:54 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

darwin: " My comments simply stopped appearing, and a after a while I gave up."

Mine would show sometimes, and not other times. I found it very difficult to sustain an argument that way. Somehow, I don't think that's a coincidence.

 
At 7/21/2006 5:38 PM , Blogger Zachriel said...

Ironically, DaveScot is no longer moderator at Uncommon Design. I guess DaveScot's plea that I leave him alone is no longer operative either.

 
At 8/23/2006 7:04 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

Posted on Uncommon Descent.

William Dembski: "If the evidence for Darwinian theory were so great, why keep slamming ID? Just present it!"

Interesting challenge considering that the vast majority of my comments never appear on your blog. Present the challenge, then suppress or seriously delay the response. Quite revealing.

Clogging

 
At 8/31/2006 2:03 PM , Blogger Zachriel said...

Hey, I've been banned again! (I didn't know that DaveScot had been reinstated.) This time DaveScot banned me because I argued that the arm is a biological equivalent of a sling (as in slinging mud or rocks).

It started with trrll stating the "The information of how to build an eye is encoded in the fundamental laws of optics and chemistry". (I don't actually agree with this statement.) But then DaveScot said, "The laws of physics, according to your logic, must also encode slings and arrows which are far less complicated than camera eyes," to which trrll rightly replied, "I’ve got a built-in sling. It’s called an arm." (An artificial sling extends the arm's natural reach.) Other examples in biology of hurling projectiles were also provided.

So banned again. This only hurts whatever credibility that Uncommon may have to open and honest debate.

 
At 9/18/2006 7:54 PM , Blogger Steve said...

Well, I know I'm a bit late to the party, but just wanted to add that I too think DaveScot is twisted little lickspittle sycophant who is about as dumb as a slug.

 
At 9/20/2006 5:07 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. "

- Winston Churchill

Here is what everyone should learn when posting in this doubtful kind of "discussion boards". Pseudo-science will always be present, and so long as it don't takes the government or conquer the hearts of the people there is nothing to worry about it.

 
At 9/21/2006 7:47 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

DaveScot has banned Alan Fox for having the temerity to contact the evolutionary biologist, Loren Rieseberg, whom DaveScot cited. Apparently, Alan used the term "evolution" to refer to the Theory of Evolution. DaveScot claims he doesn't dispute "evolution", so his conflation allows him to accuse Alan of dishonesty. In fact, Alan provided a link to the discussion for Rieseberg, and Rieseberg responded directly to the point about Natural Selection and parallel evolution.

Then DaveScot wrote a very misleading and embarrassing note to Rieseberg claiming he doesn't dispute "evolution", but only the very limited role of chance. What he means, of course, is an Intelligent Designer is involved, something he neglects to mention.

Very sad. It speaks volumes about DaveScot and Uncommon Descent.

 
At 9/21/2006 7:48 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

It's pretty funny. It's like they started the clock over again at Uncommon Descent and are recycling the same debunked arguments now that everyone's been banned.

Heh, heh.

 
At 9/23/2006 5:21 PM , Blogger Alan Fox said...

It's pretty funny. It's like they started the clock over again at Uncommon Descent and are recycling the same debunked arguments now that everyone's been banned.

Too bad for them they can't recycle Kitzmiller. I'd hate to have the job af ID's head strategist. :p

 
At 10/10/2006 6:13 PM , Blogger biomimetic said...

Hey Zachriel,

I found this by lurking around the Uncommonly Dense discussion thread. You were one of 2 or 3 guys over at "intelligent reasoning" trying to talk sense into joe g (in vain).

I gave up on it. I would post a comment, he would reply, I would reply, but then the last reply would never show up. The last example of this was something about "the requirements for life" and something to do with God's expert bowling skills to make the Earth's moon or something like that. I had a pretty long response detailing all the hypothetical places life could exist including non-rotating planets around red dwarf stars or moons around Jupiter-sized planets. I even corrected some of his myopic opinions of the way the moon had to be the result of a 'perfect' strike in just the right place, etc. Anyway, that one never showed up, so I stopped going there. His blog was the same thing posted over and over with different wording. I don't know why you even bothered (or still bother) with that guy. He's hopeless.

 
At 10/17/2006 2:19 AM , Blogger Advocatus Diaboli said...

Hey, you just got banned from OverwhelmingEvidence.com. I'm still there, but the threat of being blocked looms ever closer.


Advocatus Diaboli aka Kelloseppa

 
At 11/25/2006 8:18 AM , Blogger Zachriel said...

Great news! I've been banned again by Uncommon Descent. This time for posting on another blog entirely. Incredible.

The moderator (DaveScot) allowed a long string of derogatory comments accusing a Cornell teacher of biology of lying. This accusation was unfair and decidedly off-topic. I posted my off-topic comments on a site dedicated to observing Uncommon Descent — one that I know the moderators of Uncommon Descent do read.

Proudly banned three times by Uncommon Descent. How many times have you been banned?

 
At 12/06/2006 11:08 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well! It looks like I am in good company, having been banned. The thread that I was responding to continued the discussion of the Templeton Foundation (I guess I wasn't fast enough with additional links to suit DaveScot. I'm still not convinced he's right about this-it sounds like sour grapes to me. (afterall, I don't know many foundations that pester groups to submit proposals-most don't solicit at all) KL

 
At 12/28/2006 11:17 AM , Blogger Oldcola said...

A bit of advertising: if you want your comments "attached" to UD posts, in an indirect way (that will suit people banned from UD) you may try commondescent.
Not very active but quite open.

 
At 12/30/2006 7:31 AM , Blogger Alan Fox said...

Hi Zachriel

I set up a thread for you and Joe Gallien to enable you to "talk" directly if you wish. I posted an invitation to Joe and I this is to extend you the same invitation.

Alan

 
At 1/10/2009 5:33 PM , Blogger William Wallace said...

Sad you were also banned from Telic thoughts too. I've been banned from PT and PZ's blog as well. Seems that both sides are more interested in preaching to the choir than using discourse to illuminate truth.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home