|
Author
|
Topic: Darwinism as Delusion (response to Richard Dawkins by John Davison)
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. November 2006 10:31
I have hurled invective at no one, not here, not at Uncommon Descent, not at any other place where I have posted. I have simply taken exception to the pontifications of those who would block my comments and then ban me because I complained about it in a private email. Poor sensitive DaveScot, the biggest bully in cyberspace, had to ban me because I personally and privately complained to him about his tactics. Well think about it folks. He sure read that email from me didn't he? That is the reason (he claims) that he banned me. I will let others draw their own conclusions concerning his candor about blocking any messages from me. The facts speak for themselves. If Dembski and company refuse to readmit me to defend my own papers, let this record speak loud and clear to that result. I am sick and tired of being kicked around by a bunch of egomaniacal arrogant ideologues who are so insecure that they cannot deal with their critics openly, honestly and without deceit.
DaveScot's record is transparent and I thank him for making it possible for me to expose it right here for all to see and appreciate. He banned me (again) for one reason only. I had taken exception to the substance of one of his comments. He never even allowed it to appear. That is all it takes at Uncommon Descent. The man is a bully.
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein
I am much too old to take any more abuse from those who must resort to such tactics.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution udemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 09. November 2006, 23:06: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. November 2006 19:33
Imagine this if you can folks.
There have now been 50 messages posted on the thread dealing with my papers over at Uncommon Descent, the last one today by DaveScot, yet the author of those papers is still denied any opportunity to respond to what is offered there. That is the state to which that forum has been reduced. I ask others to put themselves in my position and wonder why I might be somewhat disillusioned with such a forum and the manner in which it is managed, apparently solely by DaveScot.
Who do "these people" think they are? I say "these people" with the clear understanding that there is only one person responsible for the conduct of Uncommon Descent. That person is William Dembski. I hold him directly responsible for the high-handed tactics employed by his personally appointed blog czar, David Springer, aka DaveScot. This man has no business "moderating" anything anywhere at any time. He is a callous, self-centered brutal opportunist who will go to any length to establish his command of every situation in which he is involved. I ask William Dembski to rid himself of this creature. He is a blight upon any form of real intellectual dialogue and a disgrace to Uncommon Descent or any other forum.
It is a sad day when I have to reach such a conclusion but Springer's most recent treatment of me and others as well leaves me with no other recourse.
I realize that William Dembski has played an important role in the establishment of Uncommon Descent, this forum, "brainstorms," as well as Discovery Institute, ID The Future and other organs for the promotion of the objective discussion of our origins, the most important unsolved problem in all of biological science. Nevertheless, to allow and thereby promote that enterprise to be reduced to its present level constitutes a blight upon the face of constructive intercourse. I will hold William Dembski solely responsible if this sad situation is allowed to continue and will respond in whatever venues are available including the refereed literature. I also request that my posting privileges be restored without qualification. If that is impossible so advise me by email.
The notion that a published scientist cannot be part of a discussion of his own papers is unthinkable, yet that is exactly what the present situation involves. It is unacceptable by any standard.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. November 2006 05:47
DaveScot has now closed all comments on my papers. And Common Descent is a forum?
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. November 2006 18:21
All I can say about Uncommon Descent is what I said over at Dawkins' blog and for exactly the same reasons -
"It doesn't get any better than this."
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. November 2006, 18:43: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. November 2006 07:08
This is just for the record. Not only have all comments been closed on my papers, all the 50 or so that had been posted have been purged from the archives at Uncommon Descent so there is no record that they were ever presented. This is reminiscent of when Springer, on an earlier occasion, purged all my papers from the record. Indeed the major reason I returned to Uncommon Descent was to see them restored but to what end? Frankly, I am surprised he hasn't purged all my papers once again from the record.
Also I have received no acknowedgement of the requests I made in my earlier comment on November 9. Just as I and my sources do not exist in the Darwinian camp, so now we don't exist in the anti-Darwinian camp either. It is very revealing of the insecurity of both factions. I will allow others to draw their own conclusions. I drew mine long ago.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 12. November 2006 07:27
Of course there's no invective in any of the above, right John? LOL
Here's the deal. Regardless of the content of your professional writing you are an unmitigated ass in less formal venues like blog commentary. While that might be acceptable in some blogs Uncommon Descent isn't one of those.
Here are your options.
1) your papers will remain there for reference purposes but you will not be allowed to add commentary
2) your papers will be removed and you will still not be allowed to add commentary
Pick one.
P.S. I corrected the lack of italics and emphasis on the Darwinian Delusion Paper.
P.P.S. Comments are only closed on the collection article. I closed them because they wandered far afield. Comments are open under all the individual papers.
P.P.P.S. You're right, I didn't introduce the newest paper in a topmost article. My largesse isn't without limits. I'd tell you to count your blessings but you never have and never will so that would be pointless. GFY.
[ 12. November 2006, 07:47: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. November 2006 13:15
David Springer aka DaveScot and many other aliases as well, Dembki's personally appointed blog czar and "roving ambassador of good will."
Thank you for the vintage Springer response, condescending, insulting, threatening and generally uncivilized. I especially savored "unmitigated ass."
It is not I who has the options. It is the membership of every internet forum and their leaders who have to stoop to bannishment and purging in order to maintain their status. That is the case with Elsberry's "Panda's Thumb," P.Z. Meyers'"Pharyngula", ARN, EvC, Dawkins' new blog and now once again Dembski's Uncommon Descent. They have already expressed their options and must now live with them as they are a matter of record.
These forums all are little more than fan clubs for their self-appointed leaders whose sole purpose in life is to establish their particular brand of intellectual hegemony over all others. Some of them even have their personally appointed lieutenants who sally forth to discredit anyone who might take exception with their leaders and their cronies. Panda's Thumb has Alan Fox and Uncommon Descent has David Springer, the biggest bully in all of cyberdom whose knee jerk reaction to any form of criticism is instantaneous bannishment and rampant denigration wherever he must go to express it. He has once again demonstrated that for all to see and I am very pleased to have been the one to evoke it. Both he and Fox have visited "brainstorms" before with exactly the same purposes that Springer expresses here once again. It is to discredit me at any cost. You were both soundly castigated for your behavior then and it was not by me.
What is so revealing about this sort of thing is that every paper I have ever published pleads loud and clear for Intelligent Design yet I am anathema to the acknowledged leader of the so called "Intelligent Design movement." I submit that the reason for this is purely personal, based on a fundamental insecurity concerning his own position. Dembski to this day has never mentioned my name even though I was publishing evidence for Intelligent Design when he was in high school. Even Springer once admitted "that is weird."
Well it is certainly understood by me. It is because I am without ideology, being neither Christian nor atheist yet a convinced creationist nevertheless. Anyone who can deny a role for one or more past intelligences far beyond our powers of comprehension is living in a fantasy world, probably of their own personal construction. Dawkins is the perfect example. So too are those that attempt to force reality into the framework of Christian fundamentalism or any other form of religious dogma. Dembski belongs to the latter faction.
Since Springer came here to offer me options which I find laughable, I now give him free reign to do what ever he chooses with my many years of published scientiifc research. Wipe them once again from the annals of Uncommon Descent if that will give you pleasure. I couldn't care less what you do as I have lost all respect for you and all others like you that litter the internet with their hateful and personally directed invective. You all describe yourselves perfectly through your methods as do those who grant you those powers. It is gloriously revealing and personally satisfying for me to witness these responses to a published scientist whose only goal was to discover and disseminate the truth. So do whatever you feel compelled to do Springer, but remember - it is you not I who has always been on trial. Your threats fall on deaf ears. You once again bore me to tears with your pontifications and threats. Enjoy.
I love it so!
The one thing that distinguishes "brainstorms" from all of the other forums with which I am familiar is that it has managed somehow to remain free of dominance by any particular faction, "groupthink" or individual ideology. It is a rare virtue and is probably the primary reason I am still allowed to present my evolutionary theses here. I am grateful and I hope that it never loses that precious and rare characteristic.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. November 2006 17:29
Please note Springer's terminal -
GFY
That is the mark of a real gentleman.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. November 2006 18:24
Incidentally, Denyse O'Leary, the third member of the Uncommon Descent triumvirate has now banned me from even viewing the comments at her new blog -
mindfulhack.blogspot.com/
It doesn't get any better than this.
It looks like the last internet refuge for rational discussion is right here at "brainstorms."
Praise the Lord for peer reviewed journals. The internet has become a published scientist's nightmare! The only reason I engage here in cyberspace is because the "professionals" are scared to death of me and especially of my many sources, some of the finest biologists of two centuries, not a religuous fanatic or a Darwinian mystic in the lot.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. November 2006 10:08
My position in the question of our origins has reached what for me has become a crisis. I have been rejected and treated with condescending contempt by virtually all factions in a debate that should never have taken place. When I am debased as Springer has so recently done here once again, it is not I alone but some of the finest minds of the past two centuries that are treated with contempt. Furthermore, I was publishing hard evidence for "Intelligent Design" before the so-called "ID Movement" was even conceived.
Springer, in his most recent tirade against me has, in his usual arrogant manner, informed me of my options, none of them acceptable or even conceivable coming from a so-called "moderator," the personally appointed blogczar of William Dembski's Uncommon Descent.
I intend to do an experiment here because that is the only way a scientist can be certain of the significance of his assumption. My assumption is that David Springer is now in complete control of Uncommon Descent and that both O'Leary and Dembski are mere figureheads (literally) who have willingly ceded control of their venue to David Springer, widely recognized as the biggest bully in cyberspace.
Incidentally, O'Leary, after allowing one perfectly innocuous comment from me at her new blog, has now banned me from any further commentary including the capacity to view even my own comment or those of anyone else.
Here is the experiment which I am offering to test my assumption. If it is true that control of Uncommon descent now resides solely with David Springer, then he will not hesitate to repeat what he has already done once before and he will, in one of his typical fits of uncontrolled pique, purge all my papers from the archives of Uncommon Descent. He has already presented that "option" to me publicly right here at "brainstorms" as this thread testifies.
If that should occur, my assumption will be verified and I will be prepared to then proceed accordingly. The significace of my experiment is summarized in three words -
Know your enemy.
Prove, David Springer, for all to see, who is really in control of Uncommon Descent. I am sure others would also like to know.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
[ 15. November 2006, 03:48: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. November 2006 10:23
Since Springer was so kind as to tell me what "my options are," I will now respond by telling the Triumvirate of Springer, Dembski and O'Leary now governing Uncommon Descent what their only option is. They have only one. They either get rid of Springer and reinstate me with full posting capacity so I can defend my several publications openly and without restraint or they will immediately for the second time again purge my several papers from the archives of Uncommon Descent. I have no intention of being subjected to any more abuse or ideological discrimination by the leadership of Uncommon Descent and do not choose to have my scholarship associated in any form with that institution. I regard Uncommon Descent in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as I regard Panda's Thumb - with consummate disgust. I hope all three of you have the courage to explain exactly why I have offered this option so that your many loyal followers have a complete understanding of my position. The ball is in your court which is where it has always been.
"War, God help me, I love it so!"
General George S. Patton
"You ain't heard nothin'yet."
Al Jolson
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 15. November 2006 13:17
John Davison,
I have honored your decision to choose the second of the two options I offered. Your papers are no longer on display at Uncommon Descent. Let me know if you change your mind. This time I did it in such a way that they can be restored with little effort. I doubt you'll be getting any response from Dembski or O'Leary as I suspect the presence of those papers was a minor irritant to them in the first place. The fit of pique, as you like to call it, is all yours this time.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. November 2006 14:27
Trust me Uncommon Descent and I are through.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. November 2006 14:35
Do I understand that you acted independently and without consulting the nominal sponsors of Uncommon Descent, William Dembski and Denyse O'Leary?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic