Andrea Bottaro posted Entry 1530 on September 30, 2005 12:46 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1525

Well, it had to happen at some point. With the vast experience accumulated in their now decade-long attempts to pass fake science for real, and probably inspired by Bill Dembski’s recent appearance on the Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show”, it seems that the Discovery Institute has now decided to issue their very own “fake news”.

Rather incredibly, in fact, a completely fake, rather unfunny parody of a radio interview with Barbara Forrest appears today on the DI’s own web site under their “News” headline (see right column here), without any indication it is fiction. Obviously, Dr. Forrest’s work truly has hit a nerve with the DI, since as reported on PT yesterday, they have already issued an utterly dishonest attack on her testimony at the Kitzmiller trial, based on selective quotation and misrepresentation of the court’s proceedings. What’s worse, the DI’s own Evolution News blog, already known for its cavalier disregard for truth and even basic, trivially verifiable facts, has picked up the interview and also reported it as if it were real in an “update” to their previous item on Forrest.

Now, there are two, non mutually exclusive possibilities to explain this. One is that the DI operatives are so accustomed to any fiction that fits their prejudice, they are unable to distinguish it from reality. The second is that this is just a prank, and they believe the parody interview is so crude and obvious, it doesn’t need any disclaimer.

Personally, I tend to agree with the latter, more generous interpretation, which also conveniently explains why the various DI sites also don’t attach disclaimers to all their other preposterous claims, such that ID is actual science, that evidence for it is published in the peer-reviewed literature, and that it is accepted by an ever-increasing number of “scientists”.

So, thanks for making your standards clear, folks.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jack Krebs for bringing the DI ‘s fake news to my attention.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #50300

Posted by SteveF on September 30, 2005 11:47 AM (e)

That is utterly hilarious. Must be the funniest thing I ever read. Well done DI. Brilliant.

Comment #50301

Posted by RBH on September 30, 2005 11:50 AM (e)

In leaning toward the “more generous interpretation” Andrea forgets that the Discovery Institute has hired Creative Response Concepts, the same public relations firm that represents Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The DI’s fake news story is completely consistent with that firm’s approach.

RBH

Comment #50303

Posted by MP on September 30, 2005 11:52 AM (e)

I don’t know how it all got started, but a posting in the PT thread regarding Dr. Forrest had that fake interview just about verbatim. Post #50122 by evopeach. Only the date is different, I think. Perhaps DI is lifting their fake news from the PT site comments now. Congrats on being such an important site.

Comment #50304

Posted by SteveF on September 30, 2005 11:53 AM (e)

Be still my aching sides.

Comment #50305

Posted by mark on September 30, 2005 11:55 AM (e)

But as Russell (comment 50209) pointed out, so many words with so few mistakes was uncharacteristic of evopeach, and was therefore obviously lifted from somewhere else.

Comment #50306

Posted by PvM on September 30, 2005 11:57 AM (e)

Interestingly, the DI seems to have corrected some spelling errors

On PT wrote:

MW Yes, it is. You’re on the air? Your question, please.
Called I’m on the air?

MW Yes you are.
Called With the doctor?

MW That’s right. Your speaking with Dr. Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.
Called I’m on the air, right? Well here’s my question. I’ve got these bunions that are just acting up fearfully, and I was wondering ….

on the DI site

MW Yes, it is. You’re on the air? Your question, please.
Caller I’m on the air?

MW Yes you are.
Caller With the doctor?

MW That’s right. Your speaking with Dr. Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.
Caller I’m on the air, right? Well here’s my question. I’ve got these bunions that are just acting up fearfully, and I was wondering ….

WNBLAT does not seem to be a valid call sign for radio stations

There was an error in your submission:

You’ve entered the station’s call letters as: “WNBLAT”

US radio stations all have call signs of three or four letters, starting with either a K or a W, and Canadian stations all have call signs starting with a C (or a few that start with a V).

Also, translators in the United States start with a W or a K which is followed by 3 numbers, then 2 letters.

Please try again.

“Marvin Waldburger” returns zero hits on google.

Comment #50310

Posted by Skip on September 30, 2005 12:25 PM (e)

I find this whole thing truly bizarre. The DI is becoming a real joke.

For an organization that claims to want to do real science and participate in scholarly dialog, they’re acting more and more each day like petulant school boys. Their blogs are total crap; they delete any posts that disagree with them; they practically slander their opponents with misrepresentations.

Did they suffer some sort of office-wide acne outbreak that mentally transported them all back to the 10th grade or something?

They are truly in a downward spiral, and if Dover goes against them they will probably be in need of an aggressive intervention and possibly a stay someplace they can get some help.

Let’s take up a collection and ship them a few cases of Prozac.

Comment #50311

Posted by Rich on September 30, 2005 12:28 PM (e)

Next week:

“Evoutionists smell of poo”

Comment #50319

Posted by Ed Darrell on September 30, 2005 12:58 PM (e)

Jon Stewart is in no danger.

Comment #50333

Posted by Bruce McNeely on September 30, 2005 2:12 PM (e)

Hey SteveF,
Take it easy with the bong hits, eh?

Comment #50346

Posted by ag on September 30, 2005 3:48 PM (e)

I guess the ID crowd finds the primitive and obviously rudely insulting (in Robert O’Brien’s style) fake interview “clever beyond measure” (remember Berlinski’s eloquent false accusations of TR?). Indeed, one of the trolls above appeared here with a version of such an evaluation of that lowlife drivel.

Comment #50348

Posted by Adam Marczyk on September 30, 2005 3:50 PM (e)

It really is astonishing just how little regard for reality the creationists have. The DI may believe this parody is too obvious to need a disclaimer, but reading it, I’m quite assured that the vast majority of their supporters will not be able to figure that out. We’d better be ready to deal with quotes from that fake interview when they’re presented by creationists as factual, as they inevitably will be.

Comment #50364

Posted by Bill Hughes on September 30, 2005 4:51 PM (e)

I have been reading quite a few documents on this whole ID thing and I am absolutely amazed that anyone with a rational brain could believe this crap. I am glad we don’t have such morons in our system up here in Canada trying to debunk evolution. We would laugh them off the face of the earth. If the ID people have their way, American biologists will become the laughing stock of the scientific world.

Comment #50367

Posted by Bob Davis on September 30, 2005 4:57 PM (e)

That interview was completely true and candid, and I was there myself so I can testify to it. The DI would never attempt satire, as they are clearly without any sense of humor, so it must be true. And did I say that I was present for the interview too? And I think satire would be too difficult a form of humor for the DI even to attempt. Knock-knock jokes would be more up there alley. Like, “Knock knock. Who’s there? Pandas Thumb. Pandas Thumb Who? Pandas Thumb commenters hate christians.” See, that would be more their style of humor. Also, I hear from a friend of a friend that they were there at the taping of the segment and they told another friend that it was real, and I believe them.

a modest experiment

Comment #50377

Posted by Schmitt. on September 30, 2005 5:23 PM (e)

This parody interview is clever beyond measure.

-Schmitt.

Comment #50386

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on September 30, 2005 6:37 PM (e)

And I was worried about quote mining. It appears the DI has found the ultimate method for crafting quotes by creating their own source material. It takes a little more work generating false primary sources material, but if well written the newly created work could be mined for some time by several authors.

While the DI has ridden into town proclaiming “there’s gold in them there hills”, it appears that the DI had only salted their mine claim with fools gold.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #50390

Posted by BobDavis Is An Idiot on September 30, 2005 7:01 PM (e)

Bob Davis,
You are getting annoying. You jump from blog to blog and post crap that you think is funny. It isn’t. Your modest experiment makes no sense. AND YES, I’VE READ YOUR WEBSITE THREE TIMES. I still don’t get it. 60 million beakers? Precambrian conditions? No hypothesis?? What is your friggin point of doing this? Grow up, little boy. You deserve this flame.

Comment #50392

Posted by Bob Davis on September 30, 2005 7:18 PM (e)

BDIAI-
eh.
Jump from blog to blog? I sometimes comment at the blogs I read. I used to comment at them before I had a website. Now I comment at the same ones while I also have a website. Should I stop commenting because I have a website? Or because you find me annoying? Or because you don’t understand the modest experiment? Or because I link to my site in comments? Sure, I’m a blog whore. So? Some of the best bloggers around are blog whores.

As for the fact that you don’t get it, and don’t find it funny, well I guess those two go together. It is amazing some of the letters I get, some correcting the experiment in detail, some thanking me. Someday I’ll grow up, but until I turn 13 next year, I think I deserve the right to act like a pre-teen.

With all love and respect,
Bob

Comment #50394

Posted by MrKAT on September 30, 2005 7:33 PM (e)

Adam wrote “the vast majority of their supporters will not be able to figure that out.”
Nearly quaranteed. I’ve seen a PhD-level creationist taking Sci.Am’s last April’s Fool seriously until I explained it.

Comment #50398

Posted by BobDavis Just Doesn't Get It on September 30, 2005 7:48 PM (e)

Bob Davis,
You are far, far from the best blogger around, despite being a blog whore. Please learn the difference between “their”, “there”, and “they’re”. Your “experiment” must be a joke—that’s the only thing I take from your website. It really isn’t a very funny joke either. [***INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT EDITED - AB ***] Get a clue about the world around you and don’t jump into things that are way, way over your head—you’re drowning and you don’t even realize it yet.

Comment #50401

Posted by Bob Davis on September 30, 2005 7:57 PM (e)

[*** EDITED TOO - AB *** ]

Comment #50408

Posted by Jack Krebs on September 30, 2005 9:12 PM (e)

To BobDavis Just Doesn’t Get It:

I’m a member of the Panda’s Thumb contributors, and even though this isn’t my thread, I need to tell you that your comment about Hitler is unacceptable here. I’d like to ask you to edit it out of your post, please.

Thanks,

Jack Krebs

Comment #50414

Posted by ah_mini on September 30, 2005 9:27 PM (e)

“BobDavis Just Doesn’t Get It”, you’ve just fallen foul of Godwin’s Law, you automatically lose.

How embarrassing :P

Comment #50417

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 30, 2005 9:52 PM (e)

I am glad we don’t have such morons in our system up here in Canada trying to debunk evolution.

You do. So does Australia and the UK.

American money is behind all of them.

Comment #50418

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 30, 2005 9:53 PM (e)

I’ve seen a PhD-level creationist taking Sci.Am’s last April’s Fool seriously until I explained it.

Remember Discover Magazine’s tuba-playing Neandertals?

ID/creationists not only aren’t terribly bright, but they are utterly completely totally humor-challenged.

Could lead to dancing, ya know.

Comment #50419

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on September 30, 2005 9:53 PM (e)

Basic rule, folks: no matter how inane or irritating someone else’s posts are, comparing them to Nazis is unacceptable. Let’s not get carried away.

Comment #50423

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 30, 2005 10:05 PM (e)

Folks, people need to make copies of the DI homepage, the parody, and the page on Dr. Forest that cites it as real news. The DI might try to cover this up.

Comment #50424

Posted by Jack Krebs on September 30, 2005 10:12 PM (e)

Got ‘em.

Comment #50426

Posted by BobDavis Isn't A Nazi on September 30, 2005 10:32 PM (e)

I apologize for my Nazi comment earlier. It was inappropriate and uncalled for. Bob Davis has been irritating me for a while now and my anger got the best of me. His “modest experiment” schtick is wearing on me and eroding my etiquette and manners. He never gives a hypothesis and he thinks he can replicate precambrian conditions exactly. He also thinks 60 million beakers is the equivalent of 60 million years. I’m not sure what is point is with this “experiment”, but there definitely is a point on this microencephalic’s cranium. Take your coprophilial simian nonsense elsewhere. And i’m not kidding.

Comment #50427

Posted by BobDavis Isn't A Nazi on September 30, 2005 10:38 PM (e)

I apologize for my Nazi comment earlier. It was inappropriate and uncalled for. Bob Davis has been irritating me for a while now and my anger got the best of me. His “modest experiment” schtick is wearing on me and eroding my etiquette and manners. He never gives a hypothesis and he thinks he can replicate precambrian conditions exactly. He also thinks 60 million beakers is the equivalent of 60 million years. I’m not sure what is point his with this “experiment”, but there definitely is a point on this microencephalic’s cranium. Take your coprophilial simian nonsense elsewhere. And i’m not kidding.

Comment #50429

Posted by BobDavis Go Home on September 30, 2005 10:51 PM (e)

I also hereby invoke Quirk’s exception.

Comment #50435

Posted by qetzal on September 30, 2005 11:29 PM (e)

Do you really think Bob Davis’s experiment is proposed in earnest?

I’m pretty sure it’s a gag - a parody of ID illogic. I think he even admitted as much on a PT thread recently.

Comment #50447

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 1, 2005 4:00 AM (e)

I guess the only point of Bob’s experiment is to bait some idoits to refer to it as a legit scientific research that disproves evolution. Although it is probably too obvious even to the dumbest of them.

Comment #50456

Posted by Hiya'll on October 1, 2005 6:15 AM (e)

You know anti IDists have done a few undeclared parodies consider, professor Steve Steve and a certain set of parodies about a world today article, as well as that april fools day defection. I really don’t see what your trying to achieve in dissing us for not declaring a parody. The only set of persons I could think of who would take the article literally are those with fairly severe high functioning autism or aspergerers. Oh and by the way, the parody is funny, I laughed at your parodies why can’t you laugh at our parodies?

Oh and by the way Michael Hopkins, that’s Dr barbara forest Ph.D.

Comment #50464

Posted by Andrew on October 1, 2005 8:40 AM (e)

Because your parody (a) isn’t funny, and (b) doesn’t feature an excruciatingly cute stuffed panda.

If I develop a JavaApp that fills your screen with “Bill Dembski is a dumb-dumb doody head,” would you laugh? Yeah, me neither.

Comment #50466

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 1, 2005 9:12 AM (e)

The only set of persons I could think of who would take the article literally are those with fairly severe high functioning autism or aspergerers.

Ya mean like all those creationists who fell for Discover Magazine’s “tuba-playing Neandertals” joke?

Comment #50470

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on October 1, 2005 9:46 AM (e)

Hiya’ll:
You know anti IDists have done a few undeclared parodies consider, professor Steve Steve and a certain set of parodies about a world today article, as well as that april fools day defection. I really don’t see what your trying to achieve in dissing us for not declaring a parody. The only set of persons I could think of who would take the article literally are those with fairly severe high functioning autism or aspergerers. Oh and by the way, the parody is funny, I laughed at your parodies why can’t you laugh at our parodies?

I am not sure what parodies you are referring to. Most certainly, Prof. Steve Steve would be greatly offended at being called such. You may want to apologize to him.

Regardless of the (low) entertainment value of the Forrest parody, I think the Discovery Institute shouldn’t have have listed it as “News” (although, as I said, it nicely epitomizes the level of the rest of their News items). As far as who would take the article literally, I think the same people who took Sermonti’s word for the fact that “leaf insects appear[ed] in the fossil record before leaves, and insects before plants” should be the last to count on others’ perspicacity in telling fact from fiction.

Finally, your remarks about high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome sufferers are rather insensitive, in fact frankly offensive. These patients are far from stupid. But since I noticed some despicable character on Dembksi’s site seems to think it is entirely appropriate to make fun of other people’s severe medical afflictions, I am sure a chuckle at the expenses of the “weirdos and ‘tards” is considered good, healthy fun where you come from. Now, please, go back.

Comment #50487

Posted by Actually Bob Davis Is Pretty Funny on October 1, 2005 1:31 PM (e)

While I think the Cambrian Explosion experiment is only a middling-amusing parody of typical creationist IDiocy, his More Evolution Theories blog is hilarious.

Naturally, I’m just expressing an opinion - because humor is almost entirely a matter of opinion. And here’s a few more relevant opinions: Anyone who gets so pissy about a joke that their comments need to be edited or deleted needs to take him or herself a little less seriously. And if you can’t be bothered to follow enough links to determine whether or not a page is a joke - and, as has often been observed here on PT, it can be difficult to distinguish actual creationism from parody thereof - then you definitely shouldn’t publicly express your pissy-ness. Or you’ll look like a fool.

Comment #50524

Posted by Hiya'll on October 1, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

Okay, this makes me, very, very, mad

I myself have high functioning aspergerers, keep that in mind when you read the following comment about me.

“Finally, your remarks about high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome sufferers are rather insensitive, in fact frankly offensive. These patients are far from stupid. But since I noticed some despicable character on Dembksi’s site seems to think it is entirely appropriate to make fun of other people’s severe medical afflictions, I am sure a chuckle at the expenses of the “weirdos and ‘tards” is considered good, healthy fun where you come from. Now, please, go back.”

I suggest you think before you play the offended card, thinking in concerete terms and taking things literally is, after poor social skills, probably the primary symptom of aspergers and autism, we virtually all suffer from it ( I was lucky enough to escape this symptom, but a lot of my friends who also have aspergerers suffer from it).

I find your comment far more offensive the you ever could, you, like a typical Neuro typical think that getting all offended and politically correct is going to help us, when the real problem is ignorance and unsympathetic teachers, we need your funding, not your recriminations. I never said people with Aspergerers or Autism are stupid, just that in some cases they would take the statement literally ( Having a tendency to take things literally and being stupid are very different things.) Oh, and I also find your comments about my home offesnive, this is Australia, near sydney, we are all yippies here.

Comment #50525

Posted by Hiya'll on October 1, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

Okay, this makes me, very, very, mad

I myself have high functioning aspergerers, keep that in mind when you read the following comment about me.

“Finally, your remarks about high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome sufferers are rather insensitive, in fact frankly offensive. These patients are far from stupid. But since I noticed some despicable character on Dembksi’s site seems to think it is entirely appropriate to make fun of other people’s severe medical afflictions, I am sure a chuckle at the expenses of the “weirdos and ‘tards” is considered good, healthy fun where you come from. Now, please, go back.”

I suggest you think before you play the offended card, thinking in concerete terms and taking things literally is, after poor social skills, probably the primary symptom of aspergers and autism, we virtually all suffer from it ( I was lucky enough to escape this symptom, but a lot of my friends who also have aspergerers suffer from it).

I find your comment far more offensive the you ever could, you, like a typical Neuro typical think that getting all offended and politically correct is going to help us, when the real problem is ignorance and unsympathetic teachers, we need your funding, not your recriminations. I never said people with Aspergerers or Autism are stupid, just that in some cases they would take the statement literally ( Having a tendency to take things literally and being stupid are very different things.) Oh, and I also find your comments about my home offesnive, this is Australia, near sydney, we are all yippies here.

Comment #50528

Posted by Hiya'll on October 1, 2005 8:14 PM (e)

Oh, by the way, I expect an appology.

Comment #50534

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on October 1, 2005 8:58 PM (e)

Hiya’ll:
I interpreted your comment as referring to autistic patients mental abilities. A close friend of our family has an autistic child, so I tend to be sensitive to the subject. If I offended you, of course I apologize. I guess on the web we all run the risk of missing crucial social cues.

Comment #50573

Posted by Hiya'll on October 2, 2005 4:51 AM (e)

Your apology is accepted, I overeacted anyway, it’s just when you actually have a disability ( sort of 1 ) you get sick of the PC crowd pretty quick. That’s why that blind society recently passed a motion saying that they’d rather be called blind then vision impaired.

———————————————————————-

1- I don’t actually regard Aspergerers as a disability in the true sense, it’s got it’s down sides but you can make a case that a huge chunk of the great philosophers, scientists etc had aspergerers. As one woman with autism said, if it weren’t for people on the autism spectrum we’d still be in the caves socialising.

Comment #50574

Posted by Discovery Institute Are Pathetic Cowards on October 2, 2005 6:01 AM (e)

Hey everyone, look at this: the cowards at the Discovery Institute don’t even acknowledge Senior Fellow William Dembski’s interview by Jon Stewart at their web page listing all such events!

Could it be because of Stewart’s direct question to Dembski why the astrologist’s beliefs shouldn’t be taught too?

Will the Discovery Institute deny Dembski three times before the rooster crows, then run away in tears?

Come on DI, report the whole truth at your web site, and give us a pointer to Dembski’s pathetic Daily Show appearance. We dare you.

Comment #50582

Posted by Ron Okimoto on October 2, 2005 8:02 AM (e)

I find this whole thing truly bizarre. The DI is becoming a real joke.
Skip quote:

For an organization that claims to want to do real science and participate in scholarly dialog, they’re acting more and more each day like petulant school boys. Their blogs are total crap; they delete any posts that disagree with them; they practically slander their opponents with misrepresentations.

Did they suffer some sort of office-wide acne outbreak that mentally transported them all back to the 10th grade or something?

They are truly in a downward spiral, and if Dover goes against them they will probably be in need of an aggressive intervention and possibly a stay someplace they can get some help.

Let’s take up a collection and ship them a few cases of Prozac.

It is called desperation. Do you think that they would have to stoop to these tactics if they really had any science to discuss?

You are talking about a bunch of scam artists whose scam is blowing up in their faces. When lightning struck and they realized that all they had were bogus arguments, they tried to duck out of the ID scam and push a new scam, but their print trail won’t let them let go. They have to, at least, pretend that they weren’t scamming all along. The Discovery Institute used to claim that ID was their business, now the rubes are “confused” for wanting to teach it, and the new Discovery Institute scam doesn’t even mention that ID exists. How do you expect scam artists to act when they know how bogus the junk that they were selling is? They’ve stooped to blaming the victims of their scam, so whatever else they do shouldn’t be any surprise.

Comment #50708

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 3, 2005 7:56 AM (e)

The DI is still lists this “interview” as being real. And they are still listing Behe’s insect/leafs claim from his review of Why a Fly Is Not a Horse on every page of Evolution News and News. Amazing. We know they read the Panda’s Thumb. One would think they would not want an embarrassment present. Or is it a bigger embarrassment to admit that they were wrong?

Comment #50715

Posted by Flint on October 3, 2005 8:59 AM (e)

I think their target audience is anyone who thinks their faith is threatened, who wants to hear with the DI is saying, who doesn’t realize it’s factually incorrect, and who doesn’t care anyway. Remember that in the world of religion, something isn’t right on the evidence, it becomes right because they say it’s right. Changing their mind wouldn’t be an admission of error, but an admission of uncertainty. These people are interested no so much in right answers, as in answers that hold still.

Comment #50897

Posted by dre on October 4, 2005 8:45 AM (e)

durn. i tried to read this stuff too late, and apparently the DI has removed it, cuz none of the links in this post work anymore. somebody further up the comment list predicted this.

Comment #50899

Posted by dre on October 4, 2005 8:47 AM (e)

double durn. must’ve been gas in the pipes, cuz now they work. i’m almost disappointed.

Comment #51221

Posted by Steve on October 5, 2005 11:58 PM (e)

In Physics (still “science” last time I checked…) “The System” in which a mechanism is to be observed is supposed to be defined first - before evidence is gathered, organized, and observed. It puts the scientific method at risk doing it in reverse. (Now, for the context of this site…) The reality is, however, that when discoveries of unknown origin are made in the fossil record, the standard classification rules need to apply. What’s struck me as interesting is that in Physics, when new discoveries don’t initially seem to fit “within The System” we defined initially, we revisit the scope - or The System’s definition to be sure that the standards for classification still fit. You must question the scope of your initial assumptions. That’s one of the underlying rules of the scientific method - if the method’s to be applied correctly that is.

What I’ve observed in the 25 years since obtaining an my degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Physics is “established Science’s” unwillingness to apply the rules without bias. Natural Selection within a species can and has been observed to some degree, but this cross species evolutionary “morphing” concept is not supported by real “science”…but it is supported by an increasingly intolerant, highly opinionated, politically and “theologically” driven group that high-jacked the name of a discipline and calls it “Science”.

My response to the ditty written in Comment #50715 is “draw the circle bigger” when the evidence doesn’t fit your model. Apply the highly objectionable method of “open mind” and rethink the full body of evidence. This is how I’d have written the comment:

The evolutionism proponent’s target audience is anyone who thinks their faith in materialism/naturalism is threatened, who doesn’t want to deal with the bigger picture, who doesn’t realize it’s factually incorrect to limit science to the realm of last year’s discoveries, and who doesn’t care anyway, because it might threaten their world view. Remember that in their religion of evolutionism, if something - or worse yet, someone - proposes any opposing view of the evidence, it’s immediately and intolerantly branded as “uneducated Joe Lunch-Bucket science”… because they say so. Asking Evolutionists to open their minds wouldn’t’t be an admission of error, but an admission of uncertainty in the religion of evolutionism. These people are interested no so much in right answers, as in answers that hold still.

Perspective is an interesting thing isn’t it? Draw the circle bigger - it’ll be interesting to see what you might find…

A few points to ponder:

If a full skeletal fossil were discovered today, here are the classifications I’d expect that “Science” would demand:

1. If it was significantly different visually from any known species, it’d probably be categorized as an extinct dinosaur of some sort;
2. If it was visually similar to a species living today, it would most likely be introduced as “further evidence for evolution”.

My question always remains the same: Is the Fact that the fossil is similar (as opposed to vastly dissimilar) enough to claim that it must be a transitional species? How about the Saber Tooth Tiger: Why is it said to be extinct? And what about the Woolly Mammoth: Why is it said to have become extinct and not said to be a predecessor to today’s Elephant? It seems that the “morphing” version of Evolution erodes too quickly in light when presented with new evidence - or better yet - when presented with simple, logical questions. It seems to me that the quote “men are without excuse” holds more water today than when Paul wrote it…especially in light of new discovery, evidence, and that other thing - complete thinking.

Comment #51255

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 6, 2005 7:21 AM (e)

What the hell are you yammering about?

Comment #51395

Posted by Renier on October 7, 2005 2:28 AM (e)

To Steve, Comment #51221.
Disclaimer: If my spelling or grammar is bad, it is because English is not my native language.

I find your article very interesting, but there is a certain Deja Vu feeling when reading it. You state “when the evidence doesn’t fit your model”. I assume you are referring to some evidence against evolution. But please, for the uninformed, like me, please state this so called evidence. ID people are always on about “Evidence” against evolution, but in all my years of reading up on this debate, I have yet to find any “evidence” that disproves evolution. On the other hand, in all my years of reading I have seen many examples (DNA,PSEUDO-GENES,FOSSIL) that points to evolution. You wrote a very good comment but for the simple minded, like me, it just appears to be philosophy and not fact based. The same thing you accuse evolutionists of is what your own people, the religious are doing. So my question, apart from please stating your cited “evidence”, is please, tell me, what evidence would you require to convince you that evolution is truth?

Comment #51577

Posted by H20 on October 8, 2005 3:55 PM (e)

Maybe darwinist will finally send creationist home confused and hopeless from cheating their way through every thing with the help of God and his angels.By showing how we could have evolved with such complex biocomponents and avdanced micro organisms as host for are bodies.For nothing is impossible if we keep at it.

Comment #51579

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenyn Flank on October 8, 2005 4:09 PM (e)

Huh?

Why have we suddenly been inundated with gibberish-speakers?

Comment #51580

Posted by sir_toejam on October 8, 2005 4:13 PM (e)

bah. all “steve” is doing is the standard “use my own insecurities as evidence against the ‘other side’”. as is typical of those sympathetic to the position of ID, they present no evidence, can establish no theory, and simply assume all of the things that are wrong with evolutionary theory are the same that are wrong with ID, without a second thought on thier part. their whole debate tactic simply revolves around taking whatever criticisms are leveled against their MO, and applying them to their opponents. funny, i thought the “i know you are but what am i” debating tactic is usually abandoned after kindergarten, or at most 1st grade. The truly amaizing thing is how many supposedly “intelligent” people subscribe to this motus operandi, especially those that think they can still call themselves scientists while arguing from such a perspective.

bottom line: steve is just employing a standard denial mode debating tactic (regardless of whether he realizes it or not). ignore it and only respond when someone presents actual substance; oh wait, then there would be dead silence on this board, as in over a year i can’t recall ANY ID supporter EVER presenting anything of substance for debate.

and so the march goes on…

Comment #51581

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on October 8, 2005 4:17 PM (e)

Lenny, a typo has crept into your “signature”: Lenny > Lenyn. You may need to change what it says in the “Name” box before you hit “Post” the next time!

Comment #51583

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 8, 2005 5:05 PM (e)

Lenny, a typo has crept into your “signature”: Lenny > Lenyn. You may need to change what it says in the “Name” box before you hit “Post” the next time!

Arrggghhh.

“Lenyn”. Oh well, I’ve certainly been called worse. ;>

Comment #51585

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 8, 2005 5:43 PM (e)

If a full skeletal fossil were discovered today, here are the classifications I’d expect that “Science” would demand:

1. If it was significantly different visually from any known species, it’d probably be categorized as an extinct dinosaur of some sort;
2. If it was visually similar to a species living today, it would most likely be introduced as “further evidence for evolution”.

My question always remains the same: Is the Fact that the fossil is similar (as opposed to vastly dissimilar) enough to claim that it must be a transitional species? How about the Saber Tooth Tiger: Why is it said to be extinct? And what about the Woolly Mammoth: Why is it said to have become extinct and not said to be a predecessor to today’s Elephant? It seems that the “morphing” version of Evolution erodes too quickly in light when presented with new evidence - or better yet - when presented with simple, logical questions.

Is it me, or is this the lamest example ever of a “conter-factual” line of reasoning?

What possible point can be illustrated by positing “a full skeletal fossil” and saying nothing further about any of its properties, the details of its discovery, anything?

I say it’s the Loch Ness Monster sadly deceased lo, these many years.

Further query: Why, WHY is it always the engineers?

Comment #51590

Posted by Flint on October 8, 2005 6:14 PM (e)

steve wrote:

My response to the ditty written in Comment #50715 is “draw the circle bigger” when the evidence doesn’t fit your model.

Since that’s my comment, I’ll second the request for evidence that doesn’t fit the evolutionary model. ANY evidence that doesn’t fit will be wholeheartedly welcomed.

But what I will NOT accept is just the simple statement that such evidence exists. As my comment #50715 makes clear, just saying something is the case doesn’t make it the case in science. Evidence is a requirement. “The evolutionism proponent’s target audience” is anyone interested in examining the physical evidence and drawing consistent conclusions, subject to further evidence requiring those conclusions to be extended, modified, or rejected.

But, at the risk of becoming as repetitive as Lenny, I notice that the Believer projects every contrary position as Yet Another Belief, and those whose “faith” isn’t the One True Faith of having a closed mind – even as their mind tracks changing evidence! The entire basic concept of evidence has utterly mystified “steve”. What IS that stuff, anyway? It’s it what you MUST generate once you already have the answer? What ELSE could it be?

(Incidentally, I’m an engineer. Sorry about that.)

Comment #51595

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 8, 2005 6:49 PM (e)

But, at the risk of becoming as repetitive as Lenny

Hey, I don’t repeat myself!

Hey, I don’t repeat myself !

ID/creationists always make the same cut-and-pasted arguments. So I in turn use the same cut-and-paste answers. Saves time that way. No need to reinvent the wheel, after all.

As for my oft-repeated questions, IDers can stop me from ever posting them again, in a New York Second, simply by ANSWERING them.

But they won’t. (shrug)

Comment #51596

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 8, 2005 6:51 PM (e)

Further query: Why, WHY is it always the engineers?

I think it’s a “designer —> Designer” kind of thingie.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking more and more like a nail.

Comment #51598

Posted by steve on October 8, 2005 6:56 PM (e)

Man, I’ve posted under the name steve for a year and a half, only to have some dummy come by and muddy the good reputation of the name. I hereby rename myself Steve S.

Comment #51601

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 8, 2005 7:12 PM (e)

Flint:
(Incidentally, I’m an engineer. Sorry about that.)

Please. Perhaps I generalize.
I do not mean all (or necessarily even that many) Engineers are creationist wackos.

It just seems like the vast prepondreance of those creationist wackos who actually have scientific credentials, their backlground is in physics or engineering.

Comment #51605

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 8, 2005 7:45 PM (e)

I hereby rename myself Steve S.

Are you short, furry and bi-colored?

Comment #51703

Posted by Jay Miles on October 10, 2005 4:14 AM (e)

So I just watched the Jon Stewart “interview” with William Dembski. To responce of the last comment made my the evolutionist..about how we must teach it and stick to it because it’s what we’ve learned and made advances from in the last hundred years..isn’t that the point? We advanced from the lantern to the electric light. No one says, Hey lanters have been with us faithfully illuminating our living rooms all this time surely we cannot accept this new false source of light. Our advances have been because of this lantern. Yes. Sure. Whatever..but what when the electric is what the lantern advances TO…do you see what I’m saying? If science points to evolution fine, if design fine..but to accept or deny something simply because it is tradition to do so is either way equally stupid and unscientific.

Comment #51709

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on October 10, 2005 6:03 AM (e)

Mr. Miles:

the theory of evolution is the electric light. Mr. Dembski is saying that he has a lot of mathematical calculations that show that we were better off with oil-fueled lanterns, or possibly with dried dung campfires in the desert, a la Bronze Age.

Comment #51746

Posted by Jay Miles on October 10, 2005 2:38 PM (e)

Then let the science show that, Mr.Dembski speak and be wrong, but people act like it’s something they have to defend against or be afraid of. It’s still the Theory of evolution just as what Dembski says is still a theory, but whatever the source is let us see what does come to light and not forego conclusions with dung references.

Comment #51751

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on October 10, 2005 3:03 PM (e)

Mr. Miles:

“Science” has already shown that. And by the way, calling evolution “just a theory” is wrong. There’s the fact of evolution (i.e., species change over time), and there’s the theory of evolution (shorthand for “the theory of how evolution works”, exactly like the “the theory of gravity” would be shorthand for “the theory of how gravity works”).

Science is constantly refining the theory of evolution; but the fact of evolution is just as certain as the fact that, if you jump from a cliff, you will fall.

Trying to make it appear as if there were two “theories” in competition is uninformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

Comment #51814

Posted by Joe on October 10, 2005 8:48 PM (e)

Miles: “Then let the science show that, Mr.Dembski speak and be wrong, but people act like it’s something they have to defend against or be afraid of. It’s still the Theory of evolution just as what Dembski says is still a theory, but whatever the source is let us see what does come to light and not forego conclusions with dung references”

I am sorry to play the blame game, but the adversarial nature that evoltutions(and really the science community as a whole) take against ID is thier own fault.

If IDers wants to work on some of thier more scientific claims such as Irredicible Complexity and CSI, then they definately should. There is nothing in science that says they should not. In fact, I am sure that any scientist here will agree that extreme idea’s can lead to some of the best discoveries. Some might argue that ID is “not science” but if ID sticks to the testable models, I am sure no one has a problem with accepting them as part of the scientific community.

The problem comes with how IDers present themselves. And it is what makes all the difference, and it’s the reason why they are treated the way they are.

Lemme ask you this. How many String theorists do you see out there getting politicians to lobby for teaching String theory in schools?

How many String theorists do you see out there attacking the teaching of “Particlism Physics” in schools?

How many String theorists out there spend most of thier time and effort making instructional videos for laymen so they can win by opinion instead being accepted by the scientific community?

This is a political war. Not because we want it to be, but because IDers want it to be. Period. They are not content to let the science speak for itself.

We are willing to let the cards fall where they may in scientific terms, but ID needs an attitude adjustment.

They need to stop appealing to politicians to get thier views taught. I mean honestly, this is just such a damning piece of proof against them. I can’t recall any worthwhile scientific theory that had to be approved by judges and the public to be taught in schools before it was approved by the scientific community.

Another thing, when IDers theories clash with standard science….

Good reaction: Respecfully disagreeing and trying to prove thier point. If thier proof is decent, but not conclusion, continue working on said proof to make it more conclusive. If it is not, give it up and move onto another model

Bad reaction: Throwing thier hands up in the air, and declaring that there is a conspiracy to prop up evolution within the scientific community.

They need to get rid of thier martyr complex. They need to get rid of thier appeals to the masses. These are damning examples of why ID is not content to let thier science speak for itself.

And yes I realize that the Discovery Institutes stance at the moment is not teaching ID, but teaching the controversy. This may even be worse.

I won’t even bring up the Wedge Document or the “Of Panda’s and People” textbook scandel. IDers own actions show why this is not about science for them.

Comment #51845

Posted by Jay Miles on October 10, 2005 11:24 PM (e)

Then that is a shame.

Comment #51876

Posted by Renier on October 11, 2005 7:48 AM (e)

There is an old saying “Religion/church is either a beggar or a tyrant dictator”. Right now, the ID people are begging. They are begging to get a foothold into science. They are begging to be allowed to speak and to be heard. In my view, history teaches us that the moment they have enough power, they will dismantle and murder any theory they do not agree with. Given a chance, it is my view, that they will forbid the teaching of evolution in schools. This rejection of any theory that does not conform to their world view is not rejected based on evidence, but pure religious reasons. For that reason, science can never convince the ID people that they are wrong, because no amount of evidence will ever convince them.