Nick Matzke posted Entry 1016 on May 7, 2005 03:06 PM.
Trackback URL: http://degas.fdisk.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1014

http://www.kangaroocourt.com/KC-logo-new.jpgJust about the most common words that come out of the mouths of “intelligent design” proponents are “We’re not creationists!” 

Why, then, has everyone that has testified so far in Kansas Kangaroo Court (see roundups by the Red State Rabble and Pharyngula) conceded that they think that humans do not share common ancestry with apes, in opposition to the scientific consensus and in flagrant contradiction of the actual scientific evidence?

Red State Rabble reports for us this morning (May 7, 2005):

The Score Card So Far

During cross-examination, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray has forced each intelligent design witness to go on record about their opinion on the age of the earth, common descent, and whether human beings have evolved from pre-hominids.

So far, not one witness has said they believe the evidence supports a belief that all living things share a common ancestor or that they believe that human have evolved from pre-hominids.

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

If a mix of old-earth and young-earth special creationists is the best that Discovery Institute and the Kansas Intelligent Design Network can come up with to support “critical analysis of evolution,” they are going to get a lot less mileage out of these hearings than they hoped. 

This is actually surprising to me.  Based on the existence of Michael Behe, I inferred that there must be a few other people in the ID movement that kinda-sorta accepted the overwhelming evidence for the common descent of humans and apes.  It’s been very hard to tell, because ID people are usually very reluctant to say what, exactly, their actual views are.  But now we have all of these guys on the record.

After the first few hours on Day 1, most of the media seems to have concluded that the Kangaroo Court really was a creationist-inspired farce from start to finish, so they got their video clips and left.  However, a few intrepid newspaper reporters sucked it up and sat through the tedium (“Evolution doesn’t work because [insert long-refuted dumb creationist argument]”), running out to file stories when creationist witnesses or creationist Board of Education members said something particularly revealing, such as the fact that many of the creationists had not even read the mainstream science standards draft they were criticizing.  One creationist board member said, apparently in attempted self-defense, that she only skims over the technical stuff in the draft science standards.

The best short summary I’ve seen, from MSNBC:

“They’re creationists first and scientists second,” Robert Bowden, a Kansas State University plant pathologist, said after Friday’s hearing.

Leading IDist William Dembski seems rather rueful about the way the Kangaroo Court hearings are playing out (Why wasn’t he a witness, by the way?  Afraid of cross-examination?).  He just said on his blog:

“The hearings were intended to allow both evolutionists as well as critics of evolution to have their say, but the evolutionists decided to boycott the event, so only the critics of evolution are having their say. But there’s an added twist: given the way the hearings are set up, an evolutionist lawyer (Pedro Irigonegaray) gets to interrogate the evolution critics and an evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert) gets to interrogate the evolutionists. Yet given that the evolutionists are boycotting the event, only the evolution critics are being interrogated.”

(William Dembski, 5/7/05)

Everyone please get out their violins for the poor, oppressed critics of evolution.  It is now the fault of the dogmatic Darwinist conspiracy that the Kansas Board of Education brought 20-some creationists to Kansas to testify in favor of the Intelligent Design Network’s 20-some pages of revisions to the state science standards.

I have recently decided that wishful thinking is probably a core feature of ID promoters.  This applies widely to their whole approach to scientific evidence, but it also applies to their political goals.  I think the IDists really thought that the Kansas evolution hearings really would be the Waterloo for evolution — finally those evil evolutionists would be exposed as frauds on national TV, evolution would be overturned, and cultural renewal would begin.  Just last week, Dembski stated flat out, right there on his blog, “Kansas may well turn out to be the Waterloo for America’s evolution vendors.”

But now that it appears that yet another Waterloo for evolution isn’t going quite the way that Dembski hoped, he has changed his tune.  We now have more wishful thinking about the future.  From the conclusion of Dembski’s post today:

“I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”

(William Dembski, 5/7/05)

That’s when the evolutionists will have their Waterloo!  As stated in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy in various places: “They’ll be the first ones with their backs against the wall When the Revolution Comes…”

PS: The fact that the Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division is busy attempting to rebut journalists is another indication that they are not getting the result they wanted from these hearings.

Comment #28867

Posted by steve on May 7, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

I was shocked to find out there’s a jury for this show trial. What exactly is the jury charged with determining?

Comment #28868

Posted by steve on May 7, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)

Dembski stated flat out, right there on his blog, “Kansas may well turn out to be the Waterloo for America’s [scientists].”

A mere typo. Turns out, Kansas is a water loo for America’s [scientists]

Comment #28869

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

It seems this has completely backfired on the ID movement and really has made them look like a complete farce to the entire country.

This is very amusing indeed.

Comment #28870

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 7, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

Great summary, Nick. And the graphic is PERFECT.

Comment #28872

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:54 PM (e) (s)

Haha, I just saw this which they posted earlier that day:

he Darwinists think that by bringing it up they can somehow make this about ID. It’s not. Did Mr. Igrigonegaray read the standards? One wonders.

Haha.

Oh how this turned to bite them in the rear end.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=318&…

Comment #28875

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 7, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

I wonder about Dembski’s grasp on reality. Can he possibly be surprised that the ID folks sound like creationists? Was he expecting the witnesses to suddenly transcend their usual sectarian agendas and present cogent scientific arguments?

His comment about subpoenas warns that the ID movement is modeling its means of ascent on that of Lysenkoism. The more they appear as fakes and liars, the more they will resort to naked political power in pursuit of their goals.

Comment #28876

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 7, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

D*mbski writes ““The hearings were intended to allow both evolutionists as well as critics of evolution to have their say, but the evolutionists decided to boycott the event, so only the critics of evolution are having their say. But there’s an added twist: given the way the hearings are set up, an evolutionist lawyer (Pedro Irigonegaray) gets to interrogate the evolution critics and an evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert) gets to interrogate the evolutionists. Yet given that the evolutionists are boycotting the event, only the evolution critics are being interrogated.”

1 - 2 - 3 AAAAwwwwwwwwww

Comment #28881

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 04:51 PM (e) (s)

It certainly does seem that the ID movement now regard this whole trial as a loss, maybe not in Kansas, but certainly to the remainder of the world and other states.

Comment #28883

Posted by bill on May 7, 2005 05:31 PM (e) (s)

Dembski made a comment recently that his “career was in ruins.”

I’d like to ask, what career?

Is he a scientist? No, he conducts no research.

Is he a teacher? No, he didn’t teach at Baylor or anywhere else to my knowledge. Baylor simply let his contract run out.

Is he a self-promoter? Well, if you admit that self-promoting is a “career” then I think you’re getting close.

Dembski makes his living off of the generosity of others. (apologies to Tennessee Williams)

Therefore, I think he’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what he says or what he does because he has no track record, no credibility and no contribution to make.

I hate to admit it but at least Behe, who in my opinion is just a notch above Dembski, conducts science in his spare time. Dembski doesn’t even do that.

So the bottom line is that we should cast old Bill into the pit with the likes of John Davison and Salvador and all the other trolls who frequent the PandasThumb.

Sorry, Dembski, but you’ve Waterloo’d one time too many. Nobody believes your hysterical whines. My advice to you is to move to California. I heard they discovered a Quote Mine there and you can get plots for cheap.

Comment #28884

Posted by Person on May 7, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)

Kansas isn’t evolution’s Waterloo…rather, it’s shaping up to be it’s Austerlitz.

Comment #28886

Posted by Sean Foley on May 7, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

Everyone please get out their violins for the poor, oppressed critics of evolution.

Hey, look: it’s the world’s smallest, most irreducibly complex violin.

And it’s playing just for William Dembski.

Comment #28887

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 7, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

Dembski really said this?

“I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”

That day already occurred, in Arkansas, in 1981. “Evolutionists” were deposed, under oath. It was impressive, but it just touched the surface of science.

On the other hand, in that case in Arkansas, Dembski’s side was deposed, too — under oath. Having sworn an oath to tell the truth, most of them having ended that oath “so help me God,” each and every creationist deposed said that there is no science behind their creationist claims, and that creationism is based on their reading of scripture.

Be careful what you hope for, Dr. Dembski! You could get it.

In fact, isn’t Dembski listed as one of the “expert” witnesses for the Dover case? Under oath, will Dembski deny his faith, or admit the religious underpinnings of his claims?

I predict that, before the gavel raps three times in Pennsylvania, Dembski will deny his faith to keep his career. Which will win?

Comment #28888

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 7, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #28890

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 7, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

I was shocked to find out there’s a jury for this show trial. What exactly is the jury charged with determining?

I haven’t heard anything about a jury, I’m not sure what you are talking about.

Comment #28891

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 7, 2005 06:09 PM (e) (s)

I followed Nick’s link to the DI media whine, and scrolled through a lot of B.S. until a post about searching the web for “behe” plus “the profanity of choice” caught my eye.

So I gave it a try. The obvious scatological term to use was “bullshit.”

Wow!

And then I tried names like Dembski, Johnson, Wells, and even the more general term “intelligent design.” The results were spectacular. As a control I tried Darwin, Dawkins, and Hurd (Hey, it was a negative control OK?).

I might blog this tomorrow.

Comment #28892

Posted by Ben on May 7, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

It certainly does seem that the ID movement now regard this whole trial as a loss, maybe not in Kansas, but certainly to the remainder of the world and other states.

They may certainly look ridiculous in the extreme, but I wouldn’t take it as a given just yet that they’ll just throw in the towel on forcing creationism into science classes. After all, don’t they thrive on perceived adversity and victimisation?

Comment #28893

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 06:12 PM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #28894

Posted by Fernmonkey on May 7, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)

>> “I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”

It’s sad, isn’t it? Scientific debates are not won and lost in court - they’re won and lost in the lab, in the field, in peer-reviewed journals.

If the IDers have anything really good supporting their theory, why haven’t they taken it to Nature? Being able to knock down one of the big theories underpinning biology would be really something, wouldn’t it? Surely they’d be better off trying to convince real proper grown-up scientists rather than Kansas school board members - and once the scientific community has accepted that the wonderful ID theory has bested Darwin once and for all, the textbooks will all reflect that as sure as night follows day.

Comment #28898

Posted by Flint on May 7, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

As they say, even cripple bleeder singles look like line drives in the next day’s box scores. What we’re watching is the ID contestant taking a sound licking. We get to watch for what, three days? At the end of which, the judges scrape the losing candidate off the canvas and hold his unconscious arm in the air in victory, and the fight results are duly recorded that way.

And tomorrow’s box score, written by the winners, indicates that in a fair fight with both sides presenting their best cases, the ID proponents won a unanimous victory. And any whiners who try to bring up the details of the “trial” itself are just bitter over sour grapes. The RESULT is what matters.

Anyone can look up the gold medal winner from any Olympic event in any past Olympics. The winner’s name somehow doesn’t link to such little details as which countries the judges were from, or which countries boycotted the entire Olympics for long-forgotten peeves. So our local scientifical types still think the content matters. PR opportunities don’t work that way.

Comment #28901

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 7, 2005 07:09 PM (e) (s)

Did I hear somebody call for depositions?

Comment #28903

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 7, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

After all, don’t they thrive on perceived adversity and victimisation?

But, you see, the problem with always being a martyr is that you keep getting killed … …

Comment #28904

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 7, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)

Now, Nick, in HHGttG, the prediction was verified by a copy of the HHGttG from the far future.

I’d be interested to know what lines of questioning Dembski thinks are going to be a problem for scientists in a deposition. Pointing out that not everything is known about evolutionary biology is no problem for scientists. If Dembski is thinking about trying to apply his rhetorical stuff from Citizen Magazine last year, I think he will find that his fantasy victories are hard to convert into reality.

Comment #28906

Posted by NelC on May 7, 2005 07:45 PM (e) (s)

OMG, I just saw the HHGttG movie tonight, and it struck me on the way home who the Intelligent Designer is: Slaartibartfast!

That’s why IDers don’t want to say his name, they know how embarrassed he gets about it….

Comment #28909

Posted by St. McHinx on May 7, 2005 08:29 PM (e) (s)

Matt said:

I wonder about Dembski’s grasp on reality. Can he possibly be surprised that the ID folks sound like creationists? …

Now there you go, sounding like someone rational. Actually I’ve wondered about this “grasp on reality” about religious people in general. I still struggle with: what do, as Salvador would say, “the leadership” of ID believe? Are they truly Faithful™ and have noble intentions? Are they deluded? Are they manipulative con artists trying to sell books, gain power, or crave attention? [Aside: as my wife once asked an overly verbal friend, “Did your mom breast feed you?” — It shut him up for about 2 minutes.] I can’t see how believing in ID can possibly help someone in life, or help humanity overall (except maybe to make an individual more comfortable with his mortality and fears). To me, the whole thing (ID/evolution) is a non-argument. Unfortunately, in the theater of culture and politics, it’s not. Much as I’d like to dismiss this whole thing as simply the agitations of the indoctrinated, their machinations are a threat to the future of this country. And so the devoted people of Pandas Thumb and others step up to answer the challenge, and do a mighty fine job in my opinion.

As Richard Bach once said, “Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they’re yours.” Problem is, IDist’s are arguing for the limitations of others, and I don’t like that.

Comment #28911

Posted by Joe McFaul on May 7, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

I’ve got news for Mr. Dembski, lusting for the cross examination of scientists.

I prepare *hundreds* of witnesses every year for their cross examinations. Hundreds.

I rehearse their testimony with them.

I show them all the documents and exhibits they may have to deal with.

I even will run them through a mock cross exam of my own.

But none of this will really allow them to survive cross examination.

This is what works: I whisper a secret something to each of my witnesses. If they follow my whispered advice, I gurantee they will be impervious to any cross examination by any attorney.

Here’s my whipsered secret advice:

“Tell the truth.”

And that’s why ID will fail in court. They won’t tell the truth. Ed Darrell is right. They will deny their faith three times before telling the truth.

Comment #28917

Posted by Don Sheffler on May 7, 2005 09:55 PM (e) (s)

Flint’s comment #28898 is, alas, right on. This Kansas Kangaroo Kourt is made up of members who have intentionally run for their positions in order to stack the decision-making body with proponents of Creationi- err, Intelligent Design.

This is a political fight and nothing else. Details don’t matter. This is why the science community is boycotting. It’s a show trial.

Perhaps what the IDers are most annoyed about is that the accused decided not to show up. Not only that, the cross examination of the IDers alone still seems to be strong enough to make the ID argument almost too silly for the Kourt to justify making the proposed changes to the curriculum, even if the DESPERATELY WANT TO.

Interesting.

Comment #28919

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 7, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

But the Board will make the changes - this just made them dig in their heels deeper, I think. We may have (and I’m not sure this is completely true) turned the tables on them with these hearings, but round two will start when the standards are adopted. We’ll just have to wait and see what the Board does, but they have the votes and the resolve to do whatever they want to, irrespective of how the hearings turned out in the eyes of the world’s press.

Comment #28923

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 7, 2005 10:25 PM (e) (s)

Jack,

After the creationists confessed they didn’t bother to read the standards, and after the witnesses have laid the groundwork for an overwhelming summary judgment on establishment clause issues, can the governor, attorney general and legislature afford to let the board screw up the standards enough to get sued?

I mean, politically. Can the conservative agenda in Kansas afford such a crushing courtroom loss?

Comment #28924

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 7, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

Hey, look: it’s the world’s smallest, most irreducibly complex violin.

And it’s playing just for William Dembski.

Bwahahaha.

I guess the IDers now know what it feels like to actually have to put forward and defend a positive position, while their opponents sit back and knock holes in it without presenting an alternative. (Of course, the relevant difference is that evolutionary theory actually has a positive scenario it can defend if need be, while ID clearly has nothing comparable, other than old-style young-earth creationism.) It’s about time the tables were turned.

It’s ironic how this event, intended to be a show trial of evolution, has instead turned into a very effective media trial of ID. Dembski’s griping about how he wishes he could have forced scientists to testify, thus getting his own pet ideas out from under the spotlight, is more than a little chilling - but clearly no more than sour grapes, in this context.

Comment #28928

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:01 PM (e) (s)

“His comment about subpoenas warns that the ID movement is modeling its means of ascent on that of Lysenkoism. The more they appear as fakes and liars, the more they will resort to naked political power in pursuit of their goals.”

politically, self professed creationists lead both the house and the senate.

this, combined with the “heels digging in” attitude of this bunch does not preclude a repeat of the McCarthy era, imo.

If the fillibuster is repealed in the senate…. look out.

Comment #28929

Posted by David Duncan on May 7, 2005 11:07 PM (e) (s)

There are many possible positions that the term “intelligent design” can cover, from creationism to the belief that some kind of intelligence had to be involved with the origin of life, and even to the THEORY that some kind of intelligence might have been involved with the origin of life.

I hope you all noticed the difference between the last two, and do not have the problem of conflating them.

Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does. “Proof” is not that with which you begin an investigation, but that with which you end the investigation if it ends successfully with regard to the theory proposed.

What is it that you expect? That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first? Where else does science insist on such an extreme standard? It’s absurd even to suggest such a thing.

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself. It makes me think some of you fear the questions that ID asks. But what have you to fear? If a signature of intelligence is found, it was there all along, and is simply part of the truth of existence. If it is not found, eventually the movement will die from lack of results.

But what I sense is that some of you don’t even want the questions that ID asks posed at all. You simply want everyone to fall in line and not ask questions.

I hope you can all get over it. The questions will keep coming until they are answered. I sincerely hope that in 10 or 20 years molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum ARE explained fully, without the mere unsubstantiated imaginations of how they evolved that is forced the fill the factual gaps today. At least we will then know.

Until then, however, ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise. In fact, you should think of it as pressure that ID is applying to force Darwinism either to evolve or to collapse as a comprehensive theory. : )

Comment #28930

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:12 PM (e) (s)

“That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first? “

why not? you have had thousands of years to gather evidence in support.

I would settle for even reasonable evidence, let alone any “proof”.

“Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does”

NO. if you truly think that, then you haven’t a clue what science is or does.

“ The questions will keep coming until they are answered”

uh, i have a bit of news for you, the questions ID’ists ask HAVE been answered. over and over and over again.

You just won’t listen.

Comment #28931

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:17 PM (e) (s)

I was watching a program on Nat Geo this morning, that examined the “evidence” that anti-moon landing folks have presented in their support of a “government conspiracy” that faked the moon landing.

ALL of the evidence they presented, every single shred of it, was summary dealt with and shredded beyond reasonable doubt, over the hour long program.

The funny thing was, at the end, the anti-lunar landing folks didn’t change one bit of their story, even when the direct refutation of their evidence was presented right to them.

It’s apparently a mental defect that creationists share.

pathetic, really. maybe we will have a cure for it someday, and they will thank us.

Comment #28932

Posted by afarensis on May 7, 2005 11:35 PM (e) (s)

What is it that you expect? That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first? Where else does science insist on such an extreme standard? It’s absurd even to suggest such a thing.

No, we expect experiments and fieldwork that might support any part of ID. This is the same standard we hold evolutionary theory to - there are literally millions of experiments that have been performed since Darwin first ennunciated the theory. How many experiments have ID proponents performed? How much fieldwork have they done? I would argue that before we look for “the signature of intelligence” we at least have some experimental evidence that would indicate the search isn’t a big waste of time and resources. Although one does not begin an investigation with proof, one does start looking for it after one comes up with a new theory. You would also have the results of some experimentation or fieldwork which leads you to come up with the new theory in the first place. What prior research did the ID proponets have that led them to ID? Other than the Bible?

Comment #28933

Posted by Randall Wald on May 7, 2005 11:42 PM (e) (s)

Is it just me, or does Dembski’s comment about scientists being subpoenaed and forced to testify remind you guys of the Crackpot Index rule #34:

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

Comment #28935

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:54 PM (e) (s)

70 points.

Comment #28938

Posted by colleen on May 8, 2005 12:50 AM (e) (s)

I wrote a e-mail to Mr Crowther (at Media Complaints):
Mr Crowther,
You are right when you say reporters are irresponsible in not reading all of both reports.
How can they do a fair and balanced article?
Unless they had already made their minds!
This kind of bias is inexcusable!!!
Napoleon would have won if he’d read the majority report-last sentence not sent. But I really really wanted to.
Kind hard to leave a comment there.

Comment #28939

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:09 AM (e) (s)

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself.

Ummm, your ID heros have already admitted that *there is no scientific theory of ID*.

Do try and keep up, would you?

Comment #28940

Posted by Fernmonkey on May 8, 2005 01:28 AM (e) (s)

Until then, however, ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise.

You really believe that research into, say, bacterial flagella and the blood clotting cascade only happens because some neo-creationists use these things as examples?

Comment #28941

Posted by Matt Inlay on May 8, 2005 01:38 AM (e) (s)

David Duncan, you wrote:

Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does.

Your comments are those of someone who has never really investigated the “theory” of ID. Those who have immediately recognize it as fake science. ID makes no testable predictions, is not based on any positive evidence, and has no proposed research program. It has done NOTHING that science “does”.

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself.

I agree that most who comment here have an overt hatred of ID, but that’s because of how awful it is as science. It’s not even trying to be science. It’s just trying to look like science.

But what I sense is that some of you don’t even want the questions that ID asks posed at all. You simply want everyone to fall in line and not ask questions.

No, that’s absolutely wrong. There’s no question that ID has asked that scientists fear answering. The problem is that the answers can get extremely technical, and to really understand those kinds of answers might require more background information that can be taught in a high school biology class.

ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise.

Not really. I thought that way regarding Darwin’s Black Box at first. I thought maybe irreducible complexity was a problem that biology needed to solve. However, biologists had asked and answered those questions before DBB was published, and they continue to answer them now. The only point of that book was to create the appearance of a controversy.

Comment #28943

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 8, 2005 02:08 AM (e) (s)

Schiavo backfired on the religious extremists. Now the Kansas Kreationist Kooks are roasting on a spit.

I am digging it heavily.

evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert)

John Calvert is a moron.

Any of us here could argue the living crap out of him on this intelligent design bullcrap in ten seconds. Defending the anti-science agenda of Disclaimery Institute bigots and liars is more contemptible than trying to free Charlie Manson.

Comment #28955

Posted by shiva on May 8, 2005 08:04 AM (e) (s)

Scientists (like well minded serious debaters everywhere) in this case lack the political savvy and have wisely kept out of this farce. But what an unexpected stroke of fortune it has been! As ID/C is the theory that seeks to overturn the accepted synthesis it must open itself up for questions. Instead it has been the other way round. Thanks are due to Pedro Irigonegaray Esq. for clearly explaining his role to the press and sticking to the script. In fact this is quite different from the Scopes trial where the pro-science counsel made quite a mess of things and it was left to the Judiciary to prevent a Lysenkoist denunciation. Bill of course is lucky to have not been there at Kansas. There is so much of his prattling archived on the web that can be put together and shot back at him to make him look like a know nothing. Bill, Wells and Behe are past the stage of debates as all three have been roundly defeated time and again. Which is why you see these leaders using their misled factotums like cannon fodder. As a matter of policy scientists should turn down debate invitations every now and then and leave the ID/C cranks to stew in their own juice and bile. The debacle at Kansas could lead to a new and unexpected setback for ID (not IDC pseudoscience). Seeing how these cranks have fared in the depositions; there must be many ID supporters who feel terribly let down by the ID farce and choose to return to good old fashioned Creationism, as ID offers neither the openness of science nor the comfort of a misguided view of faith. Religious scientists would be happy that dishonest pamphleteers don’t become representatives of faith. This could become a Win-Win for the science and people of faith and a Lose-Lose for the IDwallahs.

Comment #28967

Posted by GT(N)T on May 8, 2005 09:49 AM (e) (s)

When will people like Mr. Duncan realize that ID isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis, and an untestable one at that.

Comment #28971

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 10:22 AM (e) (s)

However, specific forms of ID have been suggested which are testable. Dembski’s EF was tested, and it failed by detecting false positives. While ID in general consists of vague untestable statements, occasionally it is used to mean testable, and false, statements.

Comment #28975

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 10:54 AM (e) (s)

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

As another poster commented at another site, at least the scientists supportive of the proposed changes had the backbone to get on the stand and submit to evolutionist Irigonegaray’s public cross-examination, letting the chips fall where they may.

Some of us are still waiting for these alleged “professional scientists” to evolve a backbone (btw, would that be an example of “micro” or “macro” evolution?), stop whining from the sidelines, and join the non-Darwinist scientists in letting THEIR positions be equally subject to public cross-examination.

In principle, I could agree with Joe McFaul’s whispered advice to his witnesses,

“Tell the truth”

but unlike McClean vs Arkansas, evolutionists are clearly too scared this time around to take their turn on the witness stand at all. Just plain Fear Factor. (Maybe it’s a new hox gene or something that somehow mutated in the evo-population in the intervening years since McClean.)

But I can understand. They’re okay with an evolutionist lawyer interrogating non-Darwinists, but they know that if they were to submit their pro-evolution positions to a non-Darwinist cross-examination likewise, the “world’s press” might wind up writing a few things stuff they don’t want written by the time cross-ex ended.

Safety first, y’know! (Even if more than a little hypocrisy is the price tag thereof.)

On another issue, another poster wrote,

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the (ID) theory itself.

I would say that there’s something rather ~unscientific~ about such hatred, very much so, but then again, the evolutionists have a lot to lose, worldview-wise.
A lot of pure personal ~faith~ has been invested in Darwinism, naturalism, materialism. Like any church-goer, this Darwinist faith has been carefully cultivated and reinforced in their lives. A major investment, natch.

Somebody’s core beliefs (about the nature of science, about Christianity, about reality itself) are thus threatened by the ID hypothesis, regardless of anything else. Been that way for a long time.
Hence the obvious sneering hatred.

But rather than be ‘alarmed’ by this fact, I try to use it as a personal motivator.

Regardless of the hearings, regardless of the Board’s future actions on this matter pro or con, there’s a ~lot~ of opportunity out there to sow the seeds of a scientific Paradigm-Shift. There’s a lot of work that can be accomplished by anyone willing to put in the time and effort. I hope to be among those who do so.

FL

Comment #28976

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

Fernmonkey, you misunderstood what I said. No, research into bacterial flaggella does not ONLY happen because ID is using it as an example. I think ID has caused a step up into research in the area of bacterial flagella because the example of such molecular machines is striking.

In addition, the answer is NO, we do NOT know how they evolved, no more than we know how life began from lifelessness. But their are plenty of hypotheses. None of which have been…uh…well…tested. : ) But that doesn’t seem to stop the ardent and faithful Darwinist from believing one or more of them must have been true. I myself have proposed a theory of what to LOOK for and what would constitute strong evidence of design. You can read it here:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_…

But you see, finding that kind of evidence may range from very difficult to impossible. But it is something to look for, so whether or not ID is testable depends on whether or not evidence of this type can be found. However, if sneering hatred of the question is all one can expect to be greeted with, that is a very efective way of discouraging the question. I suspect that is what many of you intend, and if so, I suggest you look inward at the source of the problem which makes you need such a thing.

Matt, thanks for your temperance. It shows character on your part.

However, regarding the bacterial flagellum, we do NOT know how it was put together by natural selection. We might figure it out in 10 to 20 years with all the genomic sequencing going on of bacteria, but we do not know it today. What we do have today are HYPOTHESES of how it was put together, but that isn’t enough.

It isn’t enough for ID and it isn’t enough for natural selection.

Now, I have a question, sort of an informal poll question, I am curious to know the answer.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life? That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

Comment #28977

Posted by Flint on May 8, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life? That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

This is two entirely different and distinct questions. Your implication that they are the same is highly illuminating.

To answer your second question first, I don’t think there is any incompatibility, and I doubt you’d find a single scientist (even Dawkins) who would disagree.

However, back to your first question, I suspect Dawkins and many others would point out that religious doctrines are not required to understand natural processes. They are entirely possible (natural processes may have been designed and implemented by Divine fiat. There is no evidence either in favor or against this position), but science regards supernatural explanations as irrelevant because if there ARE any supernatural processes, they have never been observed to interfere with explanations based on leaving them out.

So theistic scientists regard the operations of the objective universe as how God (the god(s) of their choice, depending on their backgrounds) decided to do things. Science in this view is simply understanding their gods’ methods and intentions. To the non-theistic scientist, the objective universe is what it is, the question of how it got that way is just one more thing to investigate.

However, ID and other “happened by means forever beyond possible investigation” are not science because they basically substitute worship for observation and experiment. Saying “some unnamed, undefined designer did it” isn’t an explanation of anything. At best, it’s an excuse to stop looking because no answer can be found by mortal men. And “give up, it’s hopeless” is as far from the spirit of science as it’s possible to get.

Comment #28980

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

John Calvert is a moron.

Any of us here could argue the living crap out of him on this intelligent design bullcrap in ten seconds.

Now ~this~ is some good stuff here. Classic PT.
Only one tiny microscopic problem.

It seems that “Any Of Us” has yet to actually ~show up~ on the witness stand and allow Mr. Calvert to publicly cross-examine our mondo superior scientific evolutionist positions, so that “Any Of Us” can argue the living crap out of him in 10 seconds (because after all, he is in your words, a moron.)

Where is “Any Of Us” hiding? Why hide in the first place?
Why not back up all the bravado with a little actual backbone for a change?

FL

Comment #28981

Posted by Art on May 8, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

FL,

Do you think that the board of education members should be held accountable for being informed on these matters? I do, and if these members (the antievolution minority or the entire board, makes no difference to me) would agree to:

1. Listen to my remarks and statements;

2. Take an exam based solely on my remarks (and not requiring acceptance of any particular POV);

and 3. Agree to recuse themselves from all subsequent proceedings if they failed the exam.

then I would be glad to lend the good people of KS a hand.

Second question - do you think there is a snowman’s chance in hell that the board members would agree to this (reasonable, IMO) standard of accountability? I don’t. (Not a specific slam against the KS board - precious few politicans anywhere would agree to direct, immediate accountability for their actions.)

Comment #28982

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 8, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s)

Excellent statement. I have added it to my notes on how to describe this issue in next week’s summation.

Comment #28983

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

evolutionists are clearly too scared this time around to take their turn on the witness stand at all.

How right you are, FL. You have us dead to rights. If we take the witness stand we will easily be exposed as frauds. We’ve only made it this far by enforcing a multinational embargo on any criticism of evolution. Editors at dozens of journals scour submissions, looking for blasphemy. But as soon as a philosopher like Meyer or a lawyer like Johnson nobly asserts the truth, the worthless edifice of biology will fall apart. Across the country, whole university biology departments will resign in shame. Charlie Wagner will get the Nobel Prize. PZ and Reed will commit seppuku. Harvard will hire Kathy Martin. MIT gets Ken Ham. Dembski will be named to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Trinity. And god himself will descend from heaven to personally thank you and give you a Lamborghini.

Comment #28984

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

but unlike McClean vs Arkansas, evolutionists are clearly too scared this time around to take their turn on the witness stand at all.

Umm, may I remind you that your side LOST in Arkansas? Just like it has LOST every single Federal court case it has ever been involved with? Every single solitary one?

Why is that, I wonder … . .

Comment #28985

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

Somebody’s core beliefs (about the nature of science, about Christianity, about reality itself) are thus threatened by the ID hypothesis

I’m curious —- the IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with religion. Nothing AT ALL.

Given that, there should be no reaosn at all whatsoever for you (or any other IDer) to yammer on about Christianity or God or religion or worldviews or whatever.

So why are you?

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim their crap isn’t religiously motivated … . .

Comment #28987

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 8, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)

Oops - intervening posts made by comment about excellent statement confusing. I was referring to Flint about when he wrote

This is two entirely different and distinct questions. Your implication that they are the same is highly illuminating.

To answer your second question first, I don’t think there is any incompatibility, and I doubt you’d find a single scientist (even Dawkins) who would disagree.

However, back to your first question, I suspect Dawkins and many others would point out that religious doctrines are not required to understand natural processes. They are entirely possible (natural processes may have been designed and implemented by Divine fiat. There is no evidence either in favor or against this position), but science regards supernatural explanations as irrelevant because if there ARE any supernatural processes, they have never been observed to interfere with explanations based on leaving them out.

So theistic scientists regard the operations of the objective universe as how God (the god(s) of their choice, depending on their backgrounds) decided to do things. Science in this view is simply understanding their gods’ methods and intentions. To the non-theistic scientist, the objective universe is what it is, the question of how it got that way is just one more thing to investigate.

However, ID and other “happened by means forever beyond possible investigation” are not science because they basically substitute worship for observation and experiment. Saying “some unnamed, undefined designer did it” isn’t an explanation of anything. At best, it’s an excuse to stop looking because no answer can be found by mortal men. And “give up, it’s hopeless” is as far from the spirit of science as it’s possible to get.

I was not referring to the posts about Calvert and the state BOE. Hope that clears up, for the record, any confusion.

Comment #28988

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life? That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

I’m curious —- the IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with religion. Nothing AT ALL.

Given that, there should be no reaosn at all whatsoever for you (or any other IDer) to yammer on about Christianity or God or religion or worldviews or whatever.

So why are you?

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim their crap isn’t religiously motivated … . .

Comment #28989

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:45 AM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #28990

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)

Art,

Would you be willing to have every scientist who has so far taken the stand (unlike yourself and your fellow evolutionists)
to go back and impose the very same constraints likewise on the pro-evolution board members or the entire board (makes no difference) as you are now suggesting as a condition of you showing up on the witness stand?

Fair is fair, you know. So, yes or no?

FL

Comment #28991

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:48 AM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #28992

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

@david duncan

“I think ID has caused a step up into research in the area of bacterial flagella because the example of such molecular machines is striking”

oh? why do you think this? have any evidence to support your “theory”, or is it just unsubstantiated drivel, like the rest of “creation science”?

“In addition, the answer is NO, we do NOT know how they evolved, no more than we know how life began from lifelessness. But their are plenty of hypotheses. “

well, not so many hypotheses, but many studies testing the one that works to actually explain it:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=flagella&site…

pick one, and you will see that ALL of them have empiracle support, unlike yours.

“None of which have been … uh … well … tested. : )”

again, i suggest you stop talking from points you read on a website somewhere, and more from your actual knowledge of the literature.

Can you even cite one published scientific journal article you have read and understand on the subject?

I get really tired of all of you ID supporters saying how bad science is, when you haven’t even read what you are criticizing, or understand it. hmmmm. just like the fundies on the Kansas BOE.

Wearisome.

Comment #28993

Posted by JRQ on May 8, 2005 11:56 AM (e) (s)

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?

Unnecessary for what? Do you mean accounting empirically for the origin and diversificaton life? If so, My answer is that an unspecified god that exhibits no empirically-tractable properties already makes itself unneccessary in any sort of empirical inquiry — “Darwinism” has nothing to do with it.

That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

Only a god who created and diversified life through some empirically-tractable means OTHER than evolution would be incompatable with evolution. When such a god pecolates up through the data, I’ll be happy to discard evolution. Other kind of gods are perfectly compatible, but are unnecessary by definition.

What are you expecting to hear in response to these questions? Some kind of knee-jerk godlessness in reaction to having accepted the evolution of species as fact?

Comment #28994

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)

I’m curious —— the IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with religion. Nothing AT ALL.

I think everyone knows the IDiots talk out of both sides of their mouths. (And Lenny, you need a new keyboard, you keep accidently hitting the Caps Lock)

“Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts.”—Kathy Martin

Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation,” said Martin. “Our country is made up of Christian conservatives.”…”This country was founded on Christianity—not science.”

Comment #28995

Posted by Art on May 8, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

Art,

Would you be willing to have every scientist who has so far taken the stand (unlike yourself and your fellow evolutionists)
to go back and impose the very same constraints likewise on the pro-evolution board members or the entire board (makes no difference) as you are now suggesting as a condition of you showing up on the witness stand?

Fair is fair, you know. So, yes or no?

FL

FL,

Briefly, sure. Of course, that would have scuttled things from the get-go. Because it is highly doubtful that even the three inquisitors who held these proceedings would agree to be quizzed by those friendly to their cause.

Why should a serious scientist participate in a proceeding, ostensibly a gathering and dispersing of information, in which the intended audience not only is not expected to pay attention, but is on record as having no interest in paying attention?

I don’t know about KS, it must be a pretty wealthy state. Where I live, this sort of waste of tax dollars would be frowned upon, to say the least.

Comment #28997

Posted by Raven on May 8, 2005 12:59 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan writes:

Now, I have a question, sort of an informal poll question, I am curious to know the answer.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life? That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

But your “question” is really two different questions: the first sentence asks only whether natural selection and theism are orthogonal. By introducing “incompatible” in the second sentence, you are then switching from “orthogonal” to “negates”, which is not at all the same thing. In other words, “X does not have to exist” is not equivalent to “X must not exist”. You can’t really ask for “the answer” until the question is clearer, because it introduces ambiguity as it is formed.

Comment #28999

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #29000

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Well, here’s another question then.

The scientists who took the witness stand on the side of the proposed changes and submitted to public cross-examination, did so without asking for special conditions or constraints.

They showed up, took the stand as scientists, explained their position as best they could, underwent the cross-examination from the opposing side, (and without prior conditions or constraints, btw), and that was that.

As a scientist, (assuming that you were given sufficient opportunity and means to come to T-town for the hearings) why would you not be willing to do the same thing, Art?

**********************

I have to wonder about these pro-evolution “professional scientists” who call themselves “monitoring” these hearings. Gotta be kidding.

Look at these alleged “scientists”:

Offering free pro-Darwinist soundbites and spins to the media homies on a daily basis, fully approving of non-Darwinist scientists being publicly cross-examined by a very Darwinist lawyer, but yet scared stiff to actually walk two or three dozen feet ~themselves~ to the witness stand and, (as the “professional scientists” they want the media to think they are), undergo the same critical, rational public questioning of their pro-evolution positions as what the non-Darwinist professional scientists are willing to undergo.
Cowards.

Not accusing you of this behavior, Art.
I would think, I want to believe, that your standards would be higher.

Such behavior is not pro-science, not pro-education. It’s more like……well, I better stop right here for now.

FL

Comment #29001

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

Some of us are still waiting for these alleged “professional scientists” to evolve a backbone (btw, would that be an example of “micro” or “macro” evolution?), stop whining from the sidelines, and join the non-Darwinist scientists in letting THEIR positions be equally subject to public cross-examination.

What a curious inversion of reality. Evolutionary biologists have been showing their work for public cross-examination in the form of tens of thousands of published peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. The public has had the benefit of being presented with background information pertinent to each study, methods used in testing a particular hypothesis, a summary of the resulting data, discussion of the results, and citations of relevant work and criticism. The public has been able to respond to this presentation at any time. Of course, this option is only open to those willing to read what the scientists have to say, which apparently is a difficulty for “intelligent design” advocates.

Comment #29002

Posted by Joe McFaul on May 8, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan matches his infantile understanding of science with an equally infantile understanding of theology:

Now, I have a question, sort of an informal poll question, I am curious to know the answer.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life? That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

Yes, indeed two different questions. Shocking to you may just be the number of scientists and theologians who believe that evolution is a sign of God’s creative immanence. Read Denis Lamorouex, Howard Van Till, Kenneth Miller’s, “Finding Darwin’s God, any of Johh Haught’s several books on the theology of evolution, Edward Oakes’s articles in “First Things, and of course, Teilhard de Chardin, theologian, Jesuit and scientist.

There’s no sense in trying to create a cartoon caricature of a dogmatic atheist as proponents of evolution. Some scientists would answer your first question, “Yes.” They could be either atheists or deists who believe God created the universe and all in it but did not have to do anything special to create life. Even atheists, and all religous believers in evolution would would have no problem answering the second question, “No.” Therefore, the answers to your questions will tell you nothing about the religious background of those who believe in evolution.

The vast literature discussing the theology of evolution correctly understood cannot be quickly summarized in a comments box. A person aware of that literature would not have asked such a question.

Comment #29005

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)

“I am completely thoroughly amused to no end by the frantic ID efforts to avoid recognizing that Kansas was not only a mortal wound, but was *entirely self-inflicted* since the other side *wasn’t even there*. falls of seat laughing>”

From Python’s Life of Brian:

Suicide Squad Leader: “We are the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!” [they all stab themselves]

“That showed ‘em, huh?”

Comment #29007

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #29010

Posted by Matt Inlay on May 8, 2005 02:01 PM (e) (s)

Hi David Duncan, you wrote:

However, regarding the bacterial flagellum, we do NOT know how it was put together by natural selection. We might figure it out in 10 to 20 years with all the genomic sequencing going on of bacteria, but we do not know it today. What we do have today are HYPOTHESES of how it was put together, but that isn’t enough.

1. The difference here is that evolution’s hypotheses about flagellar evolution are testable, and are being tested. PT’s Nick Matzke wrote a great article summarizing the evidence from the evolution side. Maybe you don’t think it’s enough evidence, but compare that to the ID side. There has never been a single hypothesis put forth by the IDists other than “the IDer did it”. There’s no way to test or study that kind of a hypothesis. That’s why ID isn’t science.

2. To people on the evolution side, there’s no qualitative difference between the bacterial flagellum and any other IC system. The only difference is the number of parts. So when evolution supporters look at the evidence for the evolution of irreducible complexity, they look at all the evidence for all IC systems. There’s a ton of evidence out there. The IDist’s singular focus on the flagellum is so that they can deny that other evidence. Think about it. Why the fixation on the flagellum? Why is that the cornerstone of intelligent design? It’s not even required for bacteria, let alone all of life. The reason why IDists focus on the flagellum is because it’s the most complicated system they could find, with the shortest evolutionary trail. Two other IC systems mentioned by Behe in DBB, Blood clotting and the adaptive immune system evolved much later, and therefore have way more precursors. You don’t see the IDists talking about those two much anymore. So maybe we haven’t “solved” the flagellum, but we’ve solved a lot of other IC systems.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life? That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

A hesistant ‘yes’ to the first one, and an absolute ‘no’ to the 2nd.

Here’s a question for you. Can you think of a way to test the idea that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed? By test, I mean something that an aspiring ID researcher could actually do.

Comment #29011

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

One more item. Art says,

Why should a serious scientist participate in a proceeding, ostensibly a gathering and dispersing of information, in which the intended audience not only is not expected to pay attention, but is on record as having no interest in paying attention?

The answer to your question, Art, is that “professional scientists” from the pro-evolution side are ALREADY participating in these proceedings, only they’re doing so from the safety of “press conferences” and “soundbites” and “monitoring”, where they can attack and snipe from the sidelines WITHOUT having to show a modicum of fairness and undergo the same rational, critical-analysis public questioning that their non-Darwinist scientific peers have underwent.

You see, this really is NOT just about what the KBOE does or doesn’t do regarding state science standards, Art.

The evolutionist advocacy groups knew, and know even today, that if evolutionists had REALLY boycotted these hearings, (not merely pretended to boycott while showing up and then sniping from the sidelines), the public really would come to understand (regardless of the Board outcome) that there are some problems with Darwinism and that changes were needed to allow teachers who would like to, to offer a more accurate, critical-thinking approach to understanding origins and evolution INSTEAD OF the usual sanitized spoonfeeding of Darwin Dogma.

Moreover, if evolutionists had REALLY done a boycott, the public would better understand for themselves that the 2005 proposal does NOT call for teaching ID at all, does NOT call for removing evolution from classrooms at all, does NOT call for teaching religion at all.
But instead offers science students BETTER awareness of important, vital scientific considerations like the difference between data and interpretation, the importance of understanding philosophical presuppositons, and more accurate understanding of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.

And that’s why, despite some of the rhetoric, “serious scientists” and others from the pro-evolution side really DO believe the public (not just the Board) is paying attention to all this.
They do believe, correctly, that these hearings will have some public impact, especially with parents of schoolchildren and with the voters.

It’s just that while evolutionists ~want~ to participate, they don’t want to take any risks that will expose things less than 100% favorable to the Darwinist Status Quo, in the eyes of the media. Don’t want John Calvert to ask them some potentially tough questions or even TO FOCUS THE ISSUE ON EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSED SCIENCE STANDARDS THEMSELVES instead of side issues.

Can’t allow the public (and their kids) to sprout or nurture any doubts about the holy omnipotence of the First Church of Darwin, you know.

Hence the “safety first” gig, the cowardice, the hypocrisy.

Okay, now I really will stop for awhile.
Just wanted to answer your question there, Art.
Now it is answered.

FL

Comment #29013

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 02:16 PM (e) (s)

matt asked:

“Why the fixation on the flagellum? Why is that the cornerstone of intelligent design?”

uh, just to stay on theme…

“Because

Every sp*rm is sacred”

Comment #29014

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

in case you wanted to sing along:

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/everyspe.h…

Comment #29016

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)

Lenny, did you give your defective keyboard to FL?

Anyway, I’ve got to get back to reading my Blogger’s Edition of Hamlet. “To BE, or NOT to be…THAT is the question. Whether tis nobler IN THE MIND to suffer the slings and arrows of OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE,….”

Comment #29017

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 8, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

70 points to FL as well…

Comment #29018

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)

FL ranted incoherently:

“ TO FOCUS THE ISSUE ON EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSED SCIENCE STANDARDS THEMSELVES instead of side issues.”

ROFL! er, you mean to compare standards against the current ones that none of the board or the participants actually even read?

FL, you should take a cue from america’s favorite pres:

“It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and thus remove all doubt.” —- Abraham Lincoln

Comment #29020

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

One-liners and presidential quotes are nice, but if you have a ~substantive~ response concerning the particular situation I’ve discussed, feel free to offer it. No hurry.

FL

Comment #29022

Posted by PvM on May 8, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

There is nothing substantive to respond to… ID proponents have set themselves up for ridicule when the cards where turned on them.
Ironic isn’t it :-)

Comment #29023

Posted by guthrie on May 8, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

You know, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d say the “darwinists” are following a well coordinated plan of suckering the “ID” people into a longer term trap, via a sense of false superiority caused by people like FL wondering why they havnt bothered to turn up to the “hearing”.

On the other hand, I find quotes like this quite entertaining:

Saith FL
“You see, this really is NOT just about what the KBOE does or doesn’t do regarding state science standards, Art. “

No? What is it about? Is it about some religiously motivated people trying to sneak their religion in the back door, by bypassing standard scientific curriculum procedure?

Then there statements such as:
“But instead offers science students BETTER awareness of important, vital scientific considerations like the difference between data and interpretation, the importance of understanding philosophical presuppositons, and more accurate understanding of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.”

Precisely how does it do this? How exactly do the supposed new standards do this? and more importnatly, what has philosophy got to do with it? We’re in science class, man.

Actually, I think we need to try and organise a show down somewhere. Is there any serious chance of getting a proper debate organised on this topic? You know, half a dozen representatives from each side, the ID and Evolutionary biology sides, to have an argument over the merits of their respective positions? It would be quite entertaining, though the moderator would have to be very good at their job. It would of course start with asking scientific questions, like what evidence do you have for ID?

Comment #29026

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 04:03 PM (e) (s)

Is there any serious chance of getting a proper debate organised on this topic? You know, half a dozen representatives from each side, the ID and Evolutionary biology sides, to have an argument over the merits of their respective positions?

It’s already happened, several times. In court.

The creationist/IDers lost. Every time.

And they’re about to repeat the process in Dover.

Comment #29027

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 04:06 PM (e) (s)

Joe, I found your comments laughable. That’s being charitable to you. Next time, before assuming, wrongly, by the way, what I know and do not know, it would be prudent for you to ASK first. Kenneth Miller is a Catholic and there are plenty of evolutionists who are also theists. Duh! Gee, Joe, thanks for enlightening me! : )

The question I asked was an informal one. My SUSPICION—-notice the emphasis on the word “suspicion”—- is that if you put all the theistic evolutionists on one side of a scale and all the atheistic evolutionists (Richard Dawkins and those who share his views) on the other side of the scale, I think the theistic evolutionists would rise higher in the air. That is my suspicion, and I would like to see some professionally done polling on that.

It is clear, if you read Richard Dawkins, that he is athiestic because that is where HE thinks evolutionary theory leads. In fact, it does NOT really lead there, but that is what HE and those who think as he does believe. They think that evolution renders belief in God unnecessary, that there is nothing left for God to do in the world of his science. You can debate him on that point if you wish, I am simply pointing out that such a view does exist, and I suspect that it is more prevalent than the theistic view.

***

Raven, whether one question or two, it has already been answered twice.

***

Matt, thanks again for your civility. In answer to your question about why the bacterial flagellum is the cornerstone, I think Behe already covered the relevant issues. First, only one genuine example of intelligent design needs to be produced to demonstrate the incompleteness of Darwinism. Intelligence might be involved on a vast scale or not; but evidence may simply exist only in certain areas or on certain levels if it exists at all. In other words, intelligence might be involved everywhere, but apparant only somehwere…or, involved everywhere, but apparent nowhere. or involved nowhere and apparent nowhere. Those are all possibilities. It may be that the designer is too precise to leave any evidence at all in which case it will be impossible to scientifically prove design. But the bacterial flagellum stands out because it, well, looks exactly like a MACHINE. I have no doubt that in time we shall be able to create machines out of organic matter, and to someone who had no evidence of our existence or the fact that it was designed, the exact same controversies would erupt among those who study it. Some would say that it is impossible to explain through natural selection, and the others would create elaborate hypotheses of how it could have evolved without intelligence.

You are right, however, that there is great difficulty in producing testable hypotheses. I myself have proposed what to look for in the link in my previous post. Whether or not what I have proposed exists, I do not know, but that is what I think any ultimate ID proof must look like.

Here is the link once again, but I say only what to look for. Others have suggested that a statistical analysis might assist to find what I am suggesting we look for. Here is the link again:

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=g…

What you will notice in the link is that I get a lot of argument from Pim Van Meurs, who is a Christian, and who seems to endorse front loading. Even Christian Darwinists are hostile to the notion that there might be evidence of a designer. Whether there is or not I don’t know. I simply proposed what to look for, in case there IS. But what was interesting was the hostility my proposal created. It was just a proposal!

***

Sir Toejam, may I recommend to you some non narcotic herbal remedies that have shown promise in alleviating stress without producing undesirable side effects? The honokiol and magnolol in magnolia extract have been shown in several studies to produce an anti-depressant and anti-stress effect comparable to valium, but without the associated drowsiness or alteration of perception. From the barely controlled hatred that permeates your comments, it is obvious that these questions, and the whole issue at large, are having a deleterious mental effect on you. If you’d like a website where you can get some, let me know.

Comment #29028

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)

One-liners and presidential quotes are nice, but if you have a ~substantive~ response concerning the particular situation I’ve discussed, feel free to offer it. No hurry.

And if you have a scientific theory of ID that we *can* give a substantive response to, feel free to offer it. Until then, you’re just pissing in the wind.

Comment #29029

Posted by Russell on May 8, 2005 04:08 PM (e) (s)

I have to admit to a certain amount of amusement in seeing FL’s line change from “We gonna whip yo’ ass!” to “the fact that we look ridiculous is a testament to our courage!”

But particularly interesting is this FLism:

… there’s a ~lot~ of opportunity out there to sow the seeds of a scientific Paradigm-Shift. There’s a lot of work that can be accomplished by anyone willing to put in the time and effort. I hope to be among those who do so.

So, is FL a scientist, who thinks a “paradigm shift” is necessary for the good of science, or is FL a Fundie, who thinks a “paradigm shift” needs to be imposed on science for the good of [his vision of] society?

Every FL comment I’ve ever read leads me to conclude the latter. In which case, I strongly suggest he find a less obnoxious, less obstructive, hobby. Stamp-collecting, for instance.

Comment #29031

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 04:11 PM (e) (s)

They think that evolution renders belief in God unnecessary, that there is nothing left for God to do in the world of his science. You can debate him on that point if you wish, I am simply pointing out that such a view does exist, and I suspect that it is more prevalent than the theistic view.

Um, I’ll ask again:

IDers keep telling us that their crap is *science* and has *nothing to do with religion*. Nothing *at all*.

Given that, why are you asking about “god” and “atheism” and “religion”?

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim their crap isn’t about religion … …

Why are you undermining your own side?

Comment #29032

Posted by Sean Foley on May 8, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)

It’s already happened, several times.  In court.

The creationist/IDers lost.  Every time.

And they’re about to repeat the process in Dover.

Creation Science: The Washington Generals of the American legal system.

Comment #29033

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan wrote:

Sir Toejam, may I recommend to you some non narcotic herbal remedies that have shown promise in alleviating stress without producing undesirable side effects? The honokiol and magnolol in magnolia extract have been shown in several studies to produce an anti-depressant and anti-stress effect comparable to valium, but without the associated drowsiness or alteration of perception. From the barely controlled hatred that permeates your comments, it is obvious that these questions, and the whole issue at large, are having a deleterious mental effect on you. If you’d like a website where you can get some, let me know.

If David was trying to give some pretense of taking the moral high ground, he blew it to heck and gone right there. Ick.

Comment #29034

Posted by Russell on May 8, 2005 04:27 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan wrote:

My SUSPICION…is that if you put all the theistic evolutionists on one side of a scale and all the atheistic evolutionists (Richard Dawkins and those who share his views) on the other side of the scale, I think the theistic evolutionists would rise higher in the air. That is my suspicion, and I would like to see some professionally done polling on that.

Curiously enough, I find the question uninteresting to start with, and technically well-nigh impossible to ask - let alone answer - what with all the definitions that would have to be hammered out first. But what I do wonder is this: who cares? and why?

It is clear, if you read Richard Dawkins, that he is athiestic [sic] because that is where HE thinks evolutionary theory leads.

I thought rather the reverse. So here I wonder three things: what makes it so “clear” to you? and - again - who cares? and why?

Comment #29035

Posted by Art on May 8, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

Well, here’s another question then.

The scientists who took the witness stand on the side of the proposed changes and submitted to public cross-examination, did so without asking for special conditions or constraints. 

They showed up, took the stand as scientists, explained their position as best they could, underwent the cross-examination from the opposing side, (and without prior conditions or constraints, btw), and that was that.

As a scientist, (assuming that you were given sufficient opportunity and means to come to T-town for the hearings) why would you not be willing to do the same thing, Art? 

As I see it, FL, you’re asking why I would not be willing to take paid leave from my job at a state university (ultimately raiding the tax coffers of one state), travel to KS at taxpayer expense (raiding the coffers of another state), and give testimony (not my choice) or lectures (my preference) to an audience, the KS BOE, who is not interested, won’t listen, and refuses to learn from anything I say. Frankly, my bosses would say “why would you?” Taxpayers in my state would (or should) ask “why take time away from our sons and daughters, our pressing science-related problems, to make presentations to a group in another state who will not listen?” I would suspect that taxpayers in KS would ask why as well.

Why the antievolutionists would do as they did, I cannot say. Ask them. For me, provide a reason my employer might find compelling - say, evidence that the KS BOE will pay attention.

[The best reason of all for staying home - once my atheltic director finds out I am doing something that may even remotely support KU, I can expect to find a termination notice in my box. Not even tenure trumps athletics where I live ;) . ]

Comment #29038

Posted by JRQ on May 8, 2005 04:46 PM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #29039

Posted by Art on May 8, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

The answer to your question, Art, is that “professional scientists” from the pro-evolution side are ALREADY participating in these proceedings, only they’re doing so from the safety of “press conferences” and “soundbites” and “monitoring”, where they can attack and snipe from the sidelines WITHOUT having to show a modicum of fairness and undergo the same rational, critical-analysis public questioning that their non-Darwinist scientific peers have underwent.

You see, this really is NOT just about what the KBOE does or doesn’t do regarding state science standards, Art.

Um, respectfully, this is, and should be, all that this is about.

The evolutionist advocacy groups knew, and know even today, that if evolutionists had REALLY boycotted these hearings, (not merely pretended to boycott while showing up and then sniping from the sidelines), the public really would come to understand (regardless of the Board outcome) that there are some problems with Darwinism and that changes were needed to allow teachers who would like to, to offer a more accurate, critical-thinking approach to understanding origins and evolution INSTEAD OF the usual sanitized spoonfeeding of Darwin Dogma. 

How this is accomplished by a show trial whose sole purpose is to justify adoption of a set of standards that fall very far short of illustrating scientific problems with Darwinism, or promoting truly critical examination of biological science, escapes me.

Moreover, if evolutionists had REALLY done a boycott, the public would better understand for themselves that the 2005 proposal does NOT call for teaching ID at all, does NOT call for removing evolution from classrooms at all, does NOT call for teaching religion at all. 
But instead offers science students BETTER awareness of important, vital scientific considerations like the difference between data and interpretation, the importance of understanding philosophical presuppositons, and more accurate understanding of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, the minority standards pay scant attention to the strengths of evolutionary theory, they miss the boat completely when it comes to weaknesses, and they introduce a morass of confusing hedges that, far from clarifying or strengthening a student’s education or a teacher’s understanding, will only waste more taxpayer money (in the form of classroom time spent).

But the KBOE knows this. Indeed, their own process, that they subsequently tossed aside, arrived at many of these conclusions.

It’s just that while evolutionists …don’t want … TO FOCUS THE ISSUE ON EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSED SCIENCE STANDARDS THEMSELVES ….

It’s the antievolutionists who don’t find it necessary to read the two sets of standards. It’s the antievolutionists who have no use for the scientific merits of evolutionary theory.

This much is established. Moreover, every “professional scientist” I have communicated with has taken great amounts of time to compare both stes of standards, and to focus on the merits of the two. I am convinced that Calvert et al. would never agree to a forum or format that truly examined the scientific merits.

Comment #29041

Posted by frank schmidt on May 8, 2005 05:06 PM (e) (s)

FL:

[IDC] instead offers science students BETTER awareness of important, vital scientific considerations like the difference between data and interpretation, the importance of understanding philosophical presuppositons, and more accurate understanding of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.

Specifics, please?

Comment #29051

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 06:21 PM (e) (s)

David pooted:

“Sir Toejam, may I recommend to you some non narcotic herbal remedies that have shown promise in alleviating stress without producing undesirable side effects? “

oh? i guess you hadn’t bothered to even read the psuedo-science done on this either.

It DOES have side effects:

“Amazingly, extremely small doses of magnolol and honokiol are safe and effective for anxiety and depression. However, large doses may cause a sedative effect. Therefore, driving or operating dangerous equipment should be avoided…”

the description kind of reminds me of my reaction to creationists; in small doses i find them humorous, but larger doses tend to cause a sedative effect.

Moreover, they often recommend untested remedies without first seeing what the effects would be.

You want to know why your “kind” pisses me off so much?

1. you criticize without having the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Moreover, you demonstrate this phenomenon time and time again. You think replacing the scientific method with creationism will have any practical value? prove it.

2. Instead of actually doing the science and publishing your results in peer-reviewed litearature, you prefer to try and change the rules instead; using politics to try to gain advantage. How can you logically call that science?

3. You make a total mess of people who don’t know better by convincing them “goddidit” and then when they see it just ain’t so, we have to spend years cleaning up the mess you left behind.

4. for those who do have faith, but actually use their eyes to see, your evangelical political movement is making them look bad too. (why they haven’t tried harder to slap some sense into you is beyond me).

5. you simply refuse to acknowledge the history of your own movement, or give any indication that MAYBE, just MAYBE, someone came and made the same silly arguments you are now making before…. many times before, in fact.

It’s like driving with a 2 year old, who simply can’t grasp the concept of time and place, so keeps asking “are we there yet?”

Patience wears thin after a while.

show me you have ANY clue what you are talking about. take your “idea” and test it yourself. If you can publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it will at least show me you undestand what science is about to begin with.

In the meantime, why don’t you examine any of the DOZENS of peer-reviewed articles on the evolution and structure of flagella that have ALREADY been published (i provide a link to get you started, even), and show me where any of them say “there is no god” or use faulty logic, poor methods, or come to unfounded conclusions.

If you do any of this, you will find yourself much less a target of ridicule.

Until then, don’t expect me to be “apologetic” like yourself.

Comment #29052

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

oh, let me add at least one more to my list:

6. when shown to be incorrect, either by logical refutation or evidentiary, the IDer ignores refutation as contrary to his belief system, and proceeds anyway.

I looked at your “proposal” not only is it not original, but Pim did a nice job of refuting the logic behind it, without even a need to go further and examine the details of any actual scientific articles. You just refused to listen. then you come here, and expect a more favorable review?? laughable. oh, this leads to:

7. an arrogance beyond belief that looking at the “logic” displayed on one or two websites somehow substitutes for years of scientific training and experimentation. I wouldn’t dare to think I know more about economics than Alan Greenspan, or more about astronomy than Carl Sagan, but you IDiots think that you somehow know more about biology and evolution than those who have studied it for years?

I reserve the right to add to my list as IDiots present me with ever yet more fuel.

Comment #29059

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 8, 2005 07:48 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan said:

Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does. “Proof” is not that with which you begin an investigation, but that with which you end the investigation if it ends successfully with regard to the theory proposed.

What is it that you expect? That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first? Where else does science insist on such an extreme standard? It’s absurd even to suggest such a thing.

I expect that when one purports to do science, one will use the definitions and tools of science. The definition of theory, for example, in science, means something that is after the proof. Do not take my word for it; go here to see:
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introducti…

There you’ll read: Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
“The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”

ID has no theory — there is not even a testable hypothesis yet (that has not been disproven). So, before one starts a drive to a scientific theory called intelligent design, I expect observations and experimental results that tend to confirm the hypotheses. In the absence of any such work that might qualify ID as science, I expect ID advocates not to be so hubristicly, prevaricatingly insistent on academic recognition that ID has failed to earn.

Mr. Duncan said:

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself. It makes me think some of you fear the questions that ID asks. But what have you to fear? If a signature of intelligence is found, it was there all along, and is simply part of the truth of existence. If it is not found, eventually the movement will die from lack of results.

What I fear is that the entire thrust of ID is to stop any search for such a “signature of intelligence.” You need to study that idea you claim is theory. Not only is it not theory, it is intellectually, scientifically sterile. There is no laboratory searching for a signature of intelligent design under the aegis of any advocate of ID. Those ID advocates who have reputations as researchers tend to stop research and publication of research results soon after being affected by the ID virus.

ID asks no questions at all, Mr. Duncan. ID is intended to snuff out the truth-seeker’s candle. ID is designed to frustrate and stop questions, not ask them.

Mr. Duncan said:

But what I sense is that some of you don’t even want the questions that ID asks posed at all. You simply want everyone to fall in line and not ask questions.

No, we want people to ask questions, and to stop claiming answers to questions when the answers have not even been sought. You’re looking through the microscope backwards.

Mr. Duncan said:

I hope you can all get over it. The questions will keep coming until they are answered. I sincerely hope that in 10 or 20 years molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum ARE explained fully, without the mere unsubstantiated imaginations of how they evolved that is forced the fill the factual gaps today. At least we will then know.

The only research into bacterial flagella now, as prior to 1991, is done in evolution-based science, in laboratories operated by those who pursue science, not intelligent design. The explanations that exist now falsify Dr. Behe’s claims that there is no evolutionary path — there are no fewer than four potential paths. The questions are, which path, or paths, actually were used. That’s historic, of course.

Is there any question that ID has produced, by the way? You seem to think ID invented one somewhere — can you tell us what that question might have been?

Until then, however, ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise. In fact, you should think of it as pressure that ID is applying to force Darwinism either to evolve or to collapse as a comprehensive theory. : )

Please name for us ONE area of research that science was not pursuing prior to 1994, that it was spurred to pursue by ID advocates. Name the research question, tell us the lab doing the work, tell us who does the work, and tell us why the ID people are not chasing the question themselves. Or answer any combination of those questions.

I do not find your claim to have the ring of accuracy.

Comment #29063

Posted by Flint on May 8, 2005 08:12 PM (e) (s)

I do not find your claim to have the ring of accuracy.

I do not find that this claim is intended to be accurate. What it is intended to be, is persuasive to someone not knowing better (which is nearly everyone). And in this, the claim succeeds. Why do creationists lie? Because their cause is True, their hearts are in the right place, and God approves.

Comment #29083

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 09:19 PM (e) (s)

Ed, you said there are four “potential” paths by which the bacterial flagella could have evolved. The question is which one or ones it actually used.

What does “potential” here mean? It means it could be one or several and you don’t know which. So at this point it’s still a hypothesis how it evolved.

Which is why microbiologist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences expects that question to be resolved within 10 to 20 years of sequencing. He said that, not I, in Nature.

So you think you know generally what the answer will be. You think it will be one of or a combination of those four pathways you mentioned.

I think that’s marvelous. I look forward to the answer to this question, when we will know as precisely as science can tell us how it evolved. When it is answered, then the notion of IC will have been completely discredited.

So the one ID question you are looking for is how did the bacterial flagellum evolve through Darwinian mechanisms. That is also the same question that Darwinists are asking. So your notion that something about a question makes it ID rather than Darwinist is mistaken. Behe merely looked at the flagellum, couldn’t figure out how it was built by Darwinian mechanisms, and inferred that a non Darwinian mechanism must be in effect. And since it looks exactly like a machine, he inferred that it must have been designed like one.

The reason his argument still stands is because whether four or four thousand “potential” pathways, we must know the actual one. Until you have an actual pathway, the “potential” pathways are ideas in your mind, because there is no “potential” pathway in the world. There are only specific pathways. There are paths that are traveled and paths that are not. There is no such real thing as a “potential” pathway. “Potential” is a quality of perception, not of the world outside of perception.

I did make an error, however, and I readily admit it. Research into the flagellar mechanism existed before ID. When I say that ID is pushing Darwinism, I should have been more precise. And it is an inference based on the fierce emotional resentment that many have as evidenced in these very posts. Just read Mr. Toejam for an example of the primal vitriol I mean. While research into the flagellar would no doubt have continued whether or not ID focused on it, what I meant, speaking from a philosophical perspective, is that this controversy must be producing a very strong desire to get this research done and shut the IDists up about the bacterial flagellum. And the reason I infer this is both from the hatred in posts like these and the psychology which produces them.

The reason why it is important to know what the personal views regarding the compatibility between God and evolution also has to do with society. There are far more ways to “say” things than through research papers. One’s personal opinions have a way of seeping through to students and to the ground level of society, even if one would not publish such an opinion as part of a research paper. Everyone of you here is a human being. You have views, and opinions some of which might make sense to you and not to others, and we ALL say stupid things at times. Mr. Toejam just seems to say them more frequently. But it is at the street level where these opinions and research products may get fuzzed together because they come from the same source. Part of that is the fault of how your ideas are reported by non scientists, but part of that is the fault of scientists. I think Eugenia Scott is on the mark with her comment in Nature, where you will also find the aforementioned comment by Dr. Alberts:

Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005) Intelligent design:  Who has designs on your students’ minds?

I talk to a lot of young people who are NOT scientists, and I query them about their views, and many many think that Darwinism has destroyed God, that God does not exist, because evolution has disproved Him.

Where are they getting these ideas? Why do so many of them think that God and Darwinism are incompatible propositions?

My hypothesis is that this is the version that is filtering down to street level, and it goes uncorrected. It goes into their heads, solidifies, and then becomes a dogma to defend. There is no God BECAUSE Darwinism is true. It also combines with other things, like Marxist idealogy, to generate social ideas and policies.

So it is VERY important to teach this stuff correctly, and I don’t think that is being done. Reference Scott’s remarks.

I recommend the Nature article. Scott nails the problem on the head about how scientists are teaching evolution.

Comment #29087

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 09:38 PM (e) (s)

“Where are they getting these ideas? Why do so many of them think that God and Darwinism are incompatible propositions?”

you have finally asked a good question. one you yourself could easily answer if you spent some time looking into who is actually saying these things.

actually, you will find it comes from creationists themselves. I have taught science in many different forums over the years, and I have yet to see any instructor of biology teach anything about god whatsoever. as is correct, since science should and does only deal with the measurable and testable. OTOH, i have heard plenty of evangelical christians accuse science teachers of trying to disprove god; i hear it from the mouths of preachers and politicians quite frequently these days, and it has been a common theme for many years.

This ends up sowing confusion among any who don’t want to take the time to seek the answer to your question for themselves.

what have you done, David, to try to dispel their confusion? or have you only added to it?

as to your other comment:

“…we ALL say stupid things at times. Mr. Toejam just seems to say them more frequently”

prove me wrong; make my statements describing how IDers behave incorrect, at least as applied to yourself. do something useful to adress the issue you just posed, rather than taking science to task on things you know so little about.

you have a chance to make a difference, if you care about the young people you spoke with being confused.

Science is not the enemy of reason.

Comment #29088

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 09:48 PM (e) (s)

as to my vitriol…

i do not suffer idiots gladly, and have no reason, political or otherwise, to do so.

if you pose intelligent questions, my vitriol dies down quite quickly. You can see more reasoned responses to genuine questions here, if you wish:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000994.ht…

now ask yourself: what was it about your post that pissed me off?

You might want to take a look at all of the standard claptrap that creationists have been posting on all the threads here at PT.

You might want to take a look at how creationist politics has already degraded funding for scientific research over the last 25 years.

you might want to think a bit before posting.

Comment #29090

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 09:52 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Toejam, it is futile and unproductive to respond to your rage, but you said my idea of what to look for as strong evidence of design is “unoriginal.”

Well then, would you kindly post a link or source wherein that idea was previously suggested? I am curious to know who came up with the suggestion before I did.

In addition, Pim did an awful job of refuting me. In fact, he simply gave up answering. I was rather underwhelmed by his responses, and disappointed that I didn’t feel more challenged. However, if YOU think you can provide responses to the points I raised in my last post to Pim, where Pim simply gave up, I would be grateful for and glad to hear any well reasoned commentary from you.

Here again is the link for your convenience:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_…

Have a nice day, Mr. Toejam.

Comment #29092

Posted by RBH on May 8, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

I get a 404 error clicking on your link. I suggest using www.tinyurl.com, or using appropriate KwickCode formatting for URLs, particularly long URLs.

RBH

Comment #29093

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 10:08 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Toejam, you suggested I ask  “what was it about your post that pissed me off?”

No, Mr. Toejam, that excuse won’t do. Your reactions are your responsibility, not mine. Not everyone responds as you do. You can, if you gain control of yourself, have more productive responses, even to questions or issues which you don’t like.

It wasn’t anything I wrote that “pissed you off,” it was you who did that.

You have been suggesting that I am a creationist for how many posts now? You have demonstrated a meanness that is unflattering to you, and you have been unduly harsh to me, but I did not erupt at you.

I am not a creationist, nor am I an IDist, nor am I a scientist. I am a philosopher, dealing with philosphical questions. I was intrigued with Behe’s idea. What IF intelligence is involved with the evolution of life? What IF evidence could be found? Well then, what WOULD it have to look like? Those are the LEGITIMATE philosophical questions I asked and gave an answer to. What I found was that merely asking those questions evoked hostility in Pim and, apparently, you too.

And when someone responds to a question that is asked with ridicule or hostility, what he is really saying is “don’t go there. Don’t ask that question.” Because he is using the ricidule and hostility as a force to discourage.

Comment #29094

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 10:12 PM (e) (s)

“Well then, would you kindly post a link or source wherein that idea was previously suggested? I am curious to know who came up with the suggestion before I did.”

okeedokee. if you think your idea is the proof creationism has been seeking for all these years, by all means, make a full proposal to fund testing your idea at the Discovery Institute. Or whatever funding agency you prefer. You must be a genius, by your own recognition, so I say, go forth! when you get your article published, and they invite you to speak at the next equivalent Kansas Kangaroo, do drop us a line so we can bow to your brilliance. You will certainly get a full apology from me at that time.

However, I don’t see how that is going to answer the only legitimate question you posed (even if it was phrased rather oddly):

“Why do so many of them think that God and Darwinism are incompatible propositions?”

I still think you would be spending your time far better if you pursued the answer to that question through diligent research, then take what you learn from it and help those confused youngsters you meet.

Comment #29095

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 10:18 PM (e) (s)

RBH, let me try again. I am not very good at this, but I am much better than my mentor in philosophy, who needs his son to help him cut and paste! : )

RBH, you have also read my proposal before and commented on it directly at ISCID. Both you and Rex Kerr were much nicer to it than Pim who, in my opinion, sought merely to shoot it down. If you would reread it, please add anything if you have anything to add.

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_…

Comment #29096

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 10:23 PM (e) (s)

RBH, lemme try again, this time using your wise suggestion.

http://tinyurl.com/9uhl3

Comment #29097

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2005 10:24 PM (e) (s)

The Inflationary Universe of Antievolution

See Jeff Shallit’s Anatomy of a Creationist Tall Tale for the full background for this. Most of the material here is taken directly from that page.

The initial event: Jeff Shallit corresponded with the Smithsonian Institution to find out about collections of designed objects of which we don’t know the functions. Kenneth Burke there told him that in…

one showcase of a 1980-1 exhibition at the then National Museum of History and Technology “a number of unindentified articles were displayed[…]”

(Elsberry and Shallit, 2003)

Then Del Ratzsch in 1998 took notice of this:

The Smithsonian Institution has a collection of obviously designed human artifacts, concerning the purposes of which no one has a clue.

William Dembski then reported in a 1998 article:

There is a room at the Smithsonian filled with objects that are obviously designed but whose specific purpose anthropologists do not understand.

And then again Dembski reports this in 2002:

Consider that the Smithsonian Institution devotes a room to obviously designed artifacts for which no one has a clue what those artifacts do.

In the latter case Dembski cited Del Ratzsch as his source.

This was the state of play where Jeff got involved, where part of a showcase of an exhibit almost 20 years previous became “a collection”, then became a room dedicated to storing such artifacts.

Well, Kansas has added its bit to the inflationary universe of antievolution. In his testimony to the Kansas Kangaroo Court, Dr. Harris brought up this claim. Now, though, the budget must have gone through the roof, for Harris testified that in Washington, DC, there is a museum that devotes an entire wing to such artifacts!

Mark Twain famously opined that “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Obviously, pseudoscience is seeking to one-up science in this regard.

Comment #29098

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 10:25 PM (e) (s)

“Those are the LEGITIMATE philosophical questions I asked and gave an answer to”

ahh, now you are getting to it.

that is the issue, that is the main reason your posts vex me so.

you stated it yourself:

PHILOSOPHICAL questions. NOT scientific.

you can’t answer philosophical questions with the scientific method; to even suggest doing so is the main reason you keep running into these confused youths which you mentioned.

It is your continued refusal to recognize that, just like so many others like you that have posted here, that draws my ire.

As i indicated to you, I am not averse to questions about hypotheses that can be tested, and even provided you with an example of such discourse.

You mistake the essence of good science teaching. You misinterpreted what Scott was getting at. Scott rightly notes that when we are teaching good science, we ARE teaching our students to question. We teach them to question the methods a particular study uses, to question the logic behind the assumptions made, to question conclusions not in evidence.

that IS teaching good science. It would be doing a disservice to teach our students that the way to refute science is through philosophy or religion. That is why we work so hard to prevent ID from being taught in schools. not because of any scientific questions it raises, because by definition, it can only raise philosophical questions. That is the reason why, as has been pointed out to you several times now, that ID does NOT have a theory to begin with. It has a philosophical postion, not a scientific theory.

Comment #29106

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 9, 2005 12:28 AM (e) (s)

Dandy David Duncan

I look forward to the answer to this question, when we will know as precisely as science can tell us how it evolved. When it is answered, then the notion of IC will have been completely discredited.

Wonderful. In the meantime, of course, we’ll consider IC to be 99.9999% discredited — that would be sufficient for an honest person to think twice before trying to peddle the concept to schoolkids as “science.”

I’m sure you’re aware that the enterocraftic theory of creation is less discredited than IC. Are you prepared to discredit enterocraftic theory so that IC moves up in the queue, Mr. Duncan?

What IF intelligence is involved with the evolution of life? What IF evidence could be found? Well then, what WOULD it have to look like?

What would the evidence “have to” look like? That would depend on the nature of the intelligent designers, wouldn’t it David? And their intentions? Because “if” the designers are all powerful all knowing beings, then they can hide any evidence of their “designs” from us mere human beings if they so desired.

Yawn. I’m already bored. Are there any ID apologists out there with imaginations?

this controversy must be producing a very strong desire to get this research done and shut the IDists up about the bacterial flagellum.

The IDiots will never shut up. The vast majority of educated intelligent people think that young earth creationists, Sasquatch hunters, and UFO abductees are pathetic buffoons. But that doesn’t stop a certain class of human beings from continuing the tradition of making asses out of themselves.

You should ask yourself if you want to belong to this group and, if so, why you want to belong.

I talk to a lot of young people who are NOT scientists, and I query them about their views, and many many think that Darwinism has destroyed God, that God does not exist, because evolution has disproved Him.

Where are they getting these ideas? Why do so many of them think that God and Darwinism are incompatible propositions?

Sir Toejam provided you with the correct and, frankly, obvious answer.

Are you really a “philosopher”? I’m beginning to suspect that you’re one of those “young men” that Salvador Cordova recruited and finally persuaded to witness here.

What a disappointment.

Comment #29107

Posted by David Duncan on May 9, 2005 12:37 AM (e) (s)

Toejam, the ID hypothesis is that intelligence is needed to explain certain features of the molecular biological world. Behe maintains that molecular machines are such features.

Okay then, how do you test that hypothesis?

That was my question too. If Behe is right, then how are you going to test that hypothesis? But rather than say “oh he’s just making these untestable assertions, and that’s not science,” I actually thought about it seriously. And to test that hypothesis you have to know what to look for that would constitute strong evidence, so that you know when you’ve got it.

My suggestion in “What ID Proof Must Look Like” is the best I could come up with. IF intelligence is involved in evolution, and IF intelligence leaves a signature, THEN this is what it must look like…was my argument.

Now, I can’t take it any further than that. I am not a scientist. But what I think I did was to provide some details on what we should be looking for to prove the hypothesis—-details which I found in short supply coming from other people thinking about this problem.

Now, Rex Kerr seemed to think that my suggestion was sound, and that some sort of statistical genomic analysis might be able to establish if this was occurring or not. I do not know exactly what he had in mind. It’s out of my territory anyway. I simply tried to deal with the philosophical underpinnings, and to contribute something in my own way.

So, there is an ID hypothesis, there is some detail on what to look for to know when the hypothesis has been proved or disproved, and based on one suggestion, perhaps a testable means of looking for it. People who know more and who have the inclination and ability will have to take it further. Beyond what I have suggested, I have no ability (or interest) to go further. I am already overburdened with other projects.

Comment #29110

Posted by David Duncan on May 9, 2005 01:28 AM (e) (s)

Oh Great and Powerful White Wonder,

I do not think you are bored at all. I think you relish the ad hominem attack. It makes you feel alive and strong. Unfortunately, it’s a piss poor form of argument, and it does not make you look good. So if you are concerned about people making asses out of themselves, I suggest you first concern yourself with yourself.

Oh, and IC is 99.99999% discredited? I like that. A strong definite number. Give me the link to your source for that sharp and specific number.

Oh..what’s that??? Oh you were just being sarcastic?

That’s an awful lot of sarcasm for a real scientist. Is sarcasm part of the scientific method? Or perhaps you are not a real scientist, or just not a very good one?

I shall be looking forward to your scientific defense of the 99.99999% figure, complete with links and charts.

Yes, supremely intelligent designers could hide it if they so desired, and I do not know, if they exist or existed, if they did or didn’t desire such a thing. But you appear to know the answer to that, which is why you treat the question with contempt. You seem to suggest that we ought not bother looking for or asking the question because we do not know what their desires were/are. I couldn’t care less what their desires were/are. If we found what I suggest that would answer your question whether they wanted it known. You seem to be deciding first that they do not want it known, so why look? My suggestion looks for evidence of intelligent design based on a model of an intelligent designer that reflects ourselves. If the intelligence of the designer is a reflection of the intelligence we have, then the evidence of design could be the same in both.

What you missed is that I noted that IF such evidence were possible to FIND, i.e, recognize. I did not say that if we could NOT find such evidence that it meant there WAS NO designer. It would only mean that no signature of a designer would be detectable, not that there was no designer.

As far as your suspicions are concerned, wrong again. I am not a student and I do not know Cordova. I have never met the man. Sorry.

I too am disappointed. You had an opportunity to say something intelligent, but you threw it away in favor of self serving ad hominem attacks that made you feel good. Pity.

I will no longer respond to any such attacks. Save them. Go to sleep of you are bored.

Comment #29112

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 9, 2005 02:58 AM (e) (s)

In comment 29083, David Duncan said:

Ed, you said there are four “potential” paths by which the bacterial flagella could have evolved. The question is which one or ones it actually used.

What does “potential” here mean? It means it could be one or several and you don’t know which. So at this point it’s still a hypothesis how it evolved.

Right. And that stands in direct contradiction to the usual claim of the “intelligent design” bunch, that we don’t know how flagella could have evolved. One potential path would falsify the claim; four potential paths makes the IDists’ claim sound like propaganda.

Mr. Duncan said:

Which is why microbiologist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences expects that question to be resolved within 10 to 20 years of sequencing. He said that, not I, in Nature.

Again, the problem here isn’t that Dr. Alberts noted science goes on. The problem is that IDists cite Dr. Alberts in error, claiming that he said this is an unsolvable problem for evolution, or suggesting (as it now appears you suggested) that science hadn’t bothered with the problem until ID asked the question.

So you think you know generally what the answer will be. You think it will be one of or a combination of those four pathways you mentioned.

I think that’s marvelous. I look forward to the answer to this question, when we will know as precisely as science can tell us how it evolved. When it is answered, then the notion of IC will have been completely discredited.

In the meantime, since there is no counter-evidence in favor of “irreducible complexity,” it’s a sham (and a shame!) to urge that we teach innocent children either that IC is science, or especially that it is a worthwhile path of inquiry right now.

If the question is, ‘What should we teach kids in science classes?’ the answer is inadequate to suggest that we should teach stuff that hasn’t been completely disproven, and cut out stuff we know to be true.

So the one ID question you are looking for is how did the bacterial flagellum evolve through Darwinian mechanisms. That is also the same question that Darwinists are asking. So your notion that something about a question makes it ID rather than Darwinist is mistaken. Behe merely looked at the flagellum, couldn’t figure out how it was built by Darwinian mechanisms, and inferred that a non Darwinian mechanism must be in effect. And since it looks exactly like a machine, he inferred that it must have been designed like one.

So, in other words, ID is again a sterile ground for science. Behe looked, couldn’t figure it out, failed to make a good literature search, erroneously analogized the flagellum to a motor, and did bad science from there.

You had suggested ID produced questions that were unique and good to follow, questions that science had not asked previously. It is now clear that is not the case, that ID is sterile even to your reckoning.

The reason his argument still stands is because whether four or four thousand “potential” pathways, we must know the actual one. Until you have an actual pathway, the “potential” pathways are ideas in your mind, because there is no “potential” pathway in the world. There are only specific pathways. There are paths that are traveled and paths that are not. There is no such real thing as a “potential” pathway. “Potential” is a quality of perception, not of the world outside of perception.

Balderdash. Behe’s claim in his book is that there is no way the device could evolve. The potential of one pathway falsifies his claim, and falsifies the claim that ID is science.

I did make an error, however, and I readily admit it. Research into the flagellar mechanism existed before ID. When I say that ID is pushing Darwinism, I should have been more precise. And it is an inference based on the fierce emotional resentment that many have as evidenced in these very posts. Just read Mr. Toejam for an example of the primal vitriol I mean. While research into the flagellar would no doubt have continued whether or not ID focused on it, what I meant, speaking from a philosophical perspective, is that this controversy must be producing a very strong desire to get this research done and shut the IDists up about the bacterial flagellum. And the reason I infer this is both from the hatred in posts like these and the psychology which produces them.

You misinterpret. What you see as hatred is really ennui with those who have failed to do their homework but demand a good grade for work not done.

It’s a righteous disgust, in other words. The science was there, Behe failed to note it. He failed to do his homework, and now you and he are asking that he be given a good grade for that failure.

Why should such a request not be met with utter derision?

The reason why it is important to know what the personal views regarding the compatibility between God and evolution also has to do with society. There are far more ways to “say” things than through research papers. One’s personal opinions have a way of seeping through to students and to the ground level of society, even if one would not publish such an opinion as part of a research paper. Everyone of you here is a human being. You have views, and opinions some of which might make sense to you and not to others, and we ALL say stupid things at times. Mr. Toejam just seems to say them more frequently. But it is at the street level where these opinions and research products may get fuzzed together because they come from the same source. Part of that is the fault of how your ideas are reported by non scientists, but part of that is the fault of scientists. I think Eugenia Scott is on the mark with her comment in Nature, where you will also find the aforementioned comment by Dr. Alberts:

Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005) Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students’ minds?

I talk to a lot of young people who are NOT scientists, and I query them about their views, and many many think that Darwinism has destroyed God, that God does not exist, because evolution has disproved Him.

Where are they getting these ideas? Why do so many of them think that God and Darwinism are incompatible propositions?

My hypothesis is that this is the version that is filtering down to street level, and it goes uncorrected. It goes into their heads, solidifies, and then becomes a dogma to defend. There is no God BECAUSE Darwinism is true. It also combines with other things, like Marxist idealogy, to generate social ideas and policies.

So it is VERY important to teach this stuff correctly, and I don’t think that is being done. Reference Scott’s remarks.

I recommend the Nature article. Scott nails the problem on the head about how scientists are teaching evolution.

I’m having a difficult time parsing your comments from something you appear to be quoting. Our views on God have very little to do with science, and discussion of those views, except in historical contexts such as noting that organized faith made peace with Darwin in the 19th century, is out of place in science classes. William Shockley’s racism has zero effect on his science for which he won a Nobel prize, for example. If you were to claim we should all stop using transistors, or teaching solid state electronics, because it causes racism, you’d be regarded as a loon.

Similarly, any claim that we should stop the search for a cure for a given cancer because we fear that following Darwin’s science is evil, should be regarded as coming from a loon.

In those Nature discussions, Scott and Alberts were arguing to teach evolution straight up, the real stuff. ID argues to dilute or eliminate evolution from curricula. If you misunderstood what they were saying, go read the articles again.

Darwinian biology, by the way, can more easily be painted as wholly at odds with Marxism. In point of fact Darwin rejected Marxism out of hand. Similarly, Marxists, such as Joseph Stalin, worked to stamp out Darwinian theory as ‘too bourgeois,’ and Darwinists were accused by Stalin of the same things you now accuse scientists of.

I would suggest you study these issues more, and much more deeply, before advocating the flight from science you appear to advocate. Go read the history of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, for example — and tell us, if you can, how Lysenko’s views on Darwin differ in any way from the views of Darwin from the Discovery Institute, or the Dover School Board, or the Kansas State School Board.

It is my view that kids do NOT study Darwin, and that is why they get odd views that you ascribe. “Intelligent design” is more improper study, and consequently will do nothing to counter the ill effects you worry about, but will instead most likely exacerbate the problems.

Comment #29113

Posted by Matt Inlay on May 9, 2005 03:01 AM (e) (s)

Duncan, you wrote:

My suggestion in “What ID Proof Must Look Like” is the best I could come up with. IF intelligence is involved in evolution, and IF intelligence leaves a signature, THEN this is what it must look like … was my argument.

Now, I can’t take it any further than that. I am not a scientist. But what I think I did was to provide some details on what we should be looking for to prove the hypothesis—-details which I found in short supply coming from other people thinking about this problem.

At some point in time, probably every ID critic has played the devil’s advocate and tried to come up with some testable hypotheses for ID. What they’ve quickly realized is that you cannot come up with a single fruitful idea without making some assumptions about the nature of the designer. RBH has probably made the most successful stab at a theory of ID. Many would argue that his theory is better than anything Behe or Dembski have ever proposed. The key reason for that is because of political reasons, neither Behe nor Dembski will make any assumptions about the designer.

I’ve looked at your ISCID thread. I didn’t read through the subsequent posts, but I can see what you’re trying to do. You’re looking for evidence of foresight, a feature that Darwinism necessarily lacks. I’ve toyed with the foresight concept before. I used oxygen as an example. What if the components of aerobic respiration appeared before the abundance of oxygen on Earth? Surely that would be considered foresight. The problem is twofold. If the designer wanted to front load aerobic respiration into bacteria before oxygen was present to complete the system, he would have to make those components beneficial to the bacteria, otherwise they’d eventually be lost due to neutral mutation (the ‘use it or lose it’ concept). Of course, if the components were beneficial to the organism the process would be indistinguishable from Darwinian evolution. That’s the first problem, there is a second one. Imagine if I fired a model rocket into the air and decided to eat at the restaurant nearest to where the rocket landed. Patrons of the restaurant, after watching me fire the rocket, and seeing it land near the restaurant, and seeing me walk into the restaurant and order lunch, would probably conclude that I aimed for that particular restaurant. It’s easy to infer foresight after the fact, whether for firing rockets or for the evolution of a system. How do you know that the endpoint was intended? The answer is you can’t.

Let me make one last point. It may be fun to play around with the notion of ID, but that isn’t science. Let’s say that in the course of these conversations you actually came up with a testable idea. The next step is to actually test it. This could mean years of grunt work, in the lab, spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Then you submit your data and conclusions to a peer-reviewed journal, where the editor and reviewers decide whether they want to stake the reputation of the journal on your results. That would be step 1. That would be doing science. Of course, there are other steps, but at least that’d be a start. So far, no IDist has even bothered to engage in step 1. In fact, I’d venture that you’ve gone as far as any IDist has ever gone in proposing a testable hypothesis. Did you notice that in your thread, not a single IDist gave you any feedback? And this is in a forum designed specifically to ‘brainstorm’ ID concepts. That alone speaks volumes about the state of ID as a science. Why would any real scientist take ID seriously when it hasn’t done anything yet? Why should we teach ID to high school students if there’s nothing to teach? Don’t you think there should be some sort of minimum level of accomplishment ID should attain before we teach it in classrooms?

You don’t have to answer my questions, but I hope you at least think about them.

Comment #29122

Posted by Ian Hearn on May 9, 2005 06:20 AM (e) (s)

Evolutions Waterloo,
As hoped for by Dembski

My my, at Waterloo Napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The holy book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself

Evolution - I was defeated, you won the war
Intelligent Design - Promise to love you for ever more
Evolution - Couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Creationism - Knowing my fate is to be with you
Evolution - Finally facing it’s Waterloo

My my, I tried to hold you back but you were stronger
Oh yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight
And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose

Evolution - I was defeated, you won the war
Intelligent Design - Promise to love you for ever more
Evolution - Couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Creationism - Knowing my fate is to be with you
Evolution - Finally facing it’s Waterloo

And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose

Evolution - I was defeated, you won the war
Intelligent Design - Promise to love you for ever more
Evolution - Couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Creationism - Knowing my fate is to be with you
Evolution - Finally facing it’s Waterloo

Comment #29126

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 9, 2005 07:23 AM (e) (s)

I am not a creationist, nor am I an IDist, nor am I a scientist. I am a philosopher, dealing with philosphical questions.

“Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual intercourse”.

— K Marx

Comment #29127

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 9, 2005 07:26 AM (e) (s)

What IF intelligence is involved with the evolution of life? What IF evidence could be found? Well then, what WOULD it have to look like?

What IF my grandmother had wheels? Well then, WOULD she be a wagon?

If ID has something testible to say about the world around us, let’s hear it. Until then, they’re just pissing in the wind.

Comment #29135

Posted by chieftain on May 9, 2005 08:42 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote:

Similarly, any claim that we should stop the search for a cure for a given cancer because we fear that following Darwin’s science is evil, should be regarded as coming from a loon.

On that subject, I thought people might be interested in a press release I recently saw (I work at a UK news organisation). Admittedly, they’re fundy Christians rather than ID proponents, but that does seem to be exactly what they’re saying:

CERVICAL CANCER VACCINE “BLEAK”

News that GlaxoSmithKline have claimed a breakthough in developing a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus was described as “bleak” today by Christian Voice, the group behind the Jerry Springer the Opera protests.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: “What a sad commentary on our society, when instead of urging chastity and self-control on their sons and daughters, parents will be taking their young daughters along to the doctor to be innoculated against a sexually-transmitted disease. Can nobody be bothered to tell children to save sex for marriage? What a bleak response to the national tragedy of Government-sponsored promiscuity.

“Cervarix is a false dawn in a nasty, brutal world, stripped, literally, of all modesty and self-respect. These irresponsible parents will be telling their daughters: “You’re now free to sleep around as much as you want.” It will come back on them, because HPV is not the only sexually-transmitted disease that condoms can’t prevent. Even if the vaccine works 100%, when their daughters contract Chlamydia instead, all hope of them becoming grandparents will go down the pan. ‘As a man sows, so shall he reap.’ We are reaping an epidemic of teenage infertility and no-one cares.

“GlaxoSmithKline should be ashamed of themselves for seeking to profit from promsicuity.”

My first post here, BTW.

Comment #29137

Posted by Ian Hearn on May 9, 2005 09:09 AM (e) (s)

Cheiftan wrote:

CERVICAL CANCER VACCINE “BLEAK”

News that GlaxoSmithKline have claimed a breakthough in developing a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus was described as “bleak” today by Christian Voice, the group behind the Jerry Springer the Opera protests.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: “What a sad commentary on our society, when instead of urging chastity and self-control on their sons and daughters, parents will be taking their young daughters along to the doctor to be innoculated against a sexually-transmitted disease. Can nobody be bothered to tell children to save sex for marriage? What a bleak response to the national tragedy of Government-sponsored promiscuity.

“Cervarix is a false dawn in a nasty, brutal world, stripped, literally, of all modesty and self-respect. These irresponsible parents will be telling their daughters: “You’re now free to sleep around as much as you want.” It will come back on them, because HPV is not the only sexually-transmitted disease that condoms can’t prevent. Even if the vaccine works 100%, when their daughters contract Chlamydia instead, all hope of them becoming grandparents will go down the pan. ‘As a man sows, so shall he reap.’ We are reaping an epidemic of teenage infertility and no-one cares.

“GlaxoSmithKline should be ashamed of themselves for seeking to profit from promsicuity.”

This also the group that also persuaded a cancer charity to refuse a £3,000 donation from the jerry springer opera. What nice “christian” people they are, it’s comments like this that show what evil people they are. True christians who supported the group over Jerry Springer the opera will run a mile from them after a statement like that.

Comment #29138

Posted by Torville on May 9, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

I find the projection from trolls like FL well illustrates the principle that people tend to assume that other people are like them; just as honest (or not), and just as “faith-based” (or not).

We (the rationalists) and they (the… um… non-rationalists) assume that the sort of argument that would be effective on =us= will be effective on =them=, and become confused when it doesn’t work out that way.

I quote FL…

A lot of pure personal ~faith~ has been invested in Darwinism, naturalism, materialism. Like any church-goer, this Darwinist faith has been carefully cultivated and reinforced in their lives. A major investment, natch.

Somebody’s core beliefs (about the nature of science, about Christianity, about reality itself) are thus threatened by the ID hypothesis, regardless of anything else. Been that way for a long time.
Hence the obvious sneering hatred.

Seeing how those paragraphs read if you replace “Darwinism” with Islam or Hinduism, it seems likely that FL thinks science is a type of religion, a =competing= religion, so this is about who has the stronger faith, who can win the most converts, and facts are for people who don’t have the courage of their convictions.

I think many posters here, painfully trying to slice the scientific method thin enough to make it digestible for even the slowest wit, don’t seem to realize that to their respondents, logic and reason just don’t matter.

Comment #29142

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 09:46 AM (e) (s)

The observation that to the faith-based, everything is based on faith, has been made many times. It’s probably true that this basic orientation is pervasive — that evidence, logic and reason exist to defend, support and glorify a priori conclusions, whatever insult must be done to them to meet this fundamental requirement.

To FL and those like him, ‘evidence’ is anything that supports, or can be represented as supporting, these conclusions. If it does not provide such support, it is simply not evidence. Darwin himself pointed out that facts outside any explanatory framework are meaningless, so there is some basis for FL’s view. The distinction becomes most clear when the effort is made to fit facts into a context. As Humpty Dumpty asked, “which is to be the master”? Science accords primacy to the facts themselves, and requires that conclusions honor them. FL selects the opposite master, holding that the conclusions come first and what does not fit, is not factual.

And so from FL’s point of view, his opponents have started with wrong conclusions, are selecting and rejecting facts as required, and this faith is threatened by those of different starting conclusions. I seriously doubt if this mindset could ever be overcome.

Comment #29151

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 9, 2005 10:28 AM (e) (s)

Some questions for flagella-philes:

Is the eukaryotic flagellum irreducibly complex, just as the bacterial flagellum is said to be?

If so, what to make of the following observations in Chlamydomonas (from the early 1980s)?

1. A certain class of recessive mutations results in “flagellar paralysis” of the organism.

2. A class of recessive suppressors restores cellular motility.

I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence by discussing the significance of the fact that these are recessive mutations. But I’d like to know if the concept of “Irreducible Complexity” with regards to flagella can contribute to an explanation.

Comment #29162

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 9, 2005 12:01 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan

You seem to suggest that we ought not bother looking for or asking the question because we do not know what their desires were/are. I couldn’t care less what their desires were/are.

That’s because you’re devoid of a clue, my friend. I tried to help you out, to wake you up with an invigorating slap across your insolent pouting rictus. But instead of waking up sober, you went into a petulent frenzy.

Pity.

Please, don’t let me stand in your way, Mr. Philosopher. We’ve been waiting for thousands of years for someone to devise a method to prove the existence of gods. Perhaps you are the chosen one, Sir Duncan! Your Nobel Prize awaits. Lead the way. I won’t interfere with your “theorizing” again.

As far as your suspicions are concerned, wrong again. I am not a student and I do not know Cordova. I have never met the man.

I think you’d like him.

Comment #29225

Posted by David Duncan on May 9, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

Matt, I agree with every one of your points, but I am not sure you get what I was really trying to do, so let me explain it.

I thought Behe’s idea of IC was intriguing, but I quickly realized that in order for IC to be evidence of ID, it has to become IC through a certain pathway that is non-Darwinian. Because if you explain IC through a Darwinian pathway, then POOF! His argument disintegrates. And I am not sure if what Behe meant to suggest was that IC is evidence of special creation. If he meant that, then I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would simply throw in the towel looking for a Darwinian pathway. I don’t buy any special creation theory for IC systems either.

So that means what? Okay, if there is a designer, if the designer left any evidence of his design, if that evidence is unrelated to any special creation claim, and if the evidence is non-Darwinian, then it has to look a certain way. What I came up with is directly implied by each of these what ifs.

So I assume you understand what I mean in my ISCID post by a non-Darwinian pathway in the assembly line model I proposed.

Now let’s move on over the area of testing it. As Ed pointed out, and I shall take his word for it, there are 4 “potential” pathways that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved through natural selection. I have proposed a 5th “potential” pathway that is non-Darwinian. Now the first group of 4 Darwinian pathways and the lone non-Darwinian pathway are mutually exclusive, so by disjunction, if any of the 4 in the Darwinian group are show to be true, the non-Darwinian one is shown to be false. So it is possible to do a negative test for the Non-Darwinian pathway, although I cannot imagine how to do a positive one. Still, the non-Darwinian pathway I suggested CAN be tested for in that way.

Now, in the non-Darwinian pathway that IC as evidence of ID suggests, the “use it or lose it” concept cannot exist or, as you pointed out, it is indistinguishable from a darwinian pathway. Exactly. So in other words, in the non-Darwinian pathway, they don’t use it OR lose it, and several other components which they neither use nor lose are acquired and added to the previous ones, until some IC mechanism is produced and activated by some final piece falling into place, which produces a benefit to the organism using the new IC system. THAT is what IC as evidence of ID, when acts of special creation are rejected, implies the pathway must look like.

I didn’t so much invent this as follow the earlier premises to their logical conclusion. This is where the conclusion of those premises lead.

Once again, I’d like to thank you for your civility. This is what productive conversation reads like.

***

In response to the good Rev, you should have chosen a more lucid philosopher to quote than Marx. Science IS a species of philosophy, and there is even territorial overlap in some areas, as between the philosophy of mind and the neurosciences. The materialist assumptions which neuroscientists make are philosophical in character, and they could not do neuroscience without making such philosophical assumptions. No, there is no oil and water relationship between science and philosophy as there is between religion and science.

Comment #29229

Posted by David Duncan on May 9, 2005 06:13 PM (e) (s)

Rev, in fact, Marx is only equalled for sheer number of clearly exposited bad ideas by Ayn Rand. But there is a difference:

Marx’s bad ideas have killed millions of people, and they continue to do so today.

Comment #29238

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 06:49 PM (e) (s)

David, your logic is so flawed it’s scary.

“Now the first group of 4 Darwinian pathways and the lone non-Darwinian pathway are mutually exclusive, so by disjunction, if any of the 4 in the Darwinian group are show to be true, the non-Darwinian one is shown to be false. “

With that logic, i could propose that the flagella were formed by elves in a treetrunk, and my grand hypothesis would be falsified if it were shown to be done by other means.

of what value is my hypothesis? of what value is yours?

Is there any reason to pursue any other hypothesis that that reasonably suggested by previous evidence and experimentation? wouldn’t simply pursuing the most reasonable course of action end up “testing” your hypothesis just as reasonably as mine?

What is the point of suggesting an alternative, if simply pursuing already extant, testable theories would elimate the alternatives?

in other words, you have essentially made a great case for doing nothing different that we already are.

your viewpoint is too much influenced by your belief in Behe’s incredulity. Nothing is incredulous once it is explained, is it.

take a look at the history of claims for irreducible complexity, and you will find each and every one dismissed by simple scientific research. the flagella is simply the latest in a long line of this. You can’t simply take a current slice, and expect you understand the whole history of this issue. go do some reading, why don’t you? you have about 150 years worth to catch up on.

i’ll let lenny educate you about your misinterpretations of the distinctions between science and philosophy wrt to prediction and experimentation.

Comment #29240

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 06:53 PM (e) (s)

“Marx’s bad ideas have killed millions of people, and they continue to do so today.”

oop, better pull your pants up, your political naivete is showing.

what other points would you care to comment on to show us your total lack of knowledge?

Comment #29245

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 9, 2005 07:20 PM (e) (s)

Okay, if there is a designer, if the designer left any evidence of his design, if that evidence is unrelated to any special creation claim, and if the evidence is non-Darwinian, then it has to look a certain way. What I came up with is directly implied by each of these what ifs.

That’s nice.

Does ID have a scientific theory that can be tested using the scientific method, or doesn’t it.

If it does, quit waving your arms and just SHOW IT TO US.

If it doesn’t, then … uh … what the hell are you yammering about it for?

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

Comment #29275

Posted by David Duncan on May 9, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

Toey, you reject Behe’s claims EXACTLY through the method I described. Every one of those claims you say are rejected by simple scientific research is rejected by disjunction, NOT because Behe has proposed X, tested X, and found X unproven. But because opposite claims are more in evidence, and the two are incompatible. That is precisely WHY you think Behe is talking gibberish, but the bigger issue here is not whether he is doing science but whether or not IC can be evidence of ID, and if that is even capable of being pursued scientifically. I don’t have the answers, but more relevant is how you HATE the very propostion.

No one controls your reactions but YOU. YOU hate because you WANT to, not because Behe’s argument made you do it. lol. I’m not sure why you indulge what is worst in you, but it does nothing to improve your perception, and until you get rid of that attitude, then talking to you is worse than talking to a drunk.

So your sarcastic reply is unenlightening.

In addition, the “put up or shut up” attitude is frankly shameful. Truth and facts aren’t established soley by science. I am concerned with truth, with what really is the case. I don’t care where it comes from. Your vicious hostility to anything which does approach you through the precise method shows only that you and I do not have the same interests. Your interest is to defend your method and worldview, and you are completely unwilling to examine anything which hasn’t filled out the proper bureaucratic paperwork. lol. That isn’t my interest at all. If you were more sensitive, you would see that you are not under attack, but you cannot see that because you are a bundle of conditioned reflexive reactions conducted by some of what is worst in you.

Contrast, for example, your reactions to Matt’s, and you can see that yours are less productive.

I can only feel sorry for you and wish you the best. You are a deeply unhappy person.

But oh my my, a little touchy on Karl Marx are we? Have I indavertently discovered your true religion? It would explain why you blame other people for your own hostile responses though. Very revealing answer from you. I am beginning to understand where the real source of your hatred comes from, and it has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Hey revvy, I’m not going to put up or shut up, fish or cut bait, shit or get off the toilet. I live in the real world, and in the complex real world we are permitted to do all of those things, not one or the other. However, if science is your religion, and you can only live within its limits, and you fear the complexity and insist on an either or option for yourself, I suppose suicide is a choice you can consider. You certainly don’t have to fear going to hell, right?

Finally, I have some words of advice for some of you that I have no doubt you will ignore.

It doesn’t MATTER how good your arguments are. You could win every argument from here to Kathmandu (Kathmandu, by the way, is a place that has been living through the practical effects of an insurgency trying to implement the fine ideas of the Maoist offshoot of Marxism for the past 10 years; 8,000 dead so far. Yay, Marx!) and if creationism grows, YOU LOSE. The winner isn’t going to be decided by who has the better arguments, but by who has the most adherents. So your social ineptitude and sneering condescension does not help you, but it does fuel your opposition by the creationists. If you were really smart people, you wouldn’t be doing that. It’s stupid.

You should get your noses out of the air. Or you might find yourselves in the minority someday, and surrounded by creation police.

If any of you want to yell at me, feel free to do so at my website. I’ve been spending too much time on these responses, among other things, and my girlfriend is starting to grow impatient with me. I could take sneering from Toejam. Not from her.

I’ll not come back. Some of your answers have honestly been scary. I sincerely hope that none of you who do not use your real names and who are responsible for the petty responses, are also not scientists responsible for making important ethical decisions in your fields of research.

May the force be with you all, and may none of you ever bump into the creation police while your noses are in the air.

: )

Comment #29276

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 10:47 PM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #29277

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 10:51 PM (e) (s)

parting shot:

“May the force be with you all, and may none of you ever bump into the creation police while your noses are in the air.”

meh, I’m sure with the general level of intelligence shown by creationists, i could easily argue my way out of a ticket.

Comment #29278

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 11:15 PM (e) (s)

oh, i just can’t resist a wrap-up.

David, if you are still reading along, check out the first post you made in this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001016.ht…

do you not see how in fact, it was yourself that set the tone of discussion?

Comment #29284

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 10, 2005 12:31 AM (e) (s)

Duncan Yo-Yo

Your interest is to defend your method and worldview

There’s that smell again.

Comment #29291

Posted by Matt Inlay on May 10, 2005 02:20 AM (e) (s)

David Duncan, you wrote:

As Ed pointed out, and I shall take his word for it, there are 4 “potential” pathways that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved through natural selection. I have proposed a 5th “potential” pathway that is non-Darwinian.

For the record, I think the 4 pathways that Ed is referring to are from this paper, by Thornhill and Ussery.

Now the first group of 4 Darwinian pathways and the lone non-Darwinian pathway are mutually exclusive, so by disjunction, if any of the 4 in the Darwinian group are show to be true, the non-Darwinian one is shown to be false.

I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, because during the course of evolution, a large IC system probably requires several steps. If an IC system needs 10 steps, and 9 of those are shown to be through 1 or more of the 4 darwinian pathways, that doesn’t necessarily mean the 10th will. The 10th step could have happened via intelligent design. The other problem, which is a biggie, is how do you demonstrate that a particular step did evolve through a darwinian pathway? Sure, we can provide hypothetical models, which lead to fruitful projects, and powerful correlative evidence, but as anyone familiar with the creationist/IDist arguments knows that that’s not going to convince them. They want proof. Someone once asked Behe what kind of experiment would convince him that the flagellum evolved. He said to put a flagellum-less bacterial strain in a test tube and show that it could evolve a flagellum. Of course this idea is ridiculous, and it tells you the mindset of a creationist. Another great example is Nick’s essay on the flagellum. Nick summarized dozens of research articles on the evolution of the flagellum, and Bill Dembski responded basically by saying, “It’s not enough to satisfy me, therefore ID”.

So it is possible to do a negative test for the Non-Darwinian pathway, although I cannot imagine how to do a positive one. Still, the non-Darwinian pathway I suggested CAN be tested for in that way.

This goes to the heart of why ID isn’t science. No one can think of a way to positively test for ID, especially not the IDists. The “test” you describe could never be performed by an ID scientist. They would basically have to try to prove that evolution occurred, and hope that they fail. This is not a research program. Negative data is not very publishable. Try this experiment. Go to ISCID, and start a brainstorm post asking if anyone knows of a positive test for ID. See what happens.

I’m sorry your time in this thread couldn’t have been more enjoyable for you, but one thing you should know is that there are a lot of people on the science side that are very angry. There really isn’t a scientific controversy over evolution. The scientific community isn’t some materialistic, dogmatic cabal trying to indoctrinate young minds into the religion of Darwinism. The fact is, there is a ton of evidence for evolution, and nobody knows it because the creationists have a bigger microphone. We’re not willing to lie, and they are. And because of those two reasons, they’re winning, and that pisses us off. I hope you stay tuned, and keep asking questions. Hopefully you’ll figure this stuff out for yourself.

Comment #29293

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 10, 2005 02:48 AM (e) (s)

“I hope you stay tuned, and keep asking questions.”

eh, not that it matters..

I for one, would have responded much more positively if David had started by asking questions, rather than starting by attempting to dictate to us what science is and isn’t, all the while indicating he in fact had no clear view himself.

In fact, although he appreciated matt’s “approach” more, he actually didn’t bother to listen much to what matt had to say, either.

:/

Comment #29302

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 10, 2005 06:59 AM (e) (s)

Truth and facts aren’t established soley by science.

Um, in what way do YOU establish, say, the density of cesium, or the inverse-square relationship of gravity … . Tea leaves? Prayer? Reading the entrails of sacrificed animals?

What alternative to science do you propose for establishing facts?

Comment #29303

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 10, 2005 07:02 AM (e) (s)

That’s nice.

Does ID have a scientific theory that can be tested using the scientific method, or doesn’t it.

If it does, quit waving your arms and just SHOW IT TO US.

If it doesn’t, then … uh … what the hell are you yammering about it for?

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

In addition, the “put up or shut up” attitude is frankly shameful.

How dreadful. I notice, though, that you didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again:

Does ID have a scientific theory that can be tested using the scientific methbod, or doesn’t it.

Or are IDers simply lying to us when they claim they do, and is your arm-waving and evasion simply an attempt to avoid havign to admit this.

If ID has a scientific theory, then show it to me.

If ID does NOT have a scientific theory, then why do you keep yammering about one?

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

Comment #29304

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 10, 2005 07:06 AM (e) (s)

However, if science is your religion, and you can only live within its limits, and you fear the complexity and insist on an either or option for yourself, I suppose suicide is a choice you can consider. You certainly don’t have to fear going to hell, right?

Thanks for once again demonstrating that ID is nothing but religious apologetics, and IDers are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise.

Comment #29318

Posted by steve on May 10, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)

Suppose we define “theory” as follows:

A body of propositions, organized systematically and accepted as canonical by a particular science, where the foundational propositions and their corollaries are ordinarily taught to students in textbook form.

Does such a biological theory exist for intelligent design? No. Does it exist for evolution? Yes, of course.

-Paul Nelson, ID Creationist

Comment #29415

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 11, 2005 11:51 AM (e) (s)

But oh my my, a little touchy on Karl Marx are we?

Perhaps, but with reason: You throw it around as if you know what you’re talking about. Creationists not only are absolutely in error to try to connect Marx with evolution (there really is no connection — Darwin was a rich guy and knew it, and he did not approve of Marx or Marxism), the reality is that Joe Stalin persecuted, prosecuted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered Darwinists.

So not only do you try to smear with a false link to Marx, you fail to understand the sorry painful history of evolution with regard to Marx: The Marxists used government to stamp out Darwinian theory in the Soviet Union. As a result, several millions of people starved to death.

And now, in Kansas, a few members of the State Board of Education are using government to censor Darwinian theories, again. Excuse scientists if they flinch — the wound is still sore.

And then, you compare the scientists being oppressed with the oppressors?

It’s just one more case of creationism shutting down the thinking capacities of its victims.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?