Getting bent out of shape over scientific evidence that “intelligent cause” may be closer to the truth....
[cursing myself for even asking, but] What is the scientific evidence that ID is closer to the truth? The unfinished, unpublished, uncited, unreviewed, and largely unreadable paper+computer program that you wrote? Which is just a prime example of you quoting yourself to make your point.
This is a summary of Gary's science:
Q: Where did you get your definition of intelligence?
A: I made it up.
Q: Why didn't you use an existing definition of intelligence?
A: They were insufficient.
A: They didn't support my conclusion.
Q: Why don't you discuss other definitions of intelligence to demonstrate why they are insufficient?
A: If people want to know that, they can look it up themselves.
Q: Normally, a research paper cites all their sources, why didn't you?
A: Its unreasonable to ask me to cite every source. You're just trying to sandbag scientific progress.
Q: Can I assume its been published and properly vetted by the science community?
Q: Which journal?
A: planet-source-code.com - Its currently rated "5 globes" by the REAL science community.
Q: planet source code.... dot com?
A: DAMMIT!!! Some jerk just rated it "1 globe" and tanked my ratings. I am so sick and tired of getting kicked in the teeth by these bullies!
Q: Um... planet source code dot com is not a scientific journal. How do you know the anonymous users are who you think they are?
A: There are lots of REAL scientists using and supporting my work.
A: I'm not telling.
A: I must protect them from getting "1 globed," too.
Q: I don't think that will happen.. Science isn't judged based on an anonymous globe ranking system.
A: What? Without anonymous rankings, how does anyone know if its good science or not? <shrugs>
Q: Uh... anyways... your work seems to be about an intelligently programmed genome. What is your background in genetics?
A: I took a number of baby-sitting and cooking classes in high school. Then there was that 70's era hobby robotics book I read.
[Seriously, go read the bees and brains thread]
Q: Where do you currently do your research?
A: On the library computer. There is no pay wall for PNAS papers. Or TED talks.
Q: Do you do any lab research at all?
A: You know, its unreasonable to ask scientists to have the money to afford lab equipment or lab time.
Q: What exactly is the evidence to support your ideas, then?
A: Well, a lot of abstracts I read use the circuit analogy to describe a genome. And e. coli bacteria communicate via "communication molecules" - that's a technical term by the way. Baking soda and vinegar react in a predictable manner. Computer programs act in a predictable manner, too. Lightning storms often occur during volcanic eruptions - I have picture around here some place. And.. um... Well Betty Boop is cute and people wear bright feathery hats as an expression of self-identity. And what else ... Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
[Seriously, go read his theory]
A: Yeah, its impressive. I'm on the edge of some real breakthroughs and I hope to have it in K-12 classrooms soon. But thats only if the anti-science bullies who force me to post my work on internet forums and then answer their questions will ever leave me alone. Galileo and Darwin never had it so rough.
Q: Anything else?
A: Yeah I wrote a VB program that has successfully demonstrates molecular intelligence in a bee's eye.
Q: Really... Does your program use actual biological/genetic data? What species of bee? What specific genes control the bee eye characteristics that you are modeling? Does your program closely predict the genetic variance found within the actual bee population?
A: Look, I am so sick of you religious bullies pushing me around. A PC can't be expected to handle all that information, especially when we don't fully understand how it all works.
Q: But how can you demonstrate molecular intelligence in a bee's eye if you admit that you can't identify which genes interact and how?
A: Save your grand speeches for the clubhouse awards ceremony for the brown-noser of the year award.
[thats a direct quote]
Q: Okay then. Thanks for the interview.
A: No, thank YOU. Call me.