Ed Brayton posted Entry 1591 on October 20, 2005 09:32 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1586

During the cross examination of Michael Behe in the Dover trial, he was questioned about whether the peer review process for his book, Darwin’s Black Box, was as rigorous as for a scholarly article in a refereed journal. He replied that it was even more rigorous. That led to an exchange that seriously impeached the credibility of Behe’s testimony. I have one report on it here and John Lynch has another report on it here.

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 #52840

Posted by bill on October 20, 2005 9:50 AM (e)

I don’t understand why a work of fiction would be peer reviewed? Wouldn’t the author just have an editor?

Comment #52841

Posted by Steven Thomas Smith on October 20, 2005 10:11 AM (e)

PWNED” is a much more descriptive a verb than “blasted.”

Comment #52842

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 10:17 AM (e)

Australian scientists are fighting back.

They’re producing an open letter that unequivocally states Intelligent Design is not science and must not be taught in science classrooms.

The open letter, signed by a host of Australian scientists and science educators, will appear in national newspapers tomorrow.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1486827.htm

Comment #52845

Posted by lamuella on October 20, 2005 10:32 AM (e)

This is absolutely priceless. I don’t think you could have made a better story up.

The rigorous process of discussing the book over the phone. Perfect.

Comment #52846

Posted by SteveF on October 20, 2005 10:36 AM (e)

For a Christian, Behe sure does seem comfortable with lying.

Comment #52847

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 10:36 AM (e)

HAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHhaahahahahahahaha!!!!!

AAahhahaahahahahaahhahahhha aahahahah ahaha!!!!

Heh hehehehe.

Heh.

Hee hee.

Ha ahaah. HAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

HAAAHAHAAHHAHAHHAAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!

What a freaking moron, this clueless Behe is!!!!!

Shame on Lehigh!!!! Shame on Lehigh!!!! Something stinks in Lehigh!!!!!

Behe shames the Discovery Institute and shames Christianity and shames Dover with his lying under oath.

Comment #52848

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 20, 2005 10:39 AM (e)

bill wrote:

I don’t understand why a work of fiction would be peer reviewed? Wouldn’t the author just have an editor?

Ask Norman Doering.

K.E. wrote:

The open letter, signed by a host of Australian scientists and science educators, will appear in national newspapers tomorrow.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1486827.…

Interesting article, I see they worked the Wedge Document in. Is the Paul Davies they are interviewing the same one who is a Templeton prize winner?

Comment #52849

Posted by Skip on October 20, 2005 10:42 AM (e)

Behe shames the Discovery Institue…

Impossible.

Comment #52851

Posted by Flint on October 20, 2005 10:48 AM (e)

For a Christian, Behe sure does seem comfortable with lying.

My understanding is that anything *intended* to forward the interests of the faith (whether it does or not) cannot be lie. It might be false, it might be known to be false, but lying is a matter of intent. Attempting to trick people into the faith (or trick them into staying in the faith) may not be the preferred method, but only the intent matters.

Comment #52852

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 10:50 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #52853

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 10:52 AM (e)

Someone please fix that.

Comment #52855

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 11:07 AM (e)

Norman

Crikey a REAL scientist !!

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/about/cv.htm

Enough said.

Comment #52858

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on October 20, 2005 11:30 AM (e)

Well, maybe Behe was just trying to apply consistent review standards.

He thinks Atchinson gave “Darwin’s Black Box” the same level of in-depth review Behe himself gives all the papers on the evolution of “irreducibly complex” systems, before concluding they are simply unconvincing and not “detailed enough” for his taste.

Comment #52861

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 11:45 AM (e)

AB wrote

…in-depth review Behe himself gives all the papers on the evolution of “irreducibly complex” systems, before concluding they are simply unconvincing and not “detailed enough” for his taste.

Thats because HE made up the word and HE is the only person that UNDERSTANDS it.

He says no-one understands HIM.

And mentions the Big Bang, Easter Island ON THE FRIGGIN WITNESS STAND !!

A perfect example of crackpot science

Behe doesn’t understand himself and that is lunatic fringe.. crackpot religion!

Comment #52870

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on October 20, 2005 12:50 PM (e)

Does anyone have any sense of what the actual judge in this case is making of Behe’s somewhat confused testimony? From what I’ve seen (which isn’t much), it’s usually a bad idea to bore the judge, and then make factually incorrect statements… if, in fact, the judge realizes that they are factually incorrect.

Comment #52872

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on October 20, 2005 1:01 PM (e)

Behe has just done an untold amount of damage to the ID movement. The last ID proponent who has any shred of credibility has just made himself look like a clown in the most public way he possibly could. Do are there any ID kooks left who actually have any credibility anymore?

Comment #52875

Posted by shiva on October 20, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'I'

Comment #52876

Posted by shiva on October 20, 2005 1:11 PM (e)

O’Donnell…are there any ID kooks left who actually have any credibility anymore…

Presenting IDc Trek - The New Generation None other than our own Sal’zo Panza. There’s always plenty of duped folks willing to go ourt and join battle; while the fatcats sit back and count their royalties.

Comment #52877

Posted by Norman Doering on October 20, 2005 1:13 PM (e)

responding to: “why a work of fiction would be peer reviewed? Wouldn’t the author just have an editor?”

Bayesian Bouffant said: “Ask Norman Doering.”

Believe it or not, peer review sites are one way screenplay writers try to break into Hollywood screen writing.

I have two screenplays up at this site:
http://www.triggerstreet.com

They are:
“A Blog from Hell”
and
“Planet of Doom”

The site is in part sponsored by Kevin Spacey.

I review the work of other wnnabe screenwriters and they review mine and higher scored scripts get read by industry pros who make movies.

Comment #52878

Posted by Rich on October 20, 2005 1:18 PM (e)

You ID proponents / Apologetics can jump in at any time….

*Crickets chirping*

….….……@….……. [tumbleweed]

……

*sound of bell in the distance*

Comment #52879

Posted by Flint on October 20, 2005 1:20 PM (e)

I wonder if the judge is reading Mike Argento. Mike seems to have a real knack for boiling down hours and hours of boring detailed testimony into the gist of what is said.

Comment #52880

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on October 20, 2005 1:35 PM (e)

I didn’t think ole Pancho had any credibility to begin with though.

Comment #52883

Posted by Dave S. on October 20, 2005 2:08 PM (e)

I wonder if the judge is reading Mike Argento. Mike seems to have a real knack for boiling down hours and hours of boring detailed testimony into the gist of what is said.

Yes Argento is doing a smashing job, and I think the York Daily Record is in general doing a better job of coverage than most of the majors.

Comment #52885

Posted by Norman Doering on October 20, 2005 2:19 PM (e)

Registered User wrote: “HAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHhaahahahahahahaha!! AAahhahaahahahahaahhahahhha aahahahah ahaha!!! Heh hehehehe….Heh…Hee hee….Ha ahaah. HAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!”

You think that’s funny.

Wait till you here this one; Only a third of the people who hear this stuff believe in Darwinian evolution. Most believe in some form of creationism (at least as far as human beings go).

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Still funny?

Less than half of the United States believes that the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence. You want to blame this educational disaster on the religious right? The Intelligent Design movement? And still laught at them?

Another question to ask people isn’t whether they believe in “evolution” but whether they think it’s relevat to their lives and if they even care.

Comment #52886

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 2:32 PM (e)

O’Donnell…are there any ID kooks left who actually have any credibility anymore…

None of them had any credibility in the first place except to their own tribe. Their horizon just clashed with ours and they will lick their wounds and try for another “Bonfire of the Vanities” again and again.

Theology/philosophy has been faced with the problem since the beginning of consciousness on how to deal with the temporal and spiritual world of man.

There are great stories going back to the Ancient Hindu Vedas of 12,000 years ago right down the Internet of Today.

Which strangely enough echo the Hindu creation tale of the Gods and the anti Gods who were fighting an eternal war. They decided to have a cease fire and and churn the Milky Ocean for its butter of immortality. They took the Cosmic Mountain and wrapped the Cosmic Snake around it with the gods at one end and the anti-gods at the other end and churned it around and around. After a 1000 years a poisonous black cloud came out of the waters and they had to stop. They had broken through to a huge source of power and were unable to continue until the poison was dealt with. They knew one of them would have to swallow the cloud and Shiva was the only one among them who could do it. Shiva gulped down the poisonous cloud in one go and held it in his neck through his power of yoga. His neck turned blue as result. What a guy !!
The gods continued churning until the moon, the sun and an 8 trunked elephant came out of the ocean and continued until a golden vessel filled with ambrosial butter appeared.

The “dichotomy problem” is not going to go away.

The Catholic Church is training new Priests in Exorcism although the comment I read in the newspaper last week was “Most people just want to be listened to” even so the magical element is still current and to some people more relevant than others. Of course that is but one tiny part of the story.

The argument will keep repeating ad infinitum.

I’m not even going to try to expound on this except to say vaguely Man/Woman/Humans/Geniuses to Rednecks and pizza boys/girls
have a pathological (that might be too strong a word I don’t mean to offend) i.e. built in need to connect with collective spiritual stories which explain the “why” of life- decode the dreams etc etc

The kooks are extreme versions of that need and I wish it were otherwise but even a great flood wouldn’t see the end of them so a little magnanimity is in order.

So Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s

and bugger off and find your own.

Comment #52887

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 2:37 PM (e)

Dang missed a word

…and bugger off and find your own STORY

Comment #52888

Posted by James Taylor on October 20, 2005 2:41 PM (e)

I would expect another assault on reason in another eighteen to twenty years, 2005-1987=18. Eighteen also happens to be the voting age, so once the anti-reasonists grow another crop of ignorati, they will feel prepared for another political assault.

Comment #52889

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 2:50 PM (e)

James may be correct
Further for anyone who found “Lord of The Rings” wanting treat yourself to “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell
here is his bio
http://www.jcf.org/about_jc.php

Comment #52891

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 3:02 PM (e)

Norman

Less than half of the United States believes that the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence. You want to blame this educational disaster on the religious right? The Intelligent Design movement? And still laught at them?

Yes, yes and YES!!!!!

HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ridicule and shame on liars, junk peddlers and the rubes who eat it up. Creationism will go the way of racism – underground, except for those rare moments when rich privileged white idiots can’t help themselves.

Next on the chopping block: mainstream anti-gay bigotry.

Good night fundies!!!! It was nice knowin’ ya!!!!

I spit on Dobson’s political grave.

Comment #52892

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 3:09 PM (e)

Gee User
That is the sort of thing I would expect to find on Demksi’s
site science triumphalism will help no-one.
You just play into their hands by doing that old boy.

Comment #52895

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 3:17 PM (e)

I don’t think it’ll be another 20 years before they come back. I think they’re going to switch tactics and keep going right now. My guess is they’ll start a program like bible school science classes, at churches, presented as an essential innoculation against evolution. Kids in 6th grade or so would be pressured to attend.

Comment #52896

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 3:19 PM (e)

ignorati

I’ve decided that this term fits so perfectly, i will use it from now on. Hope you don’t mind.

cheers

Comment #52897

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 3:20 PM (e)

They might even have protests at colleges demanding a class in Intelligent Design Theory. Colleges might have more latitude than public schools.

Comment #52898

Posted by James Taylor on October 20, 2005 3:33 PM (e)

sir_toejam wrote:

I’ve decided that this term fits so perfectly, i will use it from now on. Hope you don’t mind.

You’re welcome to it.

Comment #52902

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 3:56 PM (e)

They might even have protests at colleges demanding a class in Intelligent Design Theory

you’re a bit behind the times. Sadly enough, they already have. there are “IDEA” chapters at several universities pushing for special classes already. I’m sure Slaveador Cordova would be happy to detail their efforts for you.

to my knowledge (though i haven’t check for the current academic year), they have not yet succeeded in persuading any of the universities to offer such a course. However, my info is dated. it could have already happened.

Comment #52910

Posted by Norman Doering on October 20, 2005 4:22 PM (e)

Registered User wrote: “HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Gee, isn’t that what the demons in Jack T. Chick comic books say just before they toss the poor sucker into a lake of fire?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

Comment #52916

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 4:39 PM (e)

That is the sort of thing I would expect to find on Demksi’s
site science triumphalism will help no-one.
You just play into their hands by doing that old boy.

Oh spare me the hand-wringing K.E.

First, you spelled Dembski’s name wrong – that just plays into the hands of creationists who think “evolutionists” are careless.

Second, Dembski is a lying idiot which is why his “triumphalism” reeks so terribly.

Fourth, your attitude is simply bizarre. Have you sent your letter to the Chicago White Sox team criticizing them for jumping up and down like schoolchildren on the Angels diamond, in front of tens of thousands of angry fans, after they stomped the Angels out of contention? It was really a despicable display of triumphalism – played “right into the hands of the Angels fans.”

And fifth, please take your hand-wringing and hush-hush ‘tude to the Judge in Dover who is evidently having just as much mocking the creationists’ pathetic performance as I am!

Is everyone ready for “sudden appearance” theory????

BWAHAHAHAAHAHHAAH!!!!!!!! Bring it on, fundies!!!!!

Note to Luskin, West and Dembski: yes, you are ALL diminished by Michael Behe’s pathetic performance on the stand, a performance in which “Dr.” Behe showed his contempt for the world’s hard-working scientists and our system of justice.

Comment #52917

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 4:40 PM (e)

K.E. I forgot #3: don’t call me “old boy.” Thanks.

Comment #52918

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 4:42 PM (e)

Norman

Gee, isn’t that what the demons in Jack T. Chick comic books say just before they toss the poor sucker into a lake of fire?

Fitting, ain’t it?

HAhahaahhaahahahah!!!!!

WhooooppeeeeEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Comment #52922

Posted by Jim Harrison on October 20, 2005 4:52 PM (e)

A course on ID would need a lot of hamburger helper. What would you talk about for a whole semester? There is no scientific evidence for I.D., and most philosophy folks I know would hate to waste months on obsolete natural theology arguments. You could focus on the history and sociology of the I.D. movement, of course, and that might actually be worthwhile. The trouble is, the ID folks would hate a social science approach.

Comment #52923

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 4:53 PM (e)

The brilliant Chris Mooney writes

Considering this figure, and that Behe’s book came out in 1996, he has almost certainly sold more than 100,000 copies by now–a status reached by few nonfiction books indeed! In short, there are clearly substantial benefits to be reaped by attacking evolution in print….

But will someone here argue that it “plays right into their hands” to say so????? Or that people like Dembski, Behe and Luskin are not motivated by a desire to make easy money by pretending to be scientists while contributing nothing to science? That these people are motivated by a “sincere” belief that what they say is important and makes sense??? That these people are not Liars for Jesus?

I’m guessing: yes!!!

That would be a mistake on that someone’s part, however.

Long live Lenny Freaking Flank!!!!

Comment #52925

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 20, 2005 5:01 PM (e)

Ten minutes on the phone by a veterinarian who had never even heard of the work prior to the phone call it “peer review” and better than what science articles in the real molecular biology and/or biochemistry journals get.

No wonder why nothing no progress has been made in molecular biology.

I am impressed with the legal team. To have known the background of Behe and his book so well to be able to be able to rapidly use this against him is stunning. Or had Behe made this nonsense before and the legal team took a chance that he would do it in court as well? Either way, impressive work. I glad those guys are on our side. Of course those talented lawyers do have the advantage of having the fact and the law on their side. But is one thing to be right and quite another to effectively demonstate it in a court of law in a way that ordinary people can understand.

Comment #52929

Posted by Norman Doering on October 20, 2005 5:29 PM (e)

Michael Hopkins “I am impressed with the legal team.”

So am I. However, don’t get carried away. This is really a fairly minor blunder on Behe’s part. He might have actually believed his book got peer reviewed. The real test isn’t this bit of slop, it’s whether Behe’s “irreducible complexity” concept can be demonstrated to be a vacuous argument from ignorance and unuseable in a scientific theory that can make predictions.

“… one thing to be right and quite another to effectively demonstate it in a court of law in a way that ordinary people can understand.”

Indeed. But judges aren’t ordinary people. Remember, the ordinary folks have still fallen for ID according to polls.

Comment #52930

Posted by Dave Cerutti on October 20, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

Michael, you didn’t grow up in Los Alamos, did you?

Comment #52931

Posted by James Taylor on October 20, 2005 5:35 PM (e)

Just so when a creo tries to use the term, it is clear what the meaning actually is. The definition is partially related to ‘illuminati’.

ignorati - persons who refuse to accept sufficient scientific explanations due to personal religious or political dogmatic conflict. Derived from a twist of the Intelligent Design political movement name, Ignorance Divine. Those that follow the ID movement are called Ignorati as specified with the capital I.

This is an example of the evolution of a language.

Comment #52935

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 5:56 PM (e)

it just works on so many levels when you think about it, from a conspiracy angle, to a “popular term” angle.

funny i haven’t seen it in use before.

Comment #52936

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2005 5:59 PM (e)

He thinks Atchinson gave “Darwin’s Black Box” the same level of in-depth review Behe himself gives all the papers on the evolution of “irreducibly complex” systems, before concluding they are simply unconvincing and not “detailed enough” for his taste.

I.e., evolution has to explain EVERYTHING; ID has to explain NOTHING. (A lucky thing for ID, since, as Behe himself pointed out, ID *can’t* propose any mechanisms to explain anything.)

Comment #52937

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2005 6:02 PM (e)

Another question to ask people isn’t whether they believe in “evolution” but whether they think it’s relevat to their lives and if they even care.

Another question to ask people is “how long does it take the earth to go once around the sun?” (NOTE: you may have to first epxlaint o most of them THAT the earth goes around the sun).

For more fun, ask them “can you point to the United States of America on this world map?”

And for REALLY big laughs, ask them “Did Saddam have anything to do with the 9-11 attacks?”

Comment #52946

Posted by James Taylor on October 20, 2005 6:18 PM (e)

toe, well I haven’t ever seen it used anywhere before either, but when I comprehended that ID equals ignorance, it just popped out naturally.

ID has been rejected for what three hundred years now? Accepting it is devolution.

Comment #52949

Posted by Dave Cerutti on October 20, 2005 6:23 PM (e)

And for REALLY big laughs, ask them “Did Saddam have anything to do with the 9-11 attacks?”

Lenny, that’s an interesting point!

One thing I think that could be done in a public forum with the DI is to suggest “The DI isn’t about pushing creationism in schools the same way Saddam didn’t support terrorism.” This works well for two reasons: first, right-wingers who agree with the DI (not that there aren’t left-wingers who do) desperately want to propel the idea that Saddam was a BIG supporter of terrorism. Indeed, he did fund Palestinian bombers. Next, just as the DI doesn’t support YECism (at least, does not have an explicit alliance), Saddam didn’t support Al-Qaeda. One thing I notice about one of the DI’s supporters in particular is that there is a lack of understanding that these people are politically motivated, and that in politics anything goes. The Taliban–oh, they were taken aback that these thugs in Al-Qaeda could ever do such reprehensible things! Oh, and the Taliban are all about women’s rights–protecting women from the evils of the world being numero uno!

Comment #52962

Posted by bill on October 20, 2005 7:08 PM (e)

The Behe cross examination, part 1, transcript is out at the ACLU Blog Site

Several very funny exchanges with the ACLU lawyer, Rothschild.

At one point, referring to depositions by Dembski and Buell (of the FTE) naming Behe as a co-author of the next version of Pandas, Behe denies that he’s a co-author.

From memory the exchange went something like this:

Rothschild: So, the statements by Dembski and Buell are false?

Behe: No.

Rothschild: No?

Behe: No, they are not false. I may be a co-author in the future at which time those statements will be true.

Rothschild: Ah, so predicting the future is a power of intelligent design…

Apparently not because the DI doesn’t see the train coming. Should we warn them?

Comment #52964

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 7:39 PM (e)

Also from the ACLU:

Like a moving target, the language in Design of Life will ‘evolve’ from the 1993 and 1987 Pandas incarnations, which dropped the term creationism in favor of ID. Both books explore the gaps in the fossil record, which the theory claims are not just gaps in the record, but actual gaps or “transitional links.”

The new edition omits the terms intelligent design and intelligent agency and replaces them both with “sudden emergence,” meaning that “various forms of life began abruptly [with] features already intact: fish [suddenly emerging with] fins and scales, birds with feathers” and, as the new edition adds, “mammals with fur and mammary glands.”

So, Rothschild inquired, will we “be back in a few years for the sudden emergence trial?”

Judge Jones responded: “Not on my docket.”

Sudden Emergence Theory, eh? methinks there won’t be much support for another pointless name change if they lose this one. BTW, the judge’s comments suggest something like annoyance, don’t they?

Comment #52965

Posted by RBH on October 20, 2005 8:09 PM (e)

Michael Hopkis wrote

I am impressed with the legal team. To have known the background of Behe and his book so well to be able to be able to rapidly use this against him is stunning. Or had Behe made this nonsense before and the legal team took a chance that he would do it in court as well? Either way, impressive work.

Thank the NCSE staffers who prepared the legal team on those issues. You might even join NCSE! (If you haven’t already done so, that is.)

RBH

Comment #52966

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 8:12 PM (e)

And for REALLY big laughs, ask them “Did Saddam have anything to do with the 9-11 attacks?”

Lenny, I love it, love it, love IT!!!!!

Dave C

One thing I notice about one of the DI’s supporters in particular is that there is a lack of understanding that these people are politically motivated

So true!

And please let’s not forget the mainstream media that has by-and-large been happy to help the Dustbinnery Institute promote ID as an “alternative theory” for paranoid Christian rubes.

That’s the same media that helped Chimpy, Cheney and Lyin’ Condi spread their garbage about Bad Old Saddam’s nukes, causing thoughtless Americans everywhere to soil their diapers (more so in Red States – must be all the fast fried food they eat there).

That’s the same media that includes the NYT which employs a certain lowlife named Judith Miller who peddled Chimp Admin trash for liars, pretended it never happened, and now tries to play the martyr – gosh, now who does that remind you of?????

And I sure hope I’m not offending any of those Bush voters who happen to despise creationists. I’ve never been able to figure out how someone can respect truth and vote for a visibly brain-dead horse’s rear end but I know such people exist – sad but true!

Wait a minute … what’s that?

I just notice a piece of dust on my desk. It wasn’t there before. It suddenly appeared. PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE TOMATO CANNON MAMA I’M COMING HOME!!!!!!

Comment #52969

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 8:29 PM (e)

pass the tomato cannon?

Comment #52971

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 8:32 PM (e)

From the Pennsylvania blog for the ACLU (you know, the organization that routinely defends the constitutional rights of religious people and self-proclaimed religious shmucks like Rush Limbaugh):

http://www.aclupa.blogspot.com/

Scheduled to testify on Friday for the defense is Dick Carpenter, an assistant professor of leadership, research and foundations at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He also happens to be the former Education Policy Analyst for Focus on the Family, which believes that “the ultimate purpose in living is to know and glorify God and to attain eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” He held this position from 2000-2002, according to his vita.

He continues to be affiliated with Focus on the Family as a lecturer in their “Love Won Out” program, which is focused on “promoting the truth that homosexuality is preventable and treatable” a message routinely silenced today….Individuals don’t have to be gay.” Dr. Carpenter’s sessions are called “Why is What They’re Teaching So Dangerous?” and “Teaching Captivity? Addressing the Pro-Gay Agenda in Your School.”

I tell you, folks, I can not WAIT to hear the garbage that our boy Dick is going to spew all over Judge Jones’ nice little courtroom.

Y’all do see the interesting parallel between Dick’s ignorant homophobia and the creationist’s science-phobia, don’t you?

It goes like this: my religion says that gays are bad. So if you pretend that gays aren’t bad, you are discriminating against my religion and squelching the beliefs of millions of bigots in this country! Hear our cries: boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!!!!!

Compare: my religion says that God created me with his invisible hands. So if you pretend that science has an explanation that doesn’t include God, you are discriminating against my religion and squelching the beliefs of millions of scientifically illiterate morons in this country! Hear our cries: boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!

And here’s what the nearly unanimously Republican conservative fundies are going to complain about Judge Jones decision: my religion says that all the other religions including atheism is crap. So if you make decisions without including reference to God, you are discriminating against my religion and squelching the beliefs of the Christian Taliban! Hear our cries: boo hoo ho0 hoo hoo hoo!

So what are these sniveling bigoted rubes going to do about it?

Here’s a clue: Harriet Miers.

What are the rest of us going to do?

Raise freaking hell, I hope.

Or is that “playing into their hands”????

BWAAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #52974

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on October 20, 2005 8:37 PM (e)

I quoted a little exchange on my blog about the whole ‘co-author’ thing as well and how Behe tries to redefine the term ‘misleading’. It’s actually all rather comical because he never once demands the same scientific integrity of ID that he does of darwinian processes. All his arguments boil down to “I know design when I see it”. Absolutely nonsense.

Comment #52992

Posted by Henry J on October 20, 2005 9:56 PM (e)

The new edition omits the terms intelligent design and intelligent agency and replaces them both with “sudden emergence,” […]

So, Rothschild inquired, will we “be back in a few years for the sudden emergence trial?”

Judge Jones responded: “Not on my docket.”

ROFL ROFL

Henry

Comment #53000

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on October 20, 2005 10:54 PM (e)

This trial really scares me. I think all of you might be a little too overconfident. OJ Simpson was acquitted, George W. Bush was elected to a second term, Franklin Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound, and the Walrus was Paul. We may have a BIG surprise coming our way. Please, can we just quit all the wallybanging and fartknocking and wait for the final verdict? Thank you.

Comment #53002

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 20, 2005 11:08 PM (e)

Dave Cerutti, I have never been to Los Alamos and my time in New Mexico has been either flying over it an airplane or traveling I-40 with a few assorted stops. I grew up as a yooper.

RBH, I joined the NCSE in 1999 after the first Kansas episode started.

But still it is good advice and I will repeat it for everyone else: Join the National Center for Science Education. It only cost $30 a year for those in the U.S.

I might also point out that there are low-volume mailing lists for every state in the U.S. at the AIBS/NCSE Evolution List Server Network. This will provide moderated news alert for local creationist activity.

Comment #53003

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 11:11 PM (e)

nope. I’m supremely confident that this trial was over before it began.

no big surprises in store.

willing to bet money on it.

it’s really a non-issue.

It’s really not the trial outcome that should worry you, it’s why the ID movement has so blatantly “failed” their case. that is of considerably higher interest.

Comment #53008

Posted by God on October 21, 2005 1:47 AM (e)

Did you consider that Behe might have disscused his work with more people than just Dr Atchison? Just because Behe said that the disscusion was the “deciding factor” in publishing “Darwins Black Box.” Doesn’t mean that he didn’t show it to others, he might have turned to Dr Atchison for emotional or spirtual reassurance, and to other scientists for fact checking. I’d hardly say this constitutes a total destruction of Behe’s credibility.

Comment #53009

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 1:53 AM (e)

User… hand wringing indeed …of course… old boy is irony. hahhahaha

The sports analogy is good for a single battle I don’t know for sure but the DI backers could probably buy both your teams and ship them to Guantanamo that’s how seriously they take this thing.
gods vs anti-gods and depending which side of the fence you are on
the other side are the anti-gods.

They have almost total control of the media and state apparatus and they know that less than 1% of the population are scientists with next to no traction on the majority of popular conception.
Don’t believe me… ask your pizza boy.

Which is why I was simply suggesting that the fight will never be over because of proof that one of their ideas is shot down or the willful general ignorance of most of their followers. At least half the general population agree with their point because they perceive society falling apart.

The DI are so damn loony they wouldn’t consider enlisting real scientists who are be believers to promote comparative ethics and religion in schools (which is not against the Constitution).

So whats the DI plan… younger kids with anitevolution inoculation thought bending and coaching on how to handle the non-believes and how to get the “non-facts” from science and still pass the tests which they have been doing anyway. They can do it.

They have plenty of resources so it will be interesting.

Comment #53010

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 2:02 AM (e)

I’d hardly say this constitutes a total destruction of Behe’s credibility.

actually, if you had been following the saga of Behe for any length of time, you would already know that this is the least thing contributing to the loss of his credibility.

er, but then you’re God, yes? how come you didn’t already know?

Comment #53016

Posted by Alan on October 21, 2005 6:35 AM (e)

Did I not read Robert Shapiro was a reviewer of “Darwin’s Black Box”. He recently confirmed he is neither a creationist or a supporter of ID, and I wonder what he might have had to say about Behe’s oeuvre.

Comment #53037

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 21, 2005 10:24 AM (e)

Did you consider that Behe might have disscused his work with more people than just Dr Atchison? Just because Behe said that the disscusion was the “deciding factor” in publishing “Darwins Black Box.” Doesn’t mean that he didn’t show it to others, he might have turned to Dr Atchison for emotional or spirtual reassurance, and to other scientists for fact checking. I’d hardly say this constitutes a total destruction of Behe’s credibility.

Supposing Behe did show the manuscript to others informally. This would go in the acknowledgments of the book. It would have no bearing whatsoever on peer-review process, and Behe’s claims about that process. All I can gather from your post is that your omniscience does not extend to the matter of scientific publication.

Comment #53040

Posted by Paul King on October 21, 2005 10:44 AM (e)

One thing to consider. If Behe were really sure his arguments about IC could pass a scientific peer review he would have submitted them to a scientific journal. He would not have relied on publishing them in a popular book.

I can’t believe that Behe honestly thought that Darwin’s Black Box had undergone rigorous peer review - or even that the arguments for ID within it could pass peer review.

Comment #53041

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 11:04 AM (e)

Don’t worry it will be re-released with a new title

“The man who thought he saw God”

Comment #53043

Posted by Flint on October 21, 2005 11:09 AM (e)

I can’t believe that Behe honestly thought that Darwin’s Black Box had undergone rigorous peer review…

I think anyone who can swear under oath that “focusing exclusively on the mechanism” and “not specifying any mechanism” are “completely consistent” can believe anything at all. In Dawkins’ phrase, Behe is also fully eligible for a prize in “virtuoso believing”.

Comment #53052

Posted by shenda on October 21, 2005 1:48 PM (e)

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen:

“This trial really scares me. I think all of you might be a little too overconfident. OJ Simpson was acquitted, George W. Bush was elected to a second term, Franklin Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound, and the Walrus was Paul. We may have a BIG surprise coming our way. Please, can we just quit all the wallybanging and fartknocking and wait for the final verdict? Thank you.”

sir_toejam on responds:

“nope. I’m supremely confident that this trial was over before it began.
no big surprises in store.
willing to bet money on it.
it’s really a non-issue.
It’s really not the trial outcome that should worry you, it’s why the ID movement has so blatantly “failed” their case. that is of considerably higher interest.”

There are several possible rulings where the Plaintiffs could win the case but would give a victory to the ID movement. The most devastating would be a ruling that ID is not science, but is also not inherently religious, but that the defense fails on other points of the Lemon Test.

This would be a win for the Plaintiffs, but then ID could be freely introduced into science curricula so long as the IDers are more circumspect in their dialogue. After all, it is not unconstitutional at the Federal level to teach junk.

We’re not out of the woods yet.

Comment #53054

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 2:00 PM (e)

“After all, it is not unconstitutional at the Federal level to teach junk.” Exactly the problem. It’s possible–in fact even easy–to formulate ID in a way that makes it just junk science. That’s why we have to lean on the religious packaging around things like IC and CSI, to convince the judge that ID is essentially religious, and therefore forbiddable.

Comment #53055

Posted by Dave Cerutti on October 21, 2005 2:23 PM (e)

Penetrating Shaft’s post was serious, but the name was out there. Can we please avoid further pseudonyms like that?

Comment #53059

Posted by DAE on October 21, 2005 2:46 PM (e)

I can’t imagine many accredited science teaches teaching ID babble (see faculty testimony in the current Dover case). Basically its state or local boards of education that want to impose ID as part of the science curriculum in opposition to the wishes of those who would have to teach or acknowledge it. Isn’t there an issue here of academic freedom? Can’t school boards be challenged in their arbitrary imposition of such requirements on the teaching of material totally outside their expertise? What if a school board required that a European history class required teaching or acknowledging the fact that the Holocaust never took place? Couldn’t that be challenged on other grounds than the separation of church and state?

Comment #53061

Posted by Brian Spitzer on October 21, 2005 2:54 PM (e)

My opinion for the last few years has been that ID has painted itself into a corner. It has left a paper trail of dishonesty and covert religious motivation that’s a mile wide. Once you’ve done that, you can’t really win, because the moment you start approaching any sort of prominence, somebody’s going to haul your dirty laundry out into the pitiless light of a courtroom. There was a delicious irony in the run-up to Dover, with the DI trying like crazy to stop from achieving what it’s always said was its goal. My interpretation is that most of the DI knows this, and that their strategy was to remain as annoying as possible for as long as possible, while remaining weak enough to stay below the radar of most of the scientific community.

Even if this gets past the courts into the schools, then what? The entire scientific community, who mostly haven’t been interested in fighting it so far, will come out in force. And what will they teach if they teach ID in schools? Won’t the vacuity of ID become as obvious to everyone as it is to those of us who look closely at it?

Worse, it’s inevitable that, if ID is taught, someone will start trying to speculate about the Designer based on the “design” in nature. That’s not going to head in a direction that conservative Christians will like. I think Elseberry and a few others (IIRC) named it “Multiple Designer Theory”.

In the long term, I think ID will torpedo itself. It’s the damage they can do in the short term that irritates me.

–B

Comment #53062

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 21, 2005 2:56 PM (e)

Let’s not assume that Jones’s decision is going to use any language that will identify ID globally as “inherently religious” or “not inhreently religious.”

His task is to rule on the constitutionality of the language used in the Dover statement and the use of a specific textbook in public schools’ science instruction.

He can easily refer to a USSC precedent, Edwards. All he needs to decide is that, in this case, no clear distinction, in terms of effect, can be made between the current challenge to the status quo and the earlier one known as “creation science,” which is unambiguously unconstitutional.

He’s not going to make a comprehensive statement that ID is not science, but I just don’t see why he should in order to make a decision, or why such an omission would be any kind of even moral victory for the DI and the “movement.”

Comment #53066

Posted by Russell on October 21, 2005 3:02 PM (e)

Alan wondered:

…I wonder what [Robert Shapiro] might have had to say about Behe’s oeuvre.

This is via ARN.org, a propaganda outlet for the Disco Institute, so you might question the context. But for what it’s worth:

“This book should be on the essential reading list of all those
who are interested in the question of where we came from,
as it presents the most thorough and clever presentation of
the design argument that I have ever seen.”
– Robert Shapiro

(I got that from John Lynch’s site, at the head of this thread.)

Comment #53069

Posted by Alan on October 21, 2005 3:41 PM (e)

There’s no chance I’m mixing up the real Professor Shapiro with another Robert Shapiro, is there? I can’t believe Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of chemistry from New York Uni, would write anything complimentary about Behe’s drivel.

Comment #53072

Posted by shenda on October 21, 2005 3:58 PM (e)

CJ O’Brien:

“He can easily refer to a USSC precedent, Edwards. All he needs to decide is that, in this case, no clear distinction, in terms of effect, can be made between the current challenge to the status quo and the earlier one known as “creation science,” which is unambiguously unconstitutional.”

Part of the Dover Board’s specific defense is that ID is scientific. I take this to mean that the judge will need to specifically address this in his ruling. In order to invoke Edwards, he would have to rule that ID is equivalent to Creation Science, i.e. religion. This is different from saying that ID is not science, but is also not dependant on religion.

Judges can get pretty convoluted in their legal thinking and can make rulings that make little or no sense to those outside of the legal community. While I do not anticipate this in this case, it is always a possibility.

Comment #53073

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on October 21, 2005 4:09 PM (e)

Dependent

Comment #53079

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 21, 2005 4:50 PM (e)

I guess anything’s a possibility.

I’m trying to say, it seems to me his decision doesn’t explicitly need to say ID is (X), where that would be a global statement “about” ID, in order to rule that the DSB’s actions are unconstitutional.

Comment #53080

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 4:53 PM (e)

of course not. it’s all a matter of probabilities.

where do you think the highest probability lies?

Comment #53084

Posted by shenda on October 21, 2005 5:11 PM (e)

“where do you think the highest probability lies?”

Pretty much the same place you do – a defeat for ID. I just think that it is too early for the victory dance.

Comment #53085

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 5:22 PM (e)

I’m not one for victory dances anyway, especially when the end result of this isn’t really of tremendous significance, and won’t really stop the intention to spread creationism into our schools, or the attempts to inundate our courts with judges with no qualifications other than a desire to bypass our constitution for their own religious motives.

more’s the pity. I wish i could celebrate this victory, but it just isn’t worth it.

I’d actually be more curious as to whether there are those out there that can really translate this as being a significant victory on the face of it, excluding any media spin.
No groundshaking legal decisions will be made, everything stays status quo. It ends up feeling more like “not losing” than winning anything to me.

it never should have had to go to court to begin with *sigh*

Comment #53086

Posted by ben on October 21, 2005 5:30 PM (e)

I would hope to see the judge rule that ID is not scientific and has been brought forward in its current incarnation for the sole and specific purpose of subverting the Edwards ruling. That the actions of its (very few) main proponents are overwhelmingly directed toward political, legal and PR matters and virtually not at all toward science, should clearly show that its motives in trying to inject itself into the public school science curriculum are a cynical ploy to end-run Edwards and the establishment clause. Hopefully the judge will see that it’s not that Dover is merely misguided and wrong in thinking that ID is an appropriate topic for science class, but that the ID they want to make students aware of exists in the first place only to put discussions about a narrow interpretation of god and religion in places where it’s already been conclusively decided they do not belong.

I think IDiots’ claims of the “2500-year history” of Intelligent Design, etc., are just a bogus cover for the fact that these rabid Christian wackos happen to see biological science as their current best opportunity to inject their religious BS into schools. If they thought there was a better chance to get it done by attacking quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, algebra, or phys ed, they’d be doing that instead, with the same breed of anti-intellectual, off-topic sleight-of-hand crap.

ID isn’t “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” it’s wingnut fundamentalism in one of those t-shirts with a tuxedo pattern printed on it.

Comment #53087

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 21, 2005 5:33 PM (e)

To me the “defeat” is the climate of fear that so many high school biology teachers must live under.

It will remain unconstitutional to teach creationism, but no amount of legal wrangling is going to make an underpaid, overworked teacher who’s not up on the issues actually teach evolution in a hostile district.

And as another political movement would have it: “Silence = Death”

Comment #53091

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 5:42 PM (e)

To avoid filtering software, or just to be polite, Penetrating Shaft needs to change his name.

Comment #53092

Posted by shenda on October 21, 2005 5:43 PM (e)

“To me the “defeat” is the climate of fear that so many high school biology teachers must live under.
It will remain unconstitutional to teach creationism, but no amount of legal wrangling is going to make an underpaid, overworked teacher who’s not up on the issues actually teach evolution in a hostile district.”
You are right. Until this climate of fear and intimidation is successfully addressed, the fundies win.

Unfortunately, I do not know how this can be realistically remedied.

Comment #53097

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 5:54 PM (e)

In order to invoke Edwards, he would have to rule that ID is equivalent to Creation Science, i.e. religion.

And fortunately for him, the “Pandas” cut-and-paste job makes that conclusion absolutely inescapable.

Game over.

Comment #53102

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 5:58 PM (e)

It will remain unconstitutional to teach creationism, but no amount of legal wrangling is going to make an underpaid, overworked teacher who’s not up on the issues actually teach evolution in a hostile district.

But a few well-placed lawsuits will.

It’s illegal to not teach evolution out of deference to the religious beliefs of students or parents.

Comment #53104

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 6:03 PM (e)

What would be hilarious is, if the judge got some text of the previous rulings prohibiting Creationism from being taught as science, and global-search-and-replaced Creationism with Intelligent Design, and issued that as his ruling. That would be some poetic justice, and my sides would hurt with laughter.

Comment #53106

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 6:10 PM (e)

ID isn’t “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” it’s wingnut fundamentalism in one of those t-shirts with a tuxedo pattern printed on it.

lol. at the risk of sounding pedantic; good one!

Lenny; the way you phrased that makes it sound as if teachers are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t”.

there is a difference between those who choose not to teach evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs vs. those who are simply afraid to because of real physical repercussions.

It would be better to rephrase that in terms of how a teacher can USE the law to their advantage both to be able to teach evolutiona AND to avoid fear of persecution for doing so.

fear appears to be the single largest political motivator in this country for the last few years, it would be a shame to continue to promote it’s usage from BOTH sides of this issue as well.

Comment #53108

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 21, 2005 6:19 PM (e)

I wish that were true, Lenny.

But there’s no Lemon test for deference masquerading as incompetence.

“Funny. We got behind during the semester, and it was meiosis/mitosis or evolution. Something had to give.”

Comment #53119

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

It would be better to rephrase that in terms of how a teacher can USE the law to their advantage both to be able to teach evolutiona AND to avoid fear of persecution for doing so.

Well, here is the advice I give to every teacher who emails me to say something like “Parents are breathing down my neck to teach creationism and/or drop evolution – what should I do?”

My answer:
Look the parents straight in the eye, without blinking, and say, “Teaching creationism, or dropping evolution out of deference to your religious beliefs, is illegal. Period.”

Then hand them a printed copy of the Aguillard decision and ask them to read it.

And when they open their mouths to protest further, hand them a card with the name and phone number of a local lawyer, and invite them to take up the matter themselves with the Supreme Court if they don’t like it.

Then escort them out of your office.

Comment #53120

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 7:05 PM (e)

sounds good to me.

Comment #53121

Posted by God on October 21, 2005 7:24 PM (e)

“Supposing Behe did show the manuscript to others informally. This would go in the acknowledgments of the book. It would have no bearing whatsoever on peer-review process, and Behe’s claims about that process. All I can gather from your post is that your omniscience does not extend to the matter of scientific publication.”

Behe didn’t claim that his book was Peer reviewed in the literal meaning of the phrase, all he claimed was that it underwent a process as rigorous as peer review. It’s possible that if he showed the book to other scientists their fact checking was as in depth as peer review, if this is possible then Behe hasn’t been caught lying, QED.

As I pointed out earlier, just because there was one scientist he showed it to, who did not examine it deeply, doesn’t mean there weren’t others that examined it rigorously. In what sense then, was Behe caught lying?

Comment #53122

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 7:25 PM (e)

… and just in case you haven’t been to Lenny’s site, you can get a copy of the Aguillard decision here:

http://www.justia.us/us/482/578/case.html

Comment #53123

Posted by qetzal on October 21, 2005 7:26 PM (e)

Good answer, Lenny!

Comment #53124

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 7:29 PM (e)

Behe doesn’t need you to obfuscate for him, anyone can read the transcript and come to their own conclusions.

If you want to spin the obvious, you’re on the wrong site - suggest you try dembski’s site.

Comment #53125

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 7:34 PM (e)

btw, if behe submitted it to a process “as rigorous as peer review”…

-why didn’t he just submit it to peer review?

-what process could that possibly be, eh?

it’s obvious you need to understand what peer review is to begin with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

basic, but it’ll do for a starter course on how peer review works and is used for you.

perhaps you will begin to see the value of it, and why we call Behe on it.

Comment #53126

Posted by KL on October 21, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

Whoa! Scientific Peer Review is a long, in-depth process by which someone’s scholarly work is examined in depth by their “peers”, ie other scientists in the field, who check the method(s) used, the data, the cited works, and the conclusions drawn. The process often involves detailed criticism which must be answered to in revisions and resubmissions. That is how scientists stay honest and, in the end, unbiased in material they submit for publishing. If the book is presented as scientific, then it must (accurately) cite supporting literature and undergo what SCIENCE determines to be a rigorous peer review, not what philosophers, or experts in constitutional law, or theologians consider rigorous peer review. As we say here in TN, if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!

It just burns me up that the work of countless paleontologists, anthropologists, geneticists, zoologists, behaviorists, and ecologists are dismissed out of hand by those who refuse to educate themselves. In just one example, Donoghue and Cracraft’s book Assembling the Tree of Life, the authors assemble the combined work of thousands of researchers, both past and present, to present a comprehensive view of the interrelationships between the various forms of life on earth, combining the morphological evidence with the emerging phylogenetic evidence. The book is obviously written for readers who have more education in the biological sciences than myself. What I find striking is the way evolutionary theory can organize the countless pieces of data into a beautifully coherent picture. Each researcher, in his or her time, contributed samples, drawings, analyses, measurements that made up part of the combined picture. As new evidence emerges, the details of the picture may shift and blend, but the overall view has remained the same. If you are looking for spiritual meaning, how about rejoicing in owning such a wonderful brain, so that you can spend your lifetime learning about the infinitely complex and beautiful universe we live in! Somehow, I feel cheated by the “poof” explanation.

Comment #53127

Posted by ben on October 21, 2005 8:13 PM (e)

How is using “QED” supposed to lend some kind of legitimacy to such a half-assed apologism for Behe’s lies? Maybe I missed something, but that looks like an Intelligently Designed excuse–i.e., decide Behe’s book was peer reviewed, then try to manufacture evidence therefor. “Maybe” isn’t a quod erat demonstrandum, it’s a quod erat pulleditoutofyourass.

And Behe didn’t claim the process was “as rigorous,” he said it was “even more rigorous.”

Comment #53128

Posted by Ed Darrell on October 21, 2005 8:23 PM (e)

Did you consider that Behe might have disscused his work with more people than just Dr Atchison? Just because Behe said that the disscusion was the “deciding factor” in publishing “Darwins Black Box.” Doesn’t mean that he didn’t show it to others, he might have turned to Dr Atchison for emotional or spirtual reassurance, and to other scientists for fact checking. I’d hardly say this constitutes a total destruction of Behe’s credibility.

Yes, but there is no evidence to support that idea. Not even Behe suggests it. There were five people who had a crack at the book, none of whom seem to have the credentials in the field of evolution to have been counted as serious peer review.

Did you consider that the book is a crock, and Behe was just lucky to get it published?

Comment #53130

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 21, 2005 8:42 PM (e)

God, to give you some support I offer this link

QED

Comment #53131

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 8:43 PM (e)

lucky, nothing! publishers always jump at the chance to publish books that have significant controversy surrounding them; they don’t give a sh*t about the content.

er, that’s why we have peer review, but i guess “GOD” forgot that…

Comment #53132

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 8:48 PM (e)

lol.

Eugene - you give THAT as SUPPORT for “God”? if anything that little story totally tears down ANY pretense that Behe’s book was ever properly peer reviewed, in any fashion.

I think “god” would be well advised to avoid your “support” at all costs.

get a clue. what you are referring to is “religious” support, not topical or scientific or logical, even.

just like the ideas in Behe’s book, and the whole ID scam.

Comment #53137

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 9:20 PM (e)

Behe didn’t claim that his book was Peer reviewed in the literal meaning of the phrase

What OTHER meaning is there for the phrase?

Why oh why why why do the fundies always think they get to re-define terms to suit themselves?

“Peer review” means “peer review”. It doesn’t mean “something I think is just as good as peer review”.

Behe lied. His book was not “peer-reviewed”. Period.

, all he claimed was that it underwent a process as rigorous as peer review.

A ten-minute phone call with someone who never read the book is “as rigorous as peer review”?

Dude, when I wrote my book about keeping tarantulas as pets, I was on the phone for FOUR AND A HALF HOURS with a representative from the American Tarantula Society, and I read him THE ENTIRE MANUSCRIPT, word for word, so he could comment on every bit of it. In addition to that, the ENTIRE MANUSCRIPT was sent to two PhD arachnologists (one also an author of a book on tarantulas) – they went over EVERY SINGLE PAGE and returned it loaded with comments. And then both reviewed the re-written manusdript, again.

And I, unlike Behe, would not even PRESUME that this was anything NEAR “as rigorous as peer review”.

Behe is BS’ing us. Period.

And so are you.

Comment #53140

Posted by God on October 21, 2005 10:08 PM (e)

“Behe lied. His book was not “peer-reviewed”. Period.”
“What OTHER meaning is there for the phrase?”

Lenny, it’s quite obvious what was meant. Behe’s work didn’t undergo peer review, nor did Behe claim it underwent peer review Behe only said the process was as RIGROUS as peer review, that he said this is as clear as diamond if you read the transcript. It’s entirely possible that the process of having it fact checked was as extensive, remeber, the guy he was on the phone with for ten minutes was almost certainly not the only person he ran the manuscript past. If there is a signficant possibility that a person wasn’t lying then you can’t say you caught someone lying.

And I’d disagree with what you said about your trantuala book, that sounds about as rigrous as peer review to me, peer review usually involves 2-3 reviewers, you had three, they read ( or heard) the whole thing and commented on it, what part of that isn’t as rigrous as peer review?

Comment #53141

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 10:09 PM (e)

Behe didn’t claim that his book was Peer reviewed in the literal meaning of the phrase, all he claimed was that it underwent a process as rigorous as peer review. It’s possible that if he showed the book to other scientists their fact checking was as in depth as peer review, if this is possible then Behe hasn’t been caught lying, QED.

QED…You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You didn’t demonstrate anything, you speculated something.

btw something’s wrong with one of the latest PDFs. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/20051017_day10_pm.pdf seems to be unable to text search.

Comment #53142

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 10:19 PM (e)

LOL
snap out of it god and Eugene

Holy purple people haters !!!.

You have the whole universe of the Internet at your finger tips more knowledge available to man than ever before…ever and YOU chose that pathetic drivel *slobber… cough cough*
Somebody please tell me its not true, just friggen shoot me.

The chosen people and the smiters of those who aren’t chosen.

What a miserable apathetic bunch.

I can see the headline now on the DI *not*

Behe “The man who thought he saw god”

“Says the answer to the riddle of life is … a riddle (which he doesn’t have an answer to)”

peer reviewed by a man who THINKS he IS god.

Behe absolutely removes all doubt beyond any question as to his grasp on reality let alone science.

OK he “believes what he believes because he believes it” fine.. it is a PERSONAL religious choice like everyone else BUT he can’t do the SCIENCE. He has told us WHY not HOW. Science is HOW not WHY.

Go back and read all of his testimony, he even says god might no longer exist, is god now just total confusion.

Behe is so confused he thinks belief is evidence.

Isn’t that bearing false witness ?

YOU did READ Behe statements on the peer review ?

What is it about peer review you don’t understand ?
I am actually curious to hear you justify yourself.

Oh and peer review this

The Second Coming

2nd verse

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

From: “A Vision” Yeats

Comment #53144

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 10:20 PM (e)

Lenny, it’s quite obvious what was meant.

Yes, it is. Behe wants people to think that he published his ID crap in a peer-reviewed publication, instead of in a non-reviewed (peer or otherwise) commercially published trade book.

And Behe is flat-out lying about that.

So are you.

And I’d disagree with what you said about your trantuala book, that sounds about as rigrous as peer review to me

Nobody CARES what “it sounds like to you”. (shrug) “Peer review” is “peer review”. “Peer review” isn’t “anything I think is as good as peer review”. “Peer review” means what it means. It doesn’t mean whatever you WANT it to mean. You do not get to re-define terms to have them suit you. Even if you ARE “God”.

Behe’s book was not “peer-reviewed”. Behe’s book was not even remotely close to “peer-reviewed”. Behe’s book wasn’t even as well-NON-peer-reviewed as was my book on tarantulas. My book was very thoroughly-reviewed, but it was definitely not “peer-reviewed”. Unlike Behe, I am not so dishonest as to claim that it was.

Perhaps Behe could learn some things from me. (1) Have a number of actual experts actually review your manuscript before it is published, and (2) don’t BS people by claiming it’s “peer-reviewed” when it’s not.

peer review usually involves 2-3 reviewers, you had three, they read ( or heard) the whole thing and commented on it, what part of that isn’t as rigrous as peer review?

The part that, well, isn’t peer-review.

Maybe you’d want to ask yourself why *I* was able to have a piddley little book on keeping tarantulas as pets (that was projected to sell less than 2500 copies) so thoroughly reviewed by three different acknowledged experts in the field, but Behe, who was penning a best-seller that was projected to sell several hundred thousand copies, wasn’t.

Why do you suppose that is, “God”?

Comment #53146

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 10:35 PM (e)

If “god” would bother to go to the link i provided for him that defines what peer review is, and even points out what some of the accepted criticisms are of it, he (?) would have an actual starting place to argue his position from.

the total ignorance of the substance of the issues IDers debate is so common as to be describable as a character flaw.

it gets very tedious after a while.

Comment #53151

Posted by God on October 22, 2005 12:49 AM (e)

K.E: what’s Behe’s performance and honesty in the rest of the trial got to do with the matter at hand, which is, has a particular claim by Behe been proven to be absolutely false and a lie?

You wanted me to peer review the 2nd coming, obviously that’s impossible, it’s not the sort of thing you peer review, but as an amateur poet I’ll give it a go. In a literal sense the poem is false, the sort of Nietzschean moral revolution he hoped for didn’t come in the 1920’s, like he’d hoped. As far as style “indignant” seems like a fairly pedestrian word to me, and not one so great a poet as Yeats should have used. I also don’t like “come round”, again, it’s a bit pedestrian. I personally would have put a bit more fire in the poem, but Yeats is of course a much greater poet then me be a hundred hundred orders of magnitude, so I’ll respect his choice of tone.

KL: Why the long discussion on the spirituality of evolution, and on the beauty of the tree of life? What’s that got to do with the question whether or not a very specific proposition by Behe is true or false?

Steve S: QED or Quod Erat Demonstrandum usually signifies that something has been proven in mathematics. However the phrase is often used to refer to proofs of other concepts. Precedents for such usage include Baruch Spinoza’s “Ethics demonstrated geometrically”. I used the phrase once, at the end of a paragraph.

I did demonstrate something. By showing that there was a reasonably plausible ( if perhaps improbable) scenario in which Behe didn’t lie I showed that your triumphalism is premature. It’s true I didn’t demonstrate that he didn’t lie, or even that he didn’t probably lie, but I did demonstrate that there’s a small but significant chance he didn’t lie.

Lenny:

“The part that, well, isn’t peer-review.”- Lenny

Oh, you mean the name? excepting the possibility of rejection, how was this process you underwent any less rigorous then peer review ( no one is claiming that it was peer review, merely that it was as rigorous as peer review). You received comments by highly qualified experts and you were told whether or not to publish.

Eugene Lai: as much as I appreciate your support I don’t see that your link proves anything, have you considered the irony of your names resemblance to Eugene Scott’s?

Sir Toe-Jam: I read your link, I didn’t actually learn anything ( if you know anything at all about a subject you rarely learn from wikipedia) but I ask you, what part of it contradicts what I am saying? It affirms peer review is a process wherein a group of experts examine a paper for flaws and factual accuracy, with an eye towards publication. It seems to me that apart from two differences ( which wouldn’t effect the rigour) basically the whole process was present in Lenny’s case ( the two differences being the possibility of rejection and the involvement a journal in which the paper will or will not be published.)

Comment #53153

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 22, 2005 1:27 AM (e)

I didn’t actually learn anything

case closed.

one more IDiot barfs on a forum.

Comment #53156

Posted by God on October 22, 2005 2:53 AM (e)

Toe-Jam, I’ve already explained that the reason I didn’t learn anything was because I knew it all already.

Alright, here’s the whole thing again

Known facts:

1-Behe claimed that the process of fact checking for his articile was more rigirous then peer review.
2- It is known that one of the “fact checkers” Behe explained his work to was only consulted for ten minutes.

Neither of these facts discounts the possibility however that Behe showed his work to others.

If he showed his work to others then it is possible ( though improbable) that they examined it so deeply that the fact checking was deeper then that of normal peer review. Therefore it is possible Behe wasn’t lying.

Comment #53157

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 22, 2005 3:43 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam and K.E,

I regret that the sarcasm is not well received. I thought the use of “QED” would be a dead give away, but I thought wrong. God seems to get that though, but I am not surprised since he is omniscience.

The link says Behe told Atchison that his contribution was crucial to the publication of Darwin’s Black Box. The Christian tone of Atchson in the story is unfortunate, but not relevent to the issue.

If god’s hypothesis is to have any weight, it is about time for those invisible reviewers to come in for the rescue.

Comment #53158

Posted by Stephen Elliott on October 22, 2005 4:02 AM (e)

“God”,

The way I read it is that Behe never actualy discussed anything with Atchinson prior to publication of “Darwin’s black box”.
Rather, Behe’s editor asked Atchinson if the book would be worth publishing and Atchinson believed it would be.

Atchinson was right. The book was definately worth publishing. It sold a lot of copies, so presumably some people made decent money.

Wether Behe was lying or mistaken in believing Atchinson reviewed his book is a matter of conjecture.

Who did review his book? Anyone know?

Comment #53159

Posted by God on October 22, 2005 4:10 AM (e)

Eugene Lai

Hey, I wasn’t the only one who fell for it, there’s at least one other refutation of your comment by someone .

Eugene, you fail to see that I don’t actually have to present evidence for my theory. I just have to show that it’s possible. I am not trying to show that Behe didn’t lie, but only that it’s possible that he didn’t lie. If I demonstrate that I demonstrate that the “haha, we’ve caught him lying” attitude is unjustified, you might have caught him lying elsewhere with certainity, but not here.

Comment #53160

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 22, 2005 4:57 AM (e)

God, I specifically said that I think you get the sarcasm. Your reference to Eugene (sic) Scott suggests that.

May be you can read the comment again and check who I was trying to talk to (Hint: first line)

I also did not ask you to provide any evidence. I only said that your hypothesis has no weight without the invisible reviewers showing themselves. I never expect god to give any evidence for any thing. I know the folly of asking god that. BTW I have no need for your evidence. The silence from the invisble men is good enough for me.

Comment #53163

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 22, 2005 6:48 AM (e)

Neither of these facts discounts the possibility however that Behe showed his work to others.

Which others did he show his work to.

(sound of crickets chirping)

Exactly.

Comment #53165

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 22, 2005 7:09 AM (e)

Maybe you’d want to ask yourself why *I* was able to have a piddley little book on keeping tarantulas as pets (that was projected to sell less than 2500 copies) so thoroughly reviewed by three different acknowledged experts in the field, but Behe, who was penning a best-seller that was projected to sell several hundred thousand copies, wasn’t.

Why do you suppose that is, “God”?

Well?

Comment #53169

Posted by KL on October 22, 2005 8:28 AM (e)

god,
Gee, did I touch a nerve or something? Evolution is not a spiritual undertaking, but life is. What are you folks afraid of? (besides scientific peer review that might show that your “scientific” ideas are empty BS)

Comment #53182

Posted by Ed Darrell on October 22, 2005 11:13 AM (e)

In federal court, under oath, a person is expected to be scrupulous in telling the truth.

That means that when one asks whether a publication was peer reviewed, one is asking whether there was a formal process in place to assure the accuracy and veracity and science thought in the science publication.

The federal standards on research are quite clear. If Dr. Behe were to offer Darwin’s Black Box as an example of his peer-reviewed work, in an application for a federal grant, that claim could be deemed fraudulent, and criminal action would be possible.

I don’t think there is any excusing what would be criminal action, especially with a claim that the review was “as rigorous as” peer review.

The correct, non-perjurious answer for Dr. Behe would be, “No, the book was not peer reviewed.”

He may defend the science. He may defend the advice of those who offered it. He could be right.

But it is dishonest for him to claim the book was peer reviewed. It wasn’t.

Comment #53193

Posted by ben on October 22, 2005 2:01 PM (e)

What a crucial point ‘God’ is pounding home! He’s identified an angle from which it’s possible Behe might not have technically lied about DBB’s pseudo-peer review.

Let’s stipulate it’s Behe really thinks DBB underwent peer review-like scrutiny before being published. What the transcript shows, and the judge clearly sees, is:

*Behe claiming his book was in effect peer-reviewed.
*Behe offering as support for this that DBB was reviewed by more people, five, than real peer review requires.
*Plaintiff’s attorney demonstrating that one of those five never read the book and only talked to Behe about it on the phone for 10 minutes.

So Behe offers five reviewers, of which one is clearly shown to be completely bogus in the context of any legit peer review. Sure, it’s possible that the other four did in fact subject DBB to detailed review to rigorous scientific standards. But if so, why does Behe feel the need to include on his list of five someone 1) with no claimed expertise in evolutionary biology, 2) with no knowledge of the book in question, and 3) who constantly voices a strong bias to religiosity over all other concerns, including, obviously, science?

God, what exactly is your point? How does the argument that it’s possible that Behe really thought he wasn’t totally full of shit in claiming DBB was (uh, kind of) peer reviewed support any viewpoint you wish to promote? It seems you would have us believe that any tiny chink in the argument that Behe intentionally lied, conclusively proves Behe’s claim to rigorous peer review. If Behe wanted the legitimacy of peer review, he knows how to get it, and he didn’t.

It’s just like all the other ID bullshit: Show up with no data, no theory, and nothing to offer except an assumed conclusion, then puke “if not A, then B” argumentation all over the discussion. So, what? Behe might honestly believe Atchison’s participation was part of a review-like process, therefore maybe he isn’t an inveterate liar? Maybe DBB really was subjected to a forthright peer review process? Maybe if you can poke one little formal hole in a well-founded discussion board piss-take on Michael Behe, Intelligent Design is proven to the world? I don’t see anything but a nitpick on the clear demonstration–not by us, by Behe–that Behe’s assertion of peer review is utterly fraudulent, whether Behe thinks so or not!

quod erat putuporshutup.

Comment #53244

Posted by God on October 22, 2005 9:52 PM (e)

KL- I couldn’t give a —- about which viewpoint is more spirtual, nor could I give a —- about which viewpoint is correct, I am only intrested in the sociology of ID, and in making sure both sides avoid logical errors, because even small logical errors can cause big problems.

Ben, I’d agree with you that there’s a better then not chance Behe lied. All I am trying to get is some acknowledgement of the possibility that Behe didn’t lie, it’s not good to be more certain then the evidence allows.

Lenny, what’s the name of your book on trantualas?

Comment #53249

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 22, 2005 10:43 PM (e)

god wrote:

am only intrested in the sociology of ID, and in making sure both sides avoid logical errors, because even small logical errors can cause big problems.

Both sides?? As a deity you are very funny. Is there a link you may provide that suggests you have attacked any of the ID’s logical errors? On Dembski’s blog perhaps?

Wait, never mind. I almost forget the golden rule of not ask god for anything… Your silence would be sufficient.

Comment #53251

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 22, 2005 10:50 PM (e)

god wrote:

you fail to see that I don’t actually have to present evidence for my theory. I just have to show that it’s possible.

god wrote:

it’s not good to be more certain then the evidence allows.

These two quotes are less than one day apart.

Comment #53254

Posted by Steve S on October 22, 2005 10:59 PM (e)

it’s not good to be more certain then the evidence allows.

this is the second time he’s made the then/than mistake. I see I have to tutor God. That’s fine. I’ve tutored worse. “then” refers to time, god. you mean “than the evidence allows.”

than conj.

1. Used after a comparative adjective or adverb to introduce the second element or clause of an unequal comparison: She is a better athlete than I.
2. Used to introduce the second element after certain words indicating difference: He draws quite differently than she does.

Comment #53260

Posted by God on October 23, 2005 12:26 AM (e)

KL

(besides scientific peer review that might show that your “scientific” ideas are empty BS)

I don’t have any scientfic ideas.

Ben:

“God, what exactly is your point?

My point is that Behe is possibly innocent and that this possibility is fairly signficant ( i.e probably contains a whole number, even if it’s only one). Therefore it’s wrong and breach of manners and ethics to talk about him as if he is certainly guilty

Eugene Lai:

I don’t get a chance to criticise IDists much because all their blogs require logins, and I am too lazy to get a username, and I always forget the passwords anyway.

“god wrote:
you fail to see that I don’t actually have to present evidence for my theory. I just have to show that it’s possible.

god wrote:
it’s not good to be more certain then the evidence allows.

These two quotes are less than one day apart.”

They don’t contradict each other. The reason you have to produce proof, while I don’t is as follows, you believe Behe’s guilty ( i.e you are at least fairly “certain” of something). While I am pointing out a possibility, pointing out a possibility is neither certainty or belief ( hence it doesn’t come under quote two ). The only thing I need proof for is that the possibility might well have happened.

I am not claiming Behe is innocent. Rather, only that there is a possibility that he is innocent. If I thought Behe was innocent, then I would be obliged to produce those mysterious peer reviewers or some other form of proof. But because I am arguing that it’s only possible that Behe is innocent I need only come up with a story in which he is innocent, and present that as a possibility.

I am doing this ( i.e proving that it’s possible Behe’s innocent). because I feel it’s wrong to act as if someone is certainly a liar when you’ve only proved there’s a good chance that that person is a liar.

Read Ben’s post, he pretty much sums up what I am doing.

Steve S:

Thanks for the advice, I wasn’t aware there was a difference (that’s what you get from being educated in a funky new age way.)

Comment #53266

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 23, 2005 1:23 AM (e)

god wrote:

I don’t get a chance to criticise IDists much because all their blogs require logins, and I am too lazy to get a username, and I always forget the passwords anyway.

What a lame excuse. You don’t have to do it in their censored sites. (Hint: try here)

god wrote:

My point is that Behe is possibly innocent and that this possibility is fairly signficant ( i.e probably contains a whole number, even if it’s only one). Therefore it’s wrong and breach of manners and ethics to talk about him as if he is certainly guilty

The court transcipt is strong evidence that Behe exaggerated his peer-review on BBW to a degree that qualifies as lying. In a total absense of counter evidence how do you claim a “fairly significant” possibility that he didn’t? Do you know that probability is not an arbitrarily assigned value unless you are Dembsiki or his ID allies?

And what is a “possibility that contains a whole number, even if it is only one”? You can’t even quote probabilities in proper mathematic terms. Your omniscience has failed you once again.

god wrote:

Read Ben’s post, he pretty much sums up what I am doing.

Read Ben’s comment in its entirety. Ben thinks that you are talking BS. I agree that he sums up what you are doing.

Comment #53267

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 23, 2005 1:39 AM (e)

god wrote:

The only thing I need proof for is that the possibility might well have happened.

Are you trying to be the king of oxymoron?

Are you a dog that thinks with its rear end and excretes from the mouth? There is a “fairly significant possibility” that it is where your nickname come from. I am only saying there is a possbility, so don’t bother with accusations of ad-hominen attack.

Comment #53272

Posted by God on October 23, 2005 3:32 AM (e)

“And what is a “possibility that contains a whole number, even if it is only one”? You can’t even quote probabilities in proper mathematic terms. Your omniscience has failed you once again.”

A probability that contains a whole number is a probablity which is between 1-100, rather then between 0-100. I called it a probability which contains a whole number because whatever % that is named has a whole number in it i.e 2.459%

There is nothing oxymoronic in proving the possibility of something. Imagine a proof that there exists even numbers. This would constitue a proof that it is possible that if a number were selected randomly from the set of numbers between 1- 100 the number selected would be even.

“Read Ben’s comment in its entirety. Ben thinks that you are talking BS. I agree that he sums up what you are doing.”

I am aware Ben does think I am talking BS, but he does explain my stratgey well, even if he doesn’t understand it’s nuances. Prove that there is a possibility that Behe is telling the truth ( a possibility high enough that it constitutes reasonable doubt), so as to get you to tone down your rhetoric. As I said earlier I want to prove it so you’ll all stop being so darn cocky, it really —- me off. I am also pointing it out because it’s rude to say someone’s lying when there’s a signficant chance they’re lying. It would be much nicer to talk about Behe’s recent actions as constituing more evidence that he is dishonest, rather then talking about them as if they are a near certain proof that he is dishonest. It’s a certain intellecual courtesy, something you seem to lack judging by your name calling and constant shrill tone.

Comment #53276

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 23, 2005 5:33 AM (e)

god wrote:

A probability that contains a whole number is a probablity which is between 1-100, rather then between 0-100. I called it a probability which contains a whole number because whatever % that is named has a whole number in it i.e 2.459%

LOL. You certainly express yourself well here. I cannot imagine a more convoluted way to say “at least 1% chance”. And what on earth makes you think that the probabablity is at least 1%?

Probability is not 0-100 either. It is 0-1. Read that up in your maths textbook. You have no handle on proper mathetics expressions.

god wrote:

There is nothing oxymoronic in proving the possibility of something. Imagine a proof that there exists even numbers. This would constitue a proof that it is possible that if a number were selected randomly from the set of numbers between 1- 100 the number selected would be even.

LOL some more. “Imagine a proof that there exists even number”?? Even number is a definition. I cannot imagine a proof for a definition to exist.

I don’t expect you to understand this, as you don’t understand that proof for a possibility to be a possibility is an oxymoron. Stating a possibility is not proof, as there is an infinite number of “possibilities” for any real or imagined situation.

That, as oppose to providing evidence for a possibility to be true, which you steadfastly refuse to provide, citing bogus reasons.

god wrote:

I am aware Ben does think I am talking BS, but he does explain my stratgey well, even if he doesn’t understand it’s nuances.

LOL the third time. “Ben sums me up good, even though he does not understand its nuance and thinks I am talking BS. I will quote Ben anyway.” This is good stuff.

god wrote:

Prove that there is a possibility that Behe is telling the truth ( a possibility high enough that it constitutes reasonable doubt)

Here we go again. Seriously, are you 12 years old? You have zero knowledge about how probability works, yet you keep using it as your defense. One more time: probability is not arbitrarily assigned. What makes you think that there is at least 1% chance that you are right? And what probability is high enough that it constitutes reasonable doubt? Why?

god wrote:

As I said earlier I want to prove it so you’ll all stop being so darn cocky, it really —— me off.

You have proved nothing. Pointing out a possibility is very different to proving something. If you still don’t know that you are a moron who may as well be the intelligent designer himself.

god wrote:

I am also pointing it out because it’s rude to say someone’s lying when there’s a signficant chance they’re lying.It would be much nicer to talk about Behe’s recent actions as constituing more evidence that he is dishonest, rather then talking about them as if they are a near certain proof that he is dishonest.

There is near certain proof. Have you not read the court transcript (not just quotes) yourself? Trivia: Is Behe a co-author for the next edition of “Of Pandas and People”? You answer that simple yes/no question and we can talk honesty about the ID movement.

god wrote:

It’s a certain intellecual courtesy, something you seem to lack judging by your name calling and constant shrill tone.

There is nothing wrong in calling spade a spade.

Comment #53278

Posted by God on October 23, 2005 6:26 AM (e)

“Probability is not 0-100 either. It is 0-1. Read that up in your maths textbook. You have no handle on proper mathetics expressions.”

Both scales are used sometimes, though 0-1 is the scale of formal mathematics 0-100 is used colloquially, this is a colloquial situation.

“There is near certain proof.”

That’s all I wanted you to acknowledge, that it’s near certain rather then certain.

“There is near certain proof. Have you not read the court transcript (not just quotes) yourself? Trivia: Is Behe a co-author for the next edition of “Of Pandas and People”? You answer that simple yes/no question and we can talk honesty about the ID movement.”

I’ll say anything you want me to say about ID, Dembski is almost certainly a lying chartalan, irreducible complexity is bunk, many if not most supporters of ID are only doing it so they can stuff creationism down kids faces, thus allowing them to take-over politics and institute policies that will return us to the paleolithic, while virtually all the others are doing it to defend their faith. I hadn’t actually heard there was a new edition of Panda’s thumb, if you say Behe’s editing it I’ll believe you. Now, why did you want me to say that?

Comment #53279

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 23, 2005 7:08 AM (e)

“this possibility is fairly signficant ( i.e probably contains a whole number, even if it’s only one)” is no colloquial way to use probablity.

“probablity which is between 1-100, rather then between 0-100” is no colloquial way to use probablity.

By the way, you still have not answered why you think you have at least 1% chance to be right, nor any other questions except one.

It was *YOU who said

god wrote:

It would be much nicer to talk about Behe’s recent actions as constituing more evidence that he is dishonest, rather then talking about them as if they are a near certain proof that he is dishonest.

That’s all I wanted you to acknowledge, that it’s near certain rather then certain.

I was quoting from your post merely 2 screens above. Now you are claiming that near certain is not enough. Luckily your words have been immortalised in this page. Get off the high horse and stop moving the goalpost if you have *any* intellectual honesty.

I ask you about the next edition of “Of Panda and People” to see whether you have read the court transcript. You obviously have not. Hence you have no business disputing whether Behe lied in court. Next time get your facts right first.

Comment #53282

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 23, 2005 8:35 AM (e)

Lenny, what’s the name of your book on trantualas?

“The Tarantula”. See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087605601X/qid=1130074519/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/103-1959425-0742203?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It’s part of a series – I also did the books on snakes and turtles in the series, reviewed-edited the bopoks on lizards, iguanas and geckos in the series, and wrote two larger non-series books on snakes and on reptiles in general.

Alas, they are now all out of print, but used copies can still be had at Amazon.com. Just do a search for my name.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to tell us who Behe’s “other reviweres” were. And perhaps you could explain why he failed to mention them in court.

Unless, of course, their “review” was about as “rigorous” as the ones he DID mention in court …… .

Comment #53283

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 23, 2005 8:37 AM (e)

I don’t have any scientfic ideas.

Neither does ID. (shrug)

Comment #53298

Posted by qetzal on October 23, 2005 11:56 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

I don’t have any scientific ideas.

Neither does ID. (shrug)

I guess that’s why God and ID get along so well….

Comment #53330

Posted by The Ghost of Paley on October 23, 2005 4:27 PM (e)

You have zero knowledge about how probability works, yet you keep using it as your defense.

For a community that was pranked by a bad optics paper, ya’ll sure know how to strut your mathematical expertise. Shall we all sing a verse of “Someday my Expert Will Come” in Nicky’s name? I’ll have to provide the schnapps, I am sure…….

Comment #53444

Posted by Alan on October 24, 2005 6:20 AM (e)

Your link doesn’t seem to work Mr The Ghost of Paley. It will be interesting to see how you get on in the big boys’ playground. How is your paper coming along, by the way?

Comment #53605

Posted by The Ghost of Paley on October 24, 2005 8:12 PM (e)

Your link doesn’t seem to work Mr The Ghost of Paley.

The link seems to work now.

It will be interesting to see how you get on in the big boys’ playground. How is your paper coming along, by the way?

The paper’s coming along fine. But for now, hoss, let’s see your response to the Master.

Comment #53610

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 24, 2005 9:15 PM (e)

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to tell us who Behe’s “other reviweres” were. And perhaps you could explain why he failed to mention them in court.

So, it seems as if Behe’s other “reviewers” told him that his work was, uh, a big steaming pile of cow cakes.

I guess that answers my question as to why Behe didn’t whip it out in court, huh.

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #53641

Posted by God on October 25, 2005 5:34 AM (e)

“And perhaps you could explain why he failed to mention them in court.”

The fact that I can’t explain that is the reason I think Behe PROBABLY lied. But unlike you guy’s I am nowhere near certain enough to call Behe a liar ( the case is far more ambigous then Calverts). The point I keep trying to make is that there’s a reasonable possibility in which Behe didn’t lie, therefore you shouldn’t call him a liar. A far more constructive way to criticise my posts would have been to attack my contention that the scenario I outlined was reasonably possible, instead you’ve all spent most of your time haggling over the meaning of phrases, an extremely subjective waste of time ( with most of the disputes on this thread either view of the meaning of the phrases could be correct, depending on your interpretation, very often with language there’s simply not enough information to determine the correct meaning of a sentence). I still can’t understand why Eugene Lai has so much trouble with the concept of proving somethings possible And I still can’t understand why you can’t see that you don’t need evidence to outline a possiblity, because your not actually claiming the possible scenario happened.

Comment #53650

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 25, 2005 7:18 AM (e)

A far more constructive way to criticise my posts would have been to attack my contention that the scenario I outlined was reasonably possible,

All Behe had to do was name them.

That’s all.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

Which still makes Behe a liar.

Comment #53662

Posted by Steve S on October 25, 2005 10:01 AM (e)

unlike you guy’s…
proving somethings possible…
the case is far more ambigous then Calverts…
because your not actually claiming…

Attention god. And several other creationists here. You need to bone up on plurals and possessives, and other fine points of grammar.

http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966722175/thebluebookof-20/103-2482928-8296667

Comment #53663

Posted by Flint on October 25, 2005 10:11 AM (e)

You need to bone up on plurals and possessives, and other fine points of grammar.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the English language curriculum has changed a bit since I went to secondary school; they’re now teaching that homonyms are simply interchangeable spellings of the same word! If it sounds the same, it IS the same. Sure simplifies things.

Comment #53669

Posted by Steve S on October 25, 2005 11:06 AM (e)

?

Comment #53839

Posted by God on October 25, 2005 10:30 PM (e)

“Attention god. And several other creationists here. You need to bone up on plurals and possessives, and other fine points of grammar.”

You say I am a creationist, yet how many creationists claim they are God?

Comment #53841

Posted by God on October 25, 2005 10:59 PM (e)

er, any of them who decides to use the handle?

Comment #53851

Posted by God on October 26, 2005 1:26 AM (e)

“er, any of them who decides to use the handle?”

Your not thinking properly. If I were a creationist, then I would have to be religious. If I were religious I would not blaspheme by calling myself god ( according to the bible you get in big trouble for that). That’s why I choose the handle “God” because it would reassure everyone on this forum that I am not a Christian nut.

Comment #53931

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 26, 2005 3:16 PM (e)

Your not thinking properly. If I were a creationist, then I would have to be religious. If I were religious I would not blaspheme by calling myself god ( according to the bible you get in big trouble for that). That’s why I choose the handle “God” because it would reassure everyone on this forum that I am not a Christian nut.

You are not thinking properly. Perhaps you are religious and really do think you are God. There would be no prohibition against you using your own name (although you would probably use your given name (by whom?) ‘Yahweh’, not the more general term ‘God’. If you are a Christian, that would be consistent with the hypothesis that you are also a nut.

Or, you could really be God, in which case omniscience is over-rated.

BTW, if you really are Yahweh/God, insects have 6 legs and bats are not a type of bird. Just thought you would want to know.

Comment #54137

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 27, 2005 6:37 PM (e)

That’s why I choose the handle “God” because it would reassure everyone on this forum that I am not a Christian nut.

still a nut

Comment #54193

Posted by God on October 28, 2005 4:16 AM (e)

The new developments in this area have been intresting. It looks like Behe was correct in the number of peer reviewers, the question is, were they as rigrous as a typical peer reviewer? It all seems pretty debateable and subjective, but first indications seem to support the belief that Behe probably lied.

Comment #54198

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 28, 2005 7:10 AM (e)

The new developments in this area have been intresting. It looks like Behe was correct in the number of peer reviewers, the question is, were they as rigrous as a typical peer reviewer? It all seems pretty debateable and subjective, but first indications seem to support the belief that Behe probably lied.

No kidding.

Comment #54202

Posted by Eugene Lai on October 28, 2005 8:00 AM (e)

god wrote:

I still can’t understand why Eugene Lai has so much trouble with the concept of proving somethings possible And I still can’t understand why you can’t see that you don’t need evidence to outline a possiblity, because your not actually claiming the possible scenario happened.

Because you are a stupid piece of dirt who still has not answer where your “whole number possibility” comes from.

Comment #54285

Posted by God on October 29, 2005 6:00 AM (e)

Eugene Lai

Why bother, I’ve long since realised your not intrested in listening, you’ve consitently refused to understand my rather simply assertions. The whole number idea comes from plausiablity, the scenario was plausiable and seemed very possible ( i.e, Behe would have to be nuts not to get the best fact checking possible for such a controversial book). You also indulge in name calling, which just goes to show that you lack a number of important personal qualities. In my experience it’s impossible to explain anything to someone whose calling you names, so it’s not even worth trying.

Comment #54293

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 29, 2005 9:28 AM (e)

Behe would have to be nuts not to get the best fact checking possible for such a controversial book

Let’s just mention again, one more time, that (1) the only favorable pre-publication reviewer that we’ve heard about, didn’t actually read the book, (2) the only other pre-publication reviewers we have heard about, thought the book’s primary argument was crap, and (3) when Behe tried to BS the court by claiming “more rigorous than peer review”, he didn’t mention any of this.

Is there anything you’d like to add to that?

Comment #54301

Posted by Steve S on October 29, 2005 11:41 AM (e)

I love how the guy on here defending Behe is merely trying to argue that it is concievable that Behe wasn’t lying.

Comment #54306

Posted by gwangung on October 29, 2005 12:51 PM (e)

The whole number idea comes from plausiablity, the scenario was plausiable and seemed very possible ( i.e, Behe would have to be nuts not to get the best fact checking possible for such a controversial book).

Then, judging from the trial transcipts, you MUST agree tht Behe is nuts.

Comment #84326

Posted by Allison Trump on March 6, 2006 11:18 PM (e)

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 31407, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

Comment #88323

Posted by Kagina on March 21, 2006 7:03 PM (e)

hi this place sux balls