The lingering ID shennanigans perpetrated by ID supporters at the Ohio Board of Education has pulled my attention back to the dimwittery of ID. I briefly posted at Uncommon Descent on a few topics as Reciprocating Bill. Following a series of respectful and carefully articulated posts I joined the ranks of the banned. The discussion concerned the simulation of natural selection by means of computer modeling:
If you’re a computer scientist/engineer, and you have some deep-seated desire to demonstrate that a “Darwinian process” can produce IC, my suspicion is that when the first models don’t produce this IC, that some tweaking takes place. And, after enough trials and tweaking, lo and behold, IC appears (of course, I suspect that their definition of IC and my definition probably won’t be the same). But even conceding that this is “real” IC, it is almost 100% certain that in the “tweaking” that has been done, some kind of information has been snuck in.These same computer scientists/engineers would most presumedly say, “We didn’t do anything of the sort.Reciprocating Bill:
Just so we are clear: You just made all that up.For which I was bannished. Because I was the second or third participant unsympathetic to ID to be disconnected within a few hours, the thread quickly devolved into an echo chamber of ID choir-preaching and DaveScot's unilateral declarations. What else is new?
Yesterday William Dembski at UD committed aggravated unintentional irony by posting on a "Review of Major Symptoms" of "Groupthink," and wondered aloud whether these better described ID or evolutionary science. I was particularly entertained by this:
8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions...For anyone familiar with UD, this stands on its own an needs no comment.