Jason Rosenhouse posted Entry 1677 on November 14, 2005 01:45 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1672

Update: November 15, 2005. The Templeton Foundation has issued a statement objecting to the implication that they have ever been a supporter of ID. The statement makes it clear that they do not support ID, and that on those occasions where foundation money went to ID supporters, it was for purposes other than supporting ID research. The statement begins:

Today the WSJ ran a front page story mentioning the John Templeton Foundation in a way suggesting that the Foundation has been a concerted patron and sponsor of the so-called Intelligent Design (“ID”) position (such as is associated with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and the writers Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe and others). This is false information. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The John Templeton Foundation has provided tens of millions of dollars in support to research academics who are critical of the anti-evolution ID position. Any careful and factual analysis of actual events will find that the John Templeton Foundation has been in fact the chief sponsor of university courses, lectures and academic research which variously have argued against the anti-evolution “ID” position. It is scandalous for a distinguished paper to misinform the public in this way.

In light of this, I apologize for suggesting that the Foundation was losing faith in ID, when it seems, in fact, they never had any faith in it to begin with. I still regard it as significant, however, that a foundation dedicated to bridging the gap between science and religion would wish to distance itself, with considerable passion, from ID.


The website of the Beaver County Times and Allegheny Times is reporting that Senator Rick Santorum has reversed his position on teaching ID in science classes:

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom.

Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a “legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom.”

But on Saturday, the Republican said that, “Science leads you where it leads you.”

And later:

Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is “a legitimate issue,” he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

Santorum is one of the most conservative Senators around, and he is a darling of the Religious Right. Consequently, this flip-flop is highly significant. I provide some further commentary here.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting today (see Tara Smith's post below for further commentary on this article) that the Templeton Foundation, which funds projects designed to find harmony between science and religion, is losing interest in ID:

Foundation staff members now say that intelligent design hasn't yielded as much research as they'd hoped. Mr. Templeton, who chairs the foundation and will turn 93 later this month, believes "the creation-evolution argument is a waste of time," says Paul Wason, the foundation's director of science and religion programs. Mr. Wason adds that Mr. Templeton is more interested in applying the scientific method to exploring spiritual questions such as the nature of forgiveness. Nevertheless, staff members remain reluctant to dismiss intelligent design entirely, in part because the doctrine's popularity could help achieve the foundation's goal of persuading evangelical Christians to pursue scientific careers. The foundation also complains that academia is too quick to censor the doctrine.

Good news all around. I offer some further thoughts on the WSJ article here and 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 #57256

Posted by PaulC on November 14, 2005 2:08 PM (e)

Santorum has been subtly moderating for a while now. I’d hate to think the explanation is as crass as the 2006 election and his standing in the polls. Rather, I would call it a dawning awareness in little Ricky’s mind that he is not the junior senator from Alabama.

Comment #57258

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 14, 2005 2:16 PM (e)

But on Saturday, the Republican said that, “Science leads you where it leads you.”

Say what? Science certainly didn’t lead him where he’s gone the last several years.

I suggest that instead, he has sensed a shift in the political winds. Maybe he understands that the Creationists are certainly going to lose in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Undoubtedly he noticed the results of the Dover school board elections.

Comment #57264

Posted by Ron Zeno on November 14, 2005 2:34 PM (e)

Santorum just continues to be a lackey for the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute wants people to think they don’t want intelligent design creationism taught in schools. Santorum is more than happy to spread their propaganda, especially when it makes him look like he’s less of a lackey.

Comment #57271

Posted by theonomo on November 14, 2005 3:02 PM (e)

I have thought for a while now that teaching ID in the schools is premature. My position is that ID should wait for 10 or 15 years and do the hard work of coming up with a more secure scientific foundation for their position. Once they have done that they will win over more of the scientific community and only then should the theory be taught in high school.

Comment #57279

Posted by Russell on November 14, 2005 3:13 PM (e)

he doesn’t believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

[guffaw]

Try this little thought experiment. Suppose, for a moment, that Bush and the Christian Right were riding as high in the polls as they were a few years ago. For that matter, suppose Santorum himself were not tanking in the polls. How high do you estimate the probability that his considerable scientific acumen would have developed “concerns” about these “parts” of “the theory”?

Honestly. I keep thinking there must be some heights of cynicism beyond even these guys. I keep being wrong.

Comment #57280

Posted by CJ O'Brien on November 14, 2005 3:14 PM (e)

My position is that ID should wait for 10 or 15 years and do the hard work of coming up with a more secure scientific foundation for their position.

There’s “hard work” and there’s “a snowball’s chance.” It should have occured to you that 1)There’s nobody that’s interested in doing that work, and 2)ID has had your 10 or 15 years already, and has exactly squat to show for it, and finally, 3)A non-existent foundation cannot be made “more” anything.

Comment #57281

Posted by Dave S. on November 14, 2005 3:14 PM (e)

Problem is theonomo, ID doesn’t have a model from which to derive testable hypotheses. Without such a model, you can’t even start the process of doing the hard work of supporting the “theory”. That’s why you haven’t seen a single novel discovery come from any ID ‘scientist’ using ID - there’s no basis from which to make such a discovery. ID is scientifically vacuous (or sterile or impotent, whatever terminology you like).

Comment #57286

Posted by spencer on November 14, 2005 3:23 PM (e)

Mr. Wason adds that Mr. Templeton is more interested in applying the scientific method to exploring spiritual questions such as the nature of forgiveness.

Is that really a “spiritual” question? It sounds more like anthropology or sociology to me.

Or is he talking about the state of Being Forgiven, which is yet another thing the scientific method is ill-equipped to measure?

Comment #57288

Posted by Albion on November 14, 2005 3:29 PM (e)

He’s just aligning himself with the Discovery Institute message. When he thought the message was “teach ID,” he went around supporting the notion of teaching ID. Now he realises the message has mutated to “teach the controversy” or “teach the arguments against evolution,” he’s adjusted his support to match. Once the retooled Supreme Court gives the go-ahead to teach creationism in any and all forms in school, he’ll get behind that message. This is simple opportunism: the typical creationist “do what it takes to get what you want” approach.

Comment #57292

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 3:43 PM (e)

the argument that Santorum Rub ™ just got a phone call from DI telling him to back off seems the most plausible to me as well.

the politics haven’t changed enough to warrant a total about face; remember the furor in the extreme right that had a significant impact on the Harriet Miers withdrawl?

this last vote was more on local issues than national ones.

Comment #57336

Posted by theonomo on November 14, 2005 5:11 PM (e)

I wish it were possible to buy stock in ID and short sell the Grand Darwinian Creation Myth. You guys would all be lining up to be my suckers.

Comment #57342

Posted by Jeff Guinn on November 14, 2005 5:16 PM (e)

Unfortunately for the DI wedge strategy, while Americans aren’t overwhelmingly thrilled with naturalistic evolution, they are quite enamored of science’s in almost all other respects.

What’s more, I think most Americans have a intuitive grasp of rational inquiry, since so much of what people do in an information age society depends heavily on just that.

As the outcome of the Dover case shows. When faced with the profound disconnect between ID/Creationism and naturalistic evolution, voters went with rational inquiry.

I was just as surprised as anyone by the school board election outcome. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been.

And perhaps Sen Santorum isn’t as immune to that disconnect as many here believe (NB: I am not a Santorum fan.)

Comment #57346

Posted by Flint on November 14, 2005 5:20 PM (e)

the Grand Darwinian Creation Myth

Ah. We’re dealing with faith. And perhaps the time may come when some politician or judge passes or “finds” a law that says science need no longer be based on facts and evidence, and that magical hand-waving, without testing, suffices. Theonomo would be dancing in the streets, until he got sick…

Comment #57348

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 5:24 PM (e)

naturalistic evolution

that’s like saying “scientific physics”.

the point being that identifying evolution as specifically naturalistic is a redundancy.

science is based on naturalistic assumptions, the scientific method only works if we base it on such assumptions to begin with.

the whole argument of “naturalism” reminds me of the tactic that republicans over the last 30 years have used to make the word “liberal” seem like something one should use soap to clean up after saying.

don’t fall for it.

Comment #57349

Posted by theonomo on November 14, 2005 5:26 PM (e)

Actually, I suspect that I’m more concerned with facts and evidence than you are. You rule out an entire class of possible explanations (i.e., anything that has to do with God) before you even begin to look at the evidence. I don’t. I’m happy with Naturalism and I am happy with Theism – it just looks to me like Theism is the more sensible position given the evidence.

Comment #57354

Posted by theonomo on November 14, 2005 5:28 PM (e)

science is based on naturalistic assumptions, the scientific method only works if we base it on such assumptions to begin with.

And if those assumptions are incorrect, then you will arrive at incorrect conclusions.

Comment #57355

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 5:28 PM (e)

thenomo appears to forget that he can readily invest in “ID” if he so chooses.

all he has to do is donate all of his worldly good to the Discovery Institute, whose strategies have a proven trackrecord of success.

so.. the question then arises, why hasn’t he already done that?

does he have a better strategy to invest in than that of DI?

oh please tell us ‘nomo whatever would that be? will you make an ngo or corporation out of it for everyone to invest in?

why not?

Comment #57356

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 5:31 PM (e)

And if those assumptions are incorrect, then you will arrive at incorrect conclusions.

feel free to tell us all how science without naturalistic assumptions works there, ‘nomo.

I’m waiting.

Comment #57359

Posted by JS on November 14, 2005 5:35 PM (e)

You rule out an entire class of possible explanations

WinAce wrote:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/occam_razor.gif

- JS

Comment #57361

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on November 14, 2005 5:38 PM (e)

Sir TJ wrote:

science is based on naturalistic assumptions, the scientific method only works if we base it on such assumptions to begin with.

the whole argument of “naturalism” reminds me of the tactic that republicans over the last 30 years have used to make the word “liberal” seem like something one should use soap to clean up after saying.

don’t fall for it.

Actually, I think (and I stole this from someone else, so I don’t claim originality) that the introduction of ‘natural’ into the discussion produces no end of trouble.

Science investigates that which can be investigated. If Gods existed, and could be examined in an empirical, objective, repeatable fashion, then Gods would be the province of science.

But demanding ‘presumed naturalism’ is phrasing things too strongly - in my new-found opinion.

Comment #57362

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 14, 2005 5:39 PM (e)

I hope Dave Barry extends his vacation – you can’t make this stuff up.

Theonomo said:

I wish it were possible to buy stock in ID and short sell the Grand Darwinian Creation Myth. You guys would all be lining up to be my suckers.

You can buy stock in Darwnian theory. Go to the New York Stock Exchange, look for Pfizer, Genentech, Merck, ADM, or any other large agricultural products or pharmaceutical products firm that is deeply entrenched in research.

You can’t buy stock in ID, not even to sell it short. There is no practical application for hoo-haw, and there is not a single corporation in the world willing to waste its investors’ money on ID-based applications.

I wish creationists of all stripes, IDists included, would wake up and smell the coffee.

Comment #57365

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 14, 2005 5:45 PM (e)

Theonomo, only that stuff that God chooses to hide supernaturally is ruled out of science. All the rest of God’s creation is available for research, and is the topic of biology, chemistry and physics. You ask that we claim most of God’s creation is wrong, and that the only stuff we know is what we can’t see. That’s silly.

You’re asking that we eschew most of God’s creation to hunt for ghosts. You’ve been watching too many Bill Murray movies.

Comment #57366

Posted by Ron Zeno on November 14, 2005 5:49 PM (e)

“Actually, I suspect that I’m more concerned with facts and evidence than you are.”

I suspect you’re wrong and have some amusing definitions of “facts” and “evidence” that don’t even remotely resemblance to those of science. I suspect, like Santorum, you are merrily telling the world what the Discovery Institute tells you.

Santorum loves Big Brother.

Comment #57368

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 5:57 PM (e)

But demanding ‘presumed naturalism’ is phrasing things too strongly - in my new-found opinion

My point is that the definition of the word in the scientific community was so well understood as to become part of the accepted definition of science itself. Now we find a rephrasing of the definition of the word by those who have no understanding of what it means to have influenced the decision to use it to begin with?

bah. the next word you use to describe naturalistic methods will be just as readily abused by those who simply want to rewrite the whole definition of science to begin with, just like those in Kansas did.

If you want to argue political expediance for dropping the term, then we proceed on the same slippery slope that the creationists want us to.

I may be sounding a bit extreme here, but unless the words themselves are made clear, why wouldn’t any “reasonable” person conclude that calling science:

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

is just fine, eh?

essentially replacing “natural” in the original definition:

“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

with “logical argument” essentially makes science equivalent in nature to philosophy, which is just one step from calling it religion.

that’s exactly what creationists want.

no, we need to stand by and repeatedly explain exactly why the term “natural explanations” is such a key point to the definition of science to begin with, otherwise we not only fail evolutionary biology specifically, but fail to educate our students as to what the scientific method is to begin with.

Comment #57369

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 6:03 PM (e)

But demanding ‘presumed naturalism’ is phrasing things too strongly - in my new-found opinion.

moreover, there is a great difference between the words presumption and assumption.

there can be “presumed naturalistic explanations”, and that would be based on someone’s individual experience that non-naturalistic explanations haven’t been shown to be very predictive.

that is far different than sayin that we begin scientific investigations with the assumption of naturalism to begin with.

there is no “presumption” of supernatural or natural explanations to any given phenomonen at the root of scientific investigation, it’s simply that the scientific method cannot be applied without an assumption of natural explanations to begin with.

Comment #57370

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 6:05 PM (e)

Science investigates that which can be investigated

this IS the definition of naturalism, essentially. sorry to belabor the point.

Comment #57377

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 14, 2005 6:29 PM (e)

Do a google search on “santorum” and go to the first website on that list. HAHA. Poetic justice!

Comment #57382

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on November 14, 2005 6:39 PM (e)

“an entire class of possible explanations”?

I’m sorry, but the term “supernatural explanation” is an oxymoron. Think about it: a “supernatural explanation” (a.k.a. “miracle”) is invoked by those who have no explanation and are uncomfortable with admitting (as science often does) “we don’t know.” Or, to put it another way, if you can explain it, it’s not a miracle.

Comment #57383

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 6:45 PM (e)

I’m sorry, but the term “supernatural explanation” is an oxymoron

you know, that’s a rather obvious point i hadn’t even thought about. I guess we just use the term “supernatural explanation” for discussion purposes.

care to suggest a better phrase?

how bout “supernatural conceptualization?”

Comment #57388

Posted by Steve Reuland on November 14, 2005 6:53 PM (e)

Regarding the Santorum bit, this is old news.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/santorum_vs_san.html

He’s just using the DI’s standard issue talking point, which serves to clarify things by throwing mud all over them.

Comment #57389

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2005 6:54 PM (e)

I have thought for a while now that teaching ID in the schools is premature. My position is that ID should wait for 10 or 15 years and do the hard work of coming up with a more secure scientific foundation for their position. Once they have done that they will win over more of the scientific community and only then should the theory be taught in high school.

I’m sure you won’t mind if nobody holds their breath waiting …. .

Comment #57392

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2005 6:59 PM (e)

Santorum just continues to be a lackey for the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute wants people to think they don’t want intelligent design creationism taught in schools. Santorum is more than happy to spread their propaganda, especially when it makes him look like he’s less of a lackey.

Yep. The Wedge-are in full spin mode. After “design theory” gets disemboweled in Dover (and Di already knows that it’s a-comin’), the only fallback position that DI has left is “we, uh, never really wanted to teach ID after all — we *really* just wanted to teach the controversy about evolution, ya know. Sorry if you misunderstood.”

Alas, they’ve already lost *that fight*, too, in Cobb County. Although I’d be very happy to see them lose it again in Kansas.

Comment #57396

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

You rule out an entire class of possible explanations (i.e., anything that has to do with God) before you even begin to look at the evidence. I don’t.

I will once again post my standard response to all the ID “science unfairly rules out the supernatural” baloney. Let’s see if Theonomo handles it any better than any other IDer has.

Or, if Theonomo does what all the others did, and runs away from it.

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any “supernatural cause”. Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won’t (and doesn’t) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such “supernatural causes” as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such “non-materialistic” or “non-natural” causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and “remote viewing”. So ID’s claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let’s pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God — uh, I mean, An Unknown Intelligent Designer — created both but used common features in a common design.

Let’s take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is “an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products.”

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology’s chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID’s hypothesis? If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see … ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID’s hypothesis, it is most useful to point out some negative predictions — things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then — if we find (fill in the blank here), then the “common design” hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified through experiment.

Take note here — contrary to the IDers whining about the “unfair exclusion of supernatural causes”, there are in fact NO limits imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine —- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God — er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer — didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me — just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let’s assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let’s therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything’s fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis “genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design”, or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID “theory” falls flat on its face. It is NOT any presupposition of “philosophical naturalism” on the part of science that stops ID dead in its tracks —- it is the simple inability of ID “theory” to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design “theory” STILL can’t follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but that science demands ID’s proposed “supernaturalistic explanations” be tested according to the scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its “explanations”, but it wants to modify science so it doesn’t HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic “hypothesis” to have a privileged position —- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so, that their “science” is correct. And that is what their entire argument over “materialism” (or “naturalism” or “atheism” or “sciencism” or “darwinism” or whatever the heck else they want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE’s hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their “hypothesis” through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be “science”. Period.

Your turn, Theonomo …. .

Comment #57401

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 7:12 PM (e)

damnit! i wish folks would stop ruining my fun. I was hoping ‘nomo was going to just attempt to explain how non-naturalistic science is done, but i bet you just scared the poor boy away lenny.

oh well, there’s pleny of other suckers, er i mean “fish” in the sea.

Comment #57402

Posted by neurode on November 14, 2005 7:18 PM (e)

PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen: “Do a google search on “santorum” and go to the first website on that list. HAHA. Poetic justice!”

That some twisted moron manages to draw attention to this mindless filth every time a certain U.S. Senator is mentioned by name is an obvious comment on the quality of individual who frequents this board. What’ll it be next…plugs for NAMBLA? (I realize that some of you people don’t live quite that far down the sewerpipe, but don’t you ever wonder why your viewpoint holds so much attraction for those who do?)

Comment #57404

Posted by buddha on November 14, 2005 7:21 PM (e)

theonomo wrote:

I wish it were possible to buy stock in ID

Intelligent Design Corporation (IDC) is pleased to announce an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 144,000 shares. At the time of the IPO, and subsequently, IDC will peg the share price to the Steve Index - the proportion of Intelligent Design PhD-in-a-relevant-field “Steves” among all PhD-in-a-relevant-field “Steves”, adjusted for inflation according to the Twelve Days of Christmas Index.

Say, theonomo, ya wanna take a punt?

Comment #57414

Posted by buddha on November 14, 2005 7:34 PM (e)

Heh. I’ve just checked the NCSE Steve-o-meter:

NCSE welcomes Steve #666
Stephen J. Libby
University of Washington School of Medicine

Well, I’ll be damned.

Comment #57415

Posted by buddha on November 14, 2005 7:34 PM (e)

Heh. I’ve just checked the NCSE Steve-o-meter:

NCSE welcomes Steve #666
Stephen J. Libby
University of Washington School of Medicine

Well, I’ll be damned.

Comment #57421

Posted by morbius on November 14, 2005 7:41 PM (e)

you know, that’s a rather obvious point i hadn’t even thought about. I guess we just use the term “supernatural explanation” for discussion purposes.

care to suggest a better phrase?

It’s a point that has been made many times, by Lenny and others. We use “supernatural explanation” because people are confused about what it means to be an explanation and what it means to be natural. natural = causal = physical = real.

For a better phrase, I suggest “metaphysical musing”.

Comment #57442

Posted by k.e. on November 14, 2005 8:22 PM (e)

Theonomo I have a much simpler test that shows how ID works. Results guaranteed. This prediction when applied to any form of Human thinking included but not limited to science art theology will result in the same outcome- ignorance.

The test is an algorithm it is -

start
do not think
go back to start

you can test it on your PC
hold down these 3 keys

ctrl alt del

Comment #57445

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 8:30 PM (e)

neurode chastisized everyone who ever posts on PT:

an obvious comment on the quality of individual who frequents this board

lol. yeah right. i saw one post like that. would you characterize a “well moderated” forum like dembski’s in the same light, i wonder.

pretty pathetic logic there.

Comment #57446

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

It’s a point that has been made many times, by Lenny and others.

perhaps it’s just my language filter, but it seems you choose often to begin your posts by an apparent attempt to denigrate the previous poster?

is it just me?

if it was not intended as a denigration, i apologize. if it was:

i thought the inclusion of “obvious point that i hadn’t thought about before” made it quite clear that i had seen the phrase discussed before, but just overlooked the connection.

yup, sometimes we can all overlook the obvious.

Comment #57447

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 8:37 PM (e)

note that i INTENDED to be denigrating to neurode, but not to you, morbius.

Comment #57455

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 8:51 PM (e)

If you want to discuss posting behavior further, perhaps we could start an ot thread over at ABC?

Comment #57456

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 14, 2005 8:54 PM (e)

buddha wrote:

Well, I’ll be damned.

Maybe… But at number 666 Stephen J. Libby certainly will.
;)

Comment #57458

Posted by morbius on November 14, 2005 8:55 PM (e)

It’s a point that has been made many times, by Lenny and others.

perhaps it’s just my language filter, but it seems you choose often to begin your posts by an apparent attempt to denigrate the previous poster?

is it just me?

It’s certainly not just you who turns substance into the personal at the drop of a hat.

Comment #57459

Posted by morbius on November 14, 2005 8:58 PM (e)

If you want to discuss posting behavior further, perhaps we could start an ot thread over at ABC?

If you don’t want to discuss posting behavior here, then why did you do so? I suggest that we would all be better off if you were to never raise the issue at PT at all.

Comment #57460

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 8:59 PM (e)

ok, then, i’ll just learn how NOT to turn an offensive phrase by watching your posts, and maybe mine will improve (mine are pretty abysmal at times too).

Comment #57462

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 9:01 PM (e)

how am i supposed to ask if you want to discuss the issue further, without asking you here first?

i’ll take it from your continued response in same vein, that you aren’t.

fair enough. do let me know if you change your mind.

Comment #57463

Posted by morbius on November 14, 2005 9:08 PM (e)

how am i supposed to ask if you want to discuss the issue further, without asking you here first?

Come now, surely you’re not that clueless. I made a comment about naturalism and explanation, a subject that I take seriously and think is quite important, and your response was to talk about my posting style. It’s really won’t do to comment on someone’s posting style and then say, hey, let’s take this conversation elsewhere. If you think such discussion is out of place here, then don’t engage in it in the first place.

Comment #57464

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2005 9:08 PM (e)

Dudes, chill out.

Geez.

(Hard to believe that *I* am saying that, huh.)

Comment #57465

Posted by k.e. on November 14, 2005 9:14 PM (e)

2 of the Seven Samurai engage in mild bit of arm wrestling while the rest are waiting to take on the Invading Outlaws.

Comment #57466

Posted by morbius on November 14, 2005 9:22 PM (e)

You’re a cool dude(tte?), k.e. STJ and I are indeed on the same side in the larger battle.

Comment #57467

Posted by k.e. on November 14, 2005 9:29 PM (e)

Tres Bon morbius
older and greyer than Lenny

Comment #57471

Posted by morbius on November 14, 2005 9:50 PM (e)

To get back to substance:

Lenny’s response to those who complain that science arbitrarily excludes the supernatural is to point out that the scientific method doesn’t say anything about natural or supernatural; it does not require that we make such distinctions. It provides a framework for reaching causal explanations – if these things happen, then those things will happen. The scientific method is based on evidence, evidence is based on observation and measurement, all of which is implicitly based on causal relations. We can speculate all we want on the “supernatural”, but you can’t get there from here – this is the interaction problem that killed Cartesian dualism. Descartes proposed that the mental was a different sort of substance from the physical, but this raises the question of how they can interact – how thoughts can cause actions or actions can influence thoughts. Descartes proposed that it happens somehow in the pineal gland, but he couldn’t provide any details, and neither can anyone else. It would seem that the natural world is causally closed as a matter of logic. If souls, ghosts, Gods, etc. exist in any meaningful sense – if they have some perceivable consequence on the state of the world – then there’s no way to distinguish them in principle from anything else in the world, and no reason to call them “supernatural”. This is why so much that we call “supernatural” is clearly a figment of the imagination, and we don’t call things “supernatural” – no matter how mysterious they may have once seemed – once we are able to measure them and come up with a causal explanation for them.

Comment #57472

Posted by geogeek on November 14, 2005 10:01 PM (e)

This is totally off-topic, but I’m sticking it in here for curiosity’s sake:

Alex L on November 11, 2005 12:05 PM said

“Anyway, the only thing that gets left in a lab for 30 years is a scientist’s moldy sandwich. If you’re willing to babysit a project for that long then so be it, but it’s comparatively unpractical in academia”

I was off-line and missed this on a now-closed thread. The long-term experiment I thought most cool in my undergraduate days was a glass/ceramics researcher who put a glass rod under tension for (I think) 20 years, released the tension, and the rod bounced back to its original shape, thus proving that glass under a stress does not, as commonly believed, deform plastically (i.e. “flow”).

Comment #57482

Posted by PaulC on November 14, 2005 10:26 PM (e)

Anyway, the only thing that gets left in a lab for 30 years is a scientist’s moldy sandwich.

Hey, that might be long enough to evolve a protein with a novel disulfide bond. At least, Behe claimed that a billion bacteria could conceivably evolve one in 20000 years. See http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php

For some reason, Behe intended this as support for ID, but I do know that a readily available probiotic supplement claims to contain 30 billion live bacteria cells per capsule. A sandwich is a lot bigger than a capsule, so if it can support a colony of 667 billion, it ought to be able to evolve that disulfide bond in 30 years, right?

Thanks Prof. Behe… oh, you used to be an experimental scientist wayback. Do you know if you ever left a sandwich in the lab? It’d be worth a look.

Half joking here. I have a feeling the probiotic spores are concentrated, so my scaling my not work.

Comment #57524

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on November 15, 2005 1:10 AM (e)

I think Ken Miller estimated that by Behe’s figures you should get a new disulphide bond ever couple of hours in a football field. Remember, Behe is not a biologist.

Comment #57584

Posted by PaulC on November 15, 2005 9:51 AM (e)

It’s late to bother adding this comment, but after considering all the comments to the effect that Santorum is merely following lockstep with DI, I still think the first order explanation is pure politics.

Rasmussen Reports shows Santorum polling 36% to his opponent Casey at 54%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ Rasmussen generally seems to include a slight bias in favor of Republicans, at least compared to other polls, so this can’t look good to Santorum. Usually incumbents have an advantage, but Santorum’s position is continuing to weaken. He’s floated other trial balloons for moderates, such as daring to criticize Bush on the Iraq war.

Santorum might want to parrot DI’s policy, but his position is different from somebody like Coburn in Oklahoma who can run a campaign on asinine statements about lesbians in high school bathrooms. Santorum knows that PA has a lot of Democrats in metropolitan areas and even the Republican senators are usually pro-business moderates. Ricky is scared of losing and most of his behavior can probably be explained in terms of being scared of losing.

Comment #57623

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 12:12 PM (e)

Neurode,
First of all, you need to get a sense of humor. Second of all, you need to quit being a hypocrite and realize that your Fuhrer over at uncommondescent deletes ALL critics. You are like a pustulent pimple on my ass—-every time i sit down, i’m reminded that you exist until you finally pop. I’ve read every one of your nonsensical posts over on Dumbski’s website and you obviously have very little scientific background. Go pray for Jesus to give you the answers, you twit.

Comment #57627

Posted by Steverino on November 15, 2005 12:15 PM (e)

Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is “a legitimate issue,” he doesn’t believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

Did someone publish a Theory!!!??? Geesh!!…I miss all the good stuff!

Comment #57646

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 1:34 PM (e)

Sense of humor?

I appreciate a good joke as much as the next guy. But filth is filth, and libel is libel, and PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen is up to the hilt in it.

From where I sit, it’s impossible to imagine how anyone but another dirty-minded moron could think otherwise, or how this sort of thing can be tolerated by any forum which puts any value at all on its reputation.

Comment #57653

Posted by PaulC on November 15, 2005 1:49 PM (e)

it’s impossible to imagine how anyone but another dirty-minded moron could think otherwise

Your imagination is clearly very limited.

Personally, I don’t find the Santorum google link all that funny, and it has gotten very old. But as a sort of political guerilla tactic it has interest beyond being merely dirty-minded or moronic. It’s also funny in a cruel way to imagine one of Santorum’s clueless supporters hitting this link first when looking him up.

Comment #57659

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 2:00 PM (e)

Well, PaulC, if this is the direction in which your taste runs, then I guess I’ll leave the rationalizations up to you.

Of course, phrases like “political guerilla tactic” and “funny in a cruel way” don’t quite cut it as justificative parameters, but if you think they do…again, that’s up to you.

But in any case, my own opinion, and I daresay the opinions of millions of others who prefer not to be gratuitously exposed to such disgusting garbage, will remain just what it was before.

Comment #57667

Posted by Russell on November 15, 2005 2:19 PM (e)

Ricky is scared of losing and most of his behavior can probably be explained in terms of being scared of losing.

Indeed. I’m reminded of how Trent Lott, in his final desperate moments of trying to cling to the leadership of the Senate after his famously unvarnished nostalgia for segregation, all of a sudden declared his dedication to promote affirmative action.

That and OJ’s vow to find the real killer.

Comment #57700

Posted by PaulC on November 15, 2005 3:07 PM (e)

Of course, phrases like “political guerilla tactic” and “funny in a cruel way” don’t quite cut it as justificative parameters, but if you think they do…again, that’s up to you.

It’s not how my taste runs, and I don’t intend either phrase as a justification. You asserted your inability to imagine any point to it besides being gratuitously potty-mouthed, and I attempted to explain.

Comment #57703

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 3:09 PM (e)

Neurode,
Your arrogance and self-righteous snobbery are more than apparent. Do you take this attitude of superiority with you everywhere or just in this forum? Many may find the Santorum link ironic and even funny, believe it or not. From your posts here and on Dumbski’s blog, you seem very narrow-minded and seem to enjoy displaying your very, very limited worldview to everyone. Grow up, I say. Quit isolating yourself within fairy tales and ritualistic dogma. You’ll be happier, you twit.

Comment #57710

Posted by Wislu Plethora on November 15, 2005 3:17 PM (e)

neurode wrote:

“political guerilla tactic” and “funny in a cruel way” don’t quite cut it as justificative parameters

Justificative ???

Comment #57719

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 3:30 PM (e)

neurode pustulated:

an obvious comment on the quality of individual who frequents this board

er, like you?

Comment #57720

Posted by Ron Zeno on November 15, 2005 3:30 PM (e)

neurode wrote:

But in any case, my own opinion, and I daresay the opinions of millions of others who prefer not to be gratuitously exposed to such disgusting garbage, will remain just what it was before.

There’s a lot of disgusting garbage in the world: Rick Santorum’s politics. Intelligent design creationists propaganda campaign to undermine science and education. The lackey’s who willfully spread this propaganda, confident in their doublethink and love of Big Brother…

Comment #57722

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 3:31 PM (e)

didn’t somebody say something about what it indicates when someone protests too much about something?

Comment #57731

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 3:36 PM (e)

you know, aside from neurode really artificially inflating the issue for his own gratification, he would only legitimately have a point if someone here had actually made up that thing about Santorum to begin with.

neurode’s complaint is the same as if he had accused a paper for libel for printing a story about the website that originally published the Santorum rub ™ issue to begin with.
No, wait, it’s even worse… it’s like accusing a paper for libel for printing a letter in the opinion section that had a link to the website.

it’s beyond pathetic.

Comment #57742

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 3:47 PM (e)

PaulC: “It’s not how my taste runs, and I don’t intend either phrase as a justification. You asserted your inability to imagine any point to it besides being gratuitously potty-mouthed, and I attempted to explain.”

I don’t think you quite understand. A justification is an explanation involving things like motives, opportunities and expectations. To that extent, your attempt to explain this bit of repulsive behavior constitutes an attempt to justify it.

Now please pay careful attention here: I don’t find your attempted justification adequate or even slightly convincing, and as a consequence, neither I nor anyone who understands my point will be changing his or her evaluation of those who find this sort of thing “funny”, or of any website which invites or retroactively condones their juvenile idiocy.

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it “funny”, are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target. And like it or not, that’s how it is, and how it will stay.

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you, and in all probability, the opinion of the vast majority of others as well. (Of course, you may well be nothing more than a despised minority around here, same as on the street.)

Comment #57752

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 3:55 PM (e)

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you

anybody care to guess what Lenny would say to that?

Comment #57761

Posted by Penetrating Shaft Of Truth And Semen on November 15, 2005 4:07 PM (e)

Dan Savage, author of the newspaper column “Savage Love” came up with the Santorum bit. I remember reading the original article and his attempts to tie that definition to Santorum’s name. It was actually pretty hilarious. I’m sure all of this escaped Neurode’s limited capacity to appreciate any kind of humor outside of his limited tunnel-vision. Why are you even here, Neurode, if all of this bothers you so much?? Go somewhere else, you twit.

Comment #57765

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 4:15 PM (e)

I was here first. So why don’t you go penetrate yourself?

Comment #57769

Posted by PaulC on November 15, 2005 4:19 PM (e)

I don’t think you quite understand.

No, no, I think I get it. I’m either with Santorum/Dembski/Jesus or with the terrorists. Or to put it another way, to know all is to forgive all; ergo, the less you know, the better. That’s called Moral Clarity ™.

Sorry for suggesting that you step outside yourself and try to understand how others think.

Comment #57770

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 4:25 PM (e)

“I was here first. So why don’t you go penetrate yourself?”????????????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The retort of a juvenile comes from Neurode. This is not unexpected after observing the inane and puerile posts you make on a frequent basis. Grow up, you microencephalic coprophagous simian ignoramus. You really are pathetic, you twit.

Comment #57772

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 4:28 PM (e)

I’m sure the “simian” bit especially hurt.

Comment #57858

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 7:21 PM (e)

microencephalic

isn’t that an oxymoron?

you can be “encephalic”, which typically mean your brain would be enlarged due to inflammation

or you can be microcephalic, which would mean you have a an abnormally small head and underdeveloped brain.

hmm, now that i think about it, i guess you could make the case for a microcephalic that contracted encephalitis, but i still don’t think the term microencephalic would accurately describe this condition.

everything else in your retort seems fine to me, tho.

but then i’m one of those who didn’t didn’t recommend we ban someone for posting a link to humor-based website.

Comment #57868

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 7:39 PM (e)

Microencephaly or micrencephaly are the correct medical terms for a small brain…look it up yourself. If you aren’t sure what you are talking about, please don’t challenge me.

Comment #57870

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 7:43 PM (e)

Having a medical school education and having completed a residency followed by board certification in my specialty really helps in these matters. Microcephaly is the correct term for a small head—i was specifically referring to neurode’s small brain, not his small head.

Comment #57892

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2005 8:22 PM (e)

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it “funny”, are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target.

Unless the target is Muslim, apparently.

Comment #57894

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2005 8:24 PM (e)

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you

anybody care to guess what Lenny would say to that?

Do I even have to say it? :>

Comment #57896

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2005 8:26 PM (e)

Microencephaly or micrencephaly are the correct medical terms for a small brain

What is “phallocephaly” the medical term for?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Comment #57900

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 15, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

PaulC: “It’s not how my taste runs, and I don’t intend either phrase as a justification. You asserted your inability to imagine any point to it besides being gratuitously potty-mouthed, and I attempted to explain.”

I don’t think you quite understand. A justification is an explanation involving things like motives, opportunities and expectations. To that extent, your attempt to explain this bit of repulsive behavior constitutes an attempt to justify it.

Now please pay careful attention here: I don’t find your attempted justification adequate or even slightly convincing, and as a consequence, neither I nor anyone who understands my point will be changing his or her evaluation of those who find this sort of thing “funny”, or of any website which invites or retroactively condones their juvenile idiocy.

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it “funny”, are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target. And like it or not, that’s how it is, and how it will stay.

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you, and in all probability, the opinion of the vast majority of others as well. (Of course, you may well be nothing more than a despised minority around here, same as on the street.)

Would you consider a Liar to be of poor character?

If so; how would you describe someone who claims that, “ID has nothing to do with religion” and who also has knowledge of the WEDGE document?

Comment #57902

Posted by Russell on November 15, 2005 8:40 PM (e)

What is “phallocephaly” the medical term for?

If you go through the PT archives, you’ll find I have already copyrighted the term - inspired by such obvious phallocephalics as DaveScot.

Comment #57908

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 8:48 PM (e)

Microencephaly or micrencephaly are the correct medical terms for a small brain…look it up yourself. If you aren’t sure what you are talking about, please don’t challenge me.

one i wasn’t “challenging you” so calm down, i was making a joke, but i guess you missed it.

two:

http://www.lpch.org/diseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/neuro/microcep.html

What is microcephaly?
Microcephaly is a condition that is present at birth in which the baby’s head is much smaller than normal for an infant of that age and gender. “Micro” means small and “cephaly” refers to the head. Most children with microcephaly also have a small brain and mental retardation.

Microcephaly - Microencephaly/Microcephaly is always caused by microencephaly, a small brain, and the two terms are used interchangeably

the two terms are used interchangeably, tho not nearly as often as just microcephaly is. hence the reason i had never heard it before.

three:

my point is still valid; even tho meant as a joke, microencephaly still sounds like an oxymoron for exactly the reasons i gave.

how’s that for an anal retentive response?

Comment #57911

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 8:50 PM (e)

i was specifically referring to neurode’s small brain, not his small head.

oh, well then that clears it all up then ;)

Comment #57913

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 15, 2005 8:57 PM (e)

Neurode:

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it “funny”, are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target.

As others here have pointed out, Dan Savage had a reason for ridiculing Santorum. That reason had its basis in Santorum’s vicious hostility to gay Americans who had never done anything overt to damage or harm Santorum in any way. In short, if Savage’s silliness aimed at Santorum offends Neurode because that silliness “robb[ed] [Santorum, provisionally granting him status as “a human being”]…of his basic dignity,” then presumably Neurode is, even as we type, out there e-mailing Santorum to complain–in more dignified fashion than Savage did–about Santorum’s highly undignified mugging of innocent and inoffensive gay Americans.

Um, right, Neurode? Pot, kettle, dark coating of carbonized fuel and food?

Comment #57918

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 9:03 PM (e)

Steviepinhead, Neurode may be incapable of understanding your post. Could you dumb it down a little for him or put it in terms of Jesus and the Bible? You may have to explain to him again who Dan Savage is and that Santorum is a homophobic bigot. I’m sure we’re all in for another witty response from Neurode that will further enlighten us to the infantile concepts that reside in his head.

Comment #57925

Posted by k.e. on November 15, 2005 9:08 PM (e)

I’m firmimg my opinion on this
Theo.. only got to “pulpit thumper” he did’t see the last line “blind sheep”
This is the typical ‘I’m a victim’ position the creo take up and is much more to do with “Identity Politics” (look it up I don’t know about you but it certainly concerns me) than the message of all religions.

Comment #57932

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 15, 2005 9:19 PM (e)

Actually, Shaft, I’m content with your reformulation, except I’d probably want to clarify that Santorum has almost certainly adopted the stance of “homphobic bigot” for reasons of political opportunism.

Being a hypocritical homophobic bigot (didn’t Savage “out” a ranking member of Santorum’s own staff?) is possibly one whit more (to borrow Neurode’s terminology) “reprehensible, rotten, despicable, and of poor character” than being a homophobic bigot in the first place.

In so saying, I’m of course operating on the assumption that there exists the occasional sincere homophobic bigot, for what little sincerity may have to offer in such a case.

Comment #57947

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2005 9:36 PM (e)

If you go through the PT archives, you’ll find I have already copyrighted the term - inspired by such obvious phallocephalics as DaveScot.

Doh!!! I guess I owe you a licensing fee, huh.

I guess I could go with “microphallic”, but, despite popular opinion, I am not *that* juvenile. ;>

Comment #57954

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 15, 2005 9:51 PM (e)

Ahem, I’m pretty sure that “pinhead” qualifies as a transcription of microcephaly, but–despite the ongoing unauthorized slinging of the term about on this thread–you don’t see me plumping for licensing fees, do ya?

On the other hand, maybe it would be a way to earn tonight’s pizza–forfeited on another thread–back again?

Comment #57978

Posted by Julie on November 15, 2005 10:50 PM (e)

Remember, Behe is not a biologist.

Perhaps true if one “splits” the definition of biology to exclude or minimize biochemistry, but a biochemist should be conversant with how biological phenomena work at ecological and evolutionary scales. Said biochemist should also understand how the scientific method works and not try to obfuscate it, either in publications or while discussing it with students.

Comment #57979

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 10:52 PM (e)

I see that some of you here take particular exception to the alleged “homophobia” of Senator Santorum.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Senator Santorum’s views on homosexuality:

“Senator Rick Santorum was labeled a homophobe by critics for making a declaration that he believed consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.”

If this is true, then I don’t agree with the Senator. I think that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want with each other in private, on their own time.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t want my kids to hear too much about their activities, and I suspect that I’m in strong agreement with the Senator on such issues as the availability to young children of books about same-sex couples, gays adopting and raising kids with a skewed notion of what normal human sexuality and family life are all about (at least where normal families are willing to take the kids instead), gays burdening the national health care system with devil-may-care risky behaviors like “barebacking”, “gift-giving” and “bug-chasing”, and then blaming their resulting STD problems on the intolerance of society, and so on ad nauseam. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many others, this sort of thing crosses the line from the private behavior of consenting adults, to exerting an unwholesome and potentially destructive influence on society at large.

That being said, I do notice that many of you here seem quite personally invested in these matters. Indeed, you seem to be positively titillated by what most people would consider the disgusting imagery evoked by the saucy, tushy-waggling PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen.

So what do we have here, boys - a gay pajama party?

It’s nothing to be ashamed of, mind you…lord knows you can’t be expected to withstand the burning yearnings inside your quivering breasts for ever and ever! I’m not homophobic and I promise I won’t hold it against you for a minute. But even if that’s what’s up with you, as it appears to be, don’t you think that in return for the tolerance you’re always self-righteously demanding of others, you owe the rest of the world at least a modicum of decency and civility? And wouldn’t “no more Internet filth” be a good place to start?

The least you can do is put it under your pillows and sleep on it.

Comment #57983

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 11:02 PM (e)

normal human sexuality

spoken like a true homophobe, alrighty.

Comment #57984

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 11:05 PM (e)

again, neurode, if you find our behavior so offensive…. it begins to make us wonder why you keep posting here.

Comment #57987

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on November 15, 2005 11:14 PM (e)

Is anybody at PT keeping track of how often Neurode postings infect and kill previously viable threads?

Why hasn’t the Thumb, in all these cyberyears, evolved better troll defences than fact, logic, or blunt & fancy name-calling?

Congratulations, Neurode! (Have you been keeping count?)

Templeton discussion, R.I.P.

* DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS *

Comment #57991

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 11:21 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam: “again, neurode, if you find our behavior so offensive…. it begins to make us wonder why you keep posting here.”

In this case, Toejam, it’s because I can’t turn my back and leave without hearing the delighted giggles of you and your little friends. And lo and behold, when I come back to see what’s going on, there they are: a string of snide mini-posts clearly intended to be at my expense! And that, of course, encourages me to write a little something in response.

I suggest that if you want me to go away, you change your giggling-and-scribbling behavior. (That goes for you too, Pierce.)

Comment #57994

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 11:24 PM (e)

tee hee hee.

Comment #57998

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 15, 2005 11:33 PM (e)

* DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS *

actually, it’s very easy to get any thread here back on track.

just pick up where the last substantive post left off, and the rest of us will jump on board.

many of us find feeding the monkeys to be a great source of amusement on PT, but most of us will drop it in favor of contributing to any substantive discussion.

the reason to respond at all to nuerode (other than for fun) was to point out his vacuous attempt to paint all of us on PT as slanderous for one person quoting a link to the santorum site. It’s obfuscation at it’s finest, and a common tactic amongst creationist “debators”.

I doubt neurode is intelligent enough to have intentionally attempted to derail any substantive discussion here.

I myself often let my fun get the best of me, but i can usually be easily convinced to get back on subject if someone slaps me hard enough, or there is actually further subject matter presented to discuss.

Is there an open question you would like to see addressed at this point?

Comment #58006

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 11:55 PM (e)

Neurode,
You asinine turdmonkey, get a grip, boy. I’m beginning to think that neurode may be a teenaged neopubescent boy with a lot of time on his hands sitting up in his bedroom with the door closed with two open Internet Explorer windows on his computer—-one permanently fixated on Panda’s Thumb, and the other displaying jpg’s of naked ladies.

Neurode, your sense of reality is much askew. Thanks for perpetrating various myths concerning aspects of society that aren’t approved by your puritan doctrine. It really is good that you keep the party propaganda alive, because you never know when one of those gays is going to get a hold of your kids and infect them with AIDS or, even worse, turn them homosexual.

You are a sad person, Neurode, and i hope some day that you and Santorum come to your senses. The probability of that happening is about equal to the probability that god exists, but i’ll keep the faith that eventually your bigotry will come back to bite you hard in the ass. Any questions? Just email me, you twit.

Comment #58008

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 15, 2005 11:59 PM (e)

What’s next Neurode? More infantile and baseless attempts at insults? HAHA. “saucy” “tushy-waggling” HILARIOUS, BOY. What’s next? Are you going to insult the size of my penis? Are you going to insinuate that i’m a virgin? GROW UP, YOU TWIT

Comment #58016

Posted by dre on November 16, 2005 12:30 AM (e)

i’m just a lurker, but i must agree with sir toejam on the troll feeding philosophy. seems most of you folks can make substantive conversation on evolution and the farce of id. why waste time on jackasses like neurode? where i am, it’s too late at night to be reading and typing anyway. that’s when these back-n-forths get started. everybody go to bed (or take a nap) and start over in the morning (evening). neurode will be at his (her?) wednesday morning church service and some decent discussion can be had.

just throwing that in.

i like reading this blog, but the troll-slapping gets tiresome.

Comment #58017

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2005 12:34 AM (e)

actually, *ahem* i think you mean to praise Pierce’s post, not mine.

but thanks just the same

cheers

Comment #58018

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2005 12:35 AM (e)

I’m guilty of feeding the trolls as much as anybody on PT.

just to be clear.

Comment #58024

Posted by neurode on November 16, 2005 1:13 AM (e)

Hello there, people. I just stopped back in to see if you’d followed my advice and turned your incredible collective brainpower, all two or three watts of it, back to weighty thoughts of Evolution Proud and Triumphant.

But what do I find? Seven mini-posts, and nary a weighty thought in the bunch…in fact, just more complaining about how the big mean “trolls” have knocked you down, tied you up, and gagged your mouths before a single weighty thought could escape!

Right. Sure they have.

Now I’m going to go away again. But I’ll be coming back soon to absorb more of your priceless anti-God, anti-ID wit, and needless to say, I’ll be terribly disappointed if all I see is more pointless carping, behind-the-back slights, and hypocritical “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS” signs.

So why don’t you see if you can say something new and intelligent-sounding to get the thread back on track, which is where you say you want it? If you do, and if you can stop yourselves from saying something nasty, I’ll probably just turn around and leave without saying a word.

Comment #58025

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2005 1:17 AM (e)

Now I’m going to go away again

I notice you didn’t say you weren’t coming back

boy you sure love us.

glad to see it.

please feel free to contribute something substantive at any time you wish.

(here’s me laughing at you behind your back again)

Comment #58027

Posted by k.e. on November 16, 2005 1:27 AM (e)

we’ll be waiting for you neurode after you came back from the Madras

Comment #58029

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 16, 2005 1:33 AM (e)

neurode,

I’ll cut you, bitch.

Comment #58030

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2005 1:39 AM (e)

you must actually like neurodes posts, there shaft.

I think the subject material of this thread has been asked an answered.

I vote for thread closure.

Comment #58032

Posted by Registered User on November 16, 2005 1:56 AM (e)

High comedy.

Ha!

Comment #58063

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2005 8:26 AM (e)

I suggest that if you want me to go away

Don’t flatter yourself, Neurode.

Stay, go. No one cares. You’re simply not that important to anyone here. (shrug)

Comment #58217

Posted by Julie on November 16, 2005 8:27 PM (e)

As a biologist and a longtime adult who is not normally offended by frank or edgy discussions of human sexuality, I find much of this thread to have become about as much a frank discussion of human sexuality as Uncommon Descent is a frank discussion of multiple dissenting viewpoints.

The traps that people set out for Japanese beetles contain both a food lure and a sex lure. In this case, perhaps a negative version would make a better troll trap. Don’t feed ‘em, and try not to titillate them, either.

Comment #58222

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 16, 2005 8:54 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 10:52 PM (e) (s)

I see that some of you here take particular exception to the alleged “homophobia” of Senator Santorum.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Senator Santorum’s views on homosexuality

If this is true, then I don’t agree with the Senator. I think that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want with each other in private, on their own time

That being said, I do notice that many of you here seem quite personally invested in these matters. Indeed, you seem to be positively titillated by what most people would consider the disgusting imagery evoked by the saucy, tushy-waggling PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen.

So what do we have here, boys - a gay pajama party?

That really did make me laugh.

Took me right back to the school playground, where it was considered a good argument to call someone GAY and then you had won the said argument.

Of course it helped even more if you could pull an especially unusual “funny face” and say “Nah nah de nah nah” louder than anyone else.

Comment #58239

Posted by neurode on November 16, 2005 10:12 PM (e)

It just gets better and better around here, doesn’t it?

I regret to disillusion you, but I wasn’t merely indulging in schoolyard rhetoric. I honestly suspect that of those capable of deriving an illicit thrill from the kind of vicious, sexually-loaded slur to which I initially objected, a substantial percentage more or less conform to a certain common (and possibly unfair) stereotype: that of the bitchy male homosexual. After all, Senator Santorum has been widely reviled as a “homophobe”, and who hates homophobes more than those who fancy themselves the victims of homophobes? It makes perfect sense.

This isn’t the first time that the slur in question has been propagated here on the Panda’s Thumb. Not too long ago, I was directed to the same disgusting website from this very board. I found it offensive then, and I find it offensive now. I can’t think of a serious science-oriented forum in the world, or for that matter on any other planet, that would tolerate it even once, much less repeatedly. It is devoid of meaningful scientific or social content, being the sort of thing that serves only to get psychologically dysfunctional teenage boys slapped in their sewer-like mouths and deprived of their allowances for a year.

This unequivocally being the case, some of you desperately need to get straight about something: people who viciously denigrate other people whom they don’t even know, and/or countenance others to do so in close proximity to them, and then add insult to injury by calling anyone who dares to object a “troll”, can’t really get away with claiming the moral high ground. That’s obviously a no-go, and when they try it anyway, they just end up looking stupid (which, let’s face it, they almost certainly are).

Trust me, you really ought to come to terms with this before flying off on another patented PT hypocrisy binge.

Comment #58267

Posted by Eva Young on November 17, 2005 12:08 AM (e)

Interesting. The Templeton Foundation supported Chris Macosko’s Creationism class at the University of Minnesota.

Comment #58270

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2005 12:23 AM (e)

who hates homophobes more than those who fancy themselves the victims of homophobes?

We all become victims when fear runs rampant, whether it’s homophobia or islamophobia.

boy, your posts here sure are different than the ones on Dembski’s blog, where you spend a considerable amount of your time on the subject matter, rather than infantile hyperbole.

care to share any of that wisdom here? or do you feel justified in continuing your peurile rant, even tho it’s already been shown to have no substance but sound and fury?

Comment #58281

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 17, 2005 1:41 AM (e)

neurode wrote:

On the other hand, I wouldn’t want my kids to hear too much about their activities, and I suspect that I’m in strong agreement with the Senator on such issues as the availability to young children of books about same-sex couples, gays adopting and raising kids with a skewed notion of what normal human sexuality and family life are all about (at least where normal families are willing to take the kids instead), gays burdening the national health care system with devil-may-care risky behaviors like “barebacking”, “gift-giving” and “bug-chasing”, and then blaming their resulting STD problems on the intolerance of society, and so on ad nauseam. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many others, this sort of thing crosses the line from the private behavior of consenting adults, to exerting an unwholesome and potentially destructive influence on society at large.

Hmmmm “gays burdening the national health care”
Neurode, I would care to say that the national health care system in the US is next to nothing compared to much of the rest of the western world. I would also say that smokers and drinkers and the majority of American that constantly stuff their faces with fast foods burden the health care system a lot more then men or women that happen to like to have consenting sexual relations with someone of the same gender. I’ll also note that the religious fundamentalists that wish to interfere with 2 individuals that don’t match with said religious fundamentalist’s views on couples and wish to deny them the ability to get married do more damage by providing less incentive for these couples to stay monogamous.

I would also like to call to your attention that sex and the open discussion of sex between people is not “repulsive behaviour”. In fact my son and I talk about sex fairly frequently. He knew about sex when he was 5 and understands the majority of what he needs to know, and I’d care to say more then many teens or even adults, at the age of 9. When the time comes that he chooses to engage in a sexual relation, with a male or female, he will do so with the most amount of knowledge I could possibly give him. He knows that, despite the horrors of many people in the USA, that oral sex is 10 times safer then vaginal sex and that it is 50 times safer then anal sex. He knows that a 1/3 of young women have had anal sex but that from my discussions with female friends of mine that those that have had it didn’t really enjoy it. He’ll know that if it is his choice to have sex that he should use a condom and that there are other methods of birth control he and his partner can use in place of or in conjunction with that. He is not only prepared for all the physical details of sex but he is also learning about the psychological side of sex, what type of feelings he will experience and what type of feelings his partner can expect to have. He is learning to look at sex not only from his vantage point but his partner’s as well. Some of this we don’t discuss much yet but that is because he does not have the actual urges yet and it is like trying to tell someone that has only ever eaten rice what chocolate tastes like.

I’ll also tell you that I’m not worried about my son being infected by seeing, reading, or hearing about gay couples. Nudity is not an issue and I don’t have to worry about him seeing something like that at the movies or on TV. Violence and suffering he also sees and we discuss what he sees. To many parents around the world claim it is their responsibility to teach their children these things but I bet with a majority of them you could go talk to their children at the age of 18 and find out their parents never taught them anything but instead made the choice to ignore it hoping it would never come up. This is why Texas has the highest teen pregnancy rate. To many religions want to make people feel bad about sex. They don’t want it to be talked about so the kids never really learn about it. Those kids then get confronted with situations that they don’t really know how to handle. Its like throwing the keys of your Porsche to your kid and telling them to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels before they go out on the road.

Neurode, would you talk to your kid about anal sex? Would you tell your daughter that it is safer for her and her boyfriend to have oral sex then vaginal sex? Or would you feed her lies and try to scare her into not having sex until she was married. My guess….you’d do the latter. Don’t worry. If my son ever meets your daughter he’ll talk to her and teach her all she needs to know before the time comes. But you know….if it isn’t my son that meets her and its Bubba from down the road you probably have a good chance that she’ll be done from behind and if he has a AIDS there is a 1 in 200 chance that she’ll get it and if Bubba is a bit wrong the odds go up.

Comment #58342

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 9:40 AM (e)

Well then, I guess we’ll just have to hope that you (or God forbid, your son) ends up with Bubba instead. At least you’re emotionally prepared, you’ll know how to take the necessary precautions, and your enlightened liberal conscience will remain clear whether they work or not.

Comment #58348

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 17, 2005 9:59 AM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 16, 2005 10:12 PM (e) (s)

It just gets better and better around here, doesn’t it?

I regret to disillusion you, but I wasn’t merely indulging in schoolyard rhetoric. I honestly suspect that of those capable of deriving an illicit thrill from the kind of vicious, sexually-loaded slur to which I initially objected, a substantial percentage more or less conform to a certain common (and possibly unfair) stereotype: that of the bitchy male homosexual. 1: After all, Senator Santorum has been widely reviled as a “homophobe”, and who hates homophobes more than those who fancy themselves the victims of homophobes? It makes perfect sense.

This isn’t the first time that the slur in question has been propagated here on the Panda’s Thumb. Not too long ago, I was directed to the same disgusting website from this very board. I found it offensive then, and I find it offensive now. I can’t think of a serious science-oriented forum in the world, or for that matter on any other planet, that would tolerate it even once, much less repeatedly. It is devoid of meaningful scientific or social content, being the sort of thing that serves only to get psychologically dysfunctional teenage boys slapped in their sewer-like mouths and deprived of their allowances for a year.

This unequivocally being the case, some of you desperately need to get straight about something: 2: people who viciously denigrate other people whom they don’t even know, and/or countenance others to do so in close proximity to them, and then add insult to injury by calling anyone who dares to object a “troll”, can’t really get away with claiming the moral high ground. That’s obviously a no-go, and when they try it anyway, they just end up looking stupid (which, let’s face it, they almost certainly are).

Trust me, you really ought to come to terms with this before flying off on another patented 3: PT hypocrisy binge.

A few responses to the highlighted points.

1. I am not a child but really do despise peadophiles. If disliking peadophiles doesn’t make someone a child; why does disliking homophobes make someone homosexual.

2. Would you class people who say such things as “atheist God hating neo-Darwinist scientists are responsible for our fall into immorality” amongst those people? If your answer is no; why?

3. Would you consider somebody who has knowledge of the WEDGE document, and then says “ID has nothing to do with religion” a hypocrite/liar? If not, why?

Comment #58354

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 10:15 AM (e)

1. It doesn’t. It just raises the probability.

2. These cases clearly involve different levels of viciousness (e.g., one involves scatological, sexually perverse imagery, while the other does not).

3. Not necessarily. The Wedge Document only betrays the motives of a subset of ID supporters, while ID theory itself makes no reference, direct or indirect, to religion.

Now why don’t you stop trying to claim the moral high ground? As I’ve already explained, it doesn’t work that way.

Comment #58357

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 17, 2005 10:25 AM (e)

neorode,

I was under the impression that the ID and creationist movement was trying to claim the moral high ground. Unbelievably enough through the use of lies.

Last year I was an ID supporter myself; until I found out just how deceitfull it was.

What is ID theory btw? What does it say? What does it predict?

Comment #58363

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 11:04 AM (e)

Neurode,
I think you are just a Panda’s Thumb attention whore. Well, you’re clearly the center of attention on this thread now. Your goal is achieved. Congratulations! Prudes like you don’t come around here too often, so I guess the rest of us are just enjoying the freakshow. Ya sher gots a purty mouth, boy. Over on uncommondescent, you don’t seem to revel in the same inane vomit you spew out here. Why is that? I think you just enjoy having the focus on you. Grow up, you self-centered twit.

Comment #58367

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 17, 2005 11:19 AM (e)

Grow up, you self-centered twit.

For some reason that comment gave me the giggles.

Comment #58368

Posted by Ogee on November 17, 2005 11:25 AM (e)

Give him a break, he’s just suffering from the toxic interactions of religious fundamentalism and (barely) repressed homosexuality.

Comment #58369

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 11:29 AM (e)

Mmmm…a sodomite and a giggler. Sounds like a good match, at least by current PT standards!

Comment #58372

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 11:44 AM (e)

HAHA, Neurode just can’t give up the baseless “sodomite” accusations. It sure makes him look like an elementary school playground bully tossing juvenile epithets around. Even if i were a “sodomite”, what difference does any of that make to you, neurode? If you are trying to get under my skin, you are failing miserable. Keep trying, you homophobic twit.

Comment #58374

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 11:46 AM (e)

*miserably–sorry for the typo

Comment #58375

Posted by k.e. on November 17, 2005 11:46 AM (e)

Yeah Ogee I was thinking the same thing myself, weird isn’t it ?

Like the Military neighbor on “American Beauty”

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html

Comment #58377

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 12:05 PM (e)

I’m still not sure you quite understand.

As I’ve already stated, I’m not homophobic (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don’t care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves a pull-all-the-stops gay hootenanny over here, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it.

I only object when your behavior becomes public and vicious. Since your public viciousness involves Senator Santorum, who (along with the Templeton Foundation) figures in the topic of this thread, I have every right to voice my revulsion at your disgusting, reprehensible slurs against his name (and/or implicit support of same).

And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let’s-admire-each-other’s-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria’s-Secret. Fair enough?

Comment #58379

Posted by k.e. on November 17, 2005 12:14 PM (e)

neurode you obvioulsy find that arousing
Bow are Bill Baby and Salvadore “Sancho Panzo” Cordova getting on?

Comment #58380

Posted by Alan Fox on November 17, 2005 12:16 PM (e)

neurode writes

I’m not homophobic

and

And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let’s-admire-each-other’s-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria’s-Secret.

Something’s not tallying here, neurode.

Comment #58381

Posted by PaulC on November 17, 2005 12:20 PM (e)

Give him a break, he’s just suffering from the toxic interactions of religious fundamentalism and (barely) repressed homosexuality.

I concede I had similar thought. Now that he’s found us out–that the entire field of evolutionary science from Darwin on now is nothing but elaborate cover for a “gay pajama party”–he’s simply seething with jealously that nobody invited him.

Relax, neurode. We gay Darwinists don’t bite. Grab some pink jammies and join the fun.

Comment #58382

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 17, 2005 12:24 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s)

I’m still not sure you quite understand.

As I’ve already stated, I’m not homophobic (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don’t care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves a pull-all-the-stops gay hootenanny over here, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it.

I only object when your behavior becomes public and vicious. Since your public viciousness involves Senator Santorum, who (along with the Templeton Foundation) figures in the topic of this thread, I have every right to voice my revulsion at your disgusting, reprehensible slurs against his name (and/or implicit support of same).

And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let’s-admire-each-other’s-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria’s-Secret. Fair enough?

lmao.
That had me in stitches.
I nearly spat my tea out from laughing.

Now what was you saying about hypocrites?

Comment #58383

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 12:37 PM (e)

Oh, come on now, boys.

Look at the slur to which I objected, and the obvious sexuality of the author. Look at the handle chosen by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen (both of them, the one with the spaces and the one without). Look at their comments. Hear the whimpers of protest emitted by the Offical PT Gay Antidefamation League, punctuated by flurries of girlish giggling.

The message is as plain and sharp as the points on your 9” stilettos. So why not give yourselves, and the rest of the world, a much-needed break, and stop pointing your manicured fingers at others? Out-of-the-closet may not be such a bad place once you get used to it.

Comment #58384

Posted by k.e. on November 17, 2005 12:39 PM (e)

I can see it now the next DI release of ID on DVD
Block buster “Info-tainment”

Man from La Mancha

“Virgin on the Ridiculous” the new theory of immaculate conception

Starring:

Bill Dembski as “Don Quixote”

Salvadore Cordova as “Sancho Panzo”

with a special guest
neurode “I’m not homophobic” a neighboring peasant

Don Quixote is visibly crazy to most people. He believes ordinary inns to be enchanted castles, and their peasant girls to be beautiful princesses. He mistakes windmills for oppressive giants sent by evil enchanters. He imagines a neighboring peasant to be Dulcinea del Toboso, the beautiful maiden to whom he has pledged love and fidelity.

Sancho Panza, his simple squire, believes his master to be a bit crazy, in particular he knows that there is “really” no Dulcinea, but he plays along, hoping to get rich. He and Quixote agree for instance that because Dulcinea is not as pretty nor does she smell as good as she should, she “must have been enchanted”, and from that point on the mission is to disenchant her.

Both master and squire undergo complex change and development throughout the story, and each character takes on attributes of the other as the novel goes on. At the end of the second book, Quixote decides on his deathbed that his actions have been madness. Sancho begs him not to give up, but to no avail.

Master and squire have numerous adventures, often causing more harm than good in spite of their noble intentions. They meet criminals sent to the galleys, and are victims of an elaborate prank by a pair of Dukes, when Sancho is made “governor” of the nonexistent Barataria.

Comment #58385

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 12:41 PM (e)

Hey people,
I think this is just a game for neurode. No one can be serious about posting lame crap like that. He’s all show. I mean, come on, he doesn’t even make sense logically. I think he’s just trying to rile everyone up. He clearly is homophobic and a bigot and likes to propagate stereotypes about groups of people just like his buddy, Santorum. Neurode, maybe you need to expose yourself more to the real world since I think all you do is sit at a computer. Your witty and clever retorts to our commentary are coming a bit too fast for someone who truly has a fulfilling life and other things to do. I have designated a new category of fetish for you, Neurode—–“Santorophilia”. Keep entertaining us, you santorophilial twit.

Comment #58390

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 17, 2005 12:57 PM (e)

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 12:41 PM (e) (s)

Hey people,
I think this is just a game for neurode. No one can be serious about posting lame crap like that. He’s all show. I mean, come on, he doesn’t even make sense logically. I think he’s just trying to rile everyone up. He clearly is homophobic and a bigot and likes to propagate stereotypes about groups of people just like his buddy, Santorum. Neurode, maybe you need to expose yourself more to the real world since I think all you do is sit at a computer. Your witty and clever retorts to our commentary are coming a bit too fast for someone who truly has a fulfilling life and other things to do. I have designated a new category of fetish for you, Neurode——-“Santorophilia”. Keep entertaining us, you santorophilial twit.

Actually I am finding neurode very amusing at the moment.
He probably isn’t serious. Unless that is you have completely stopped looking after the mentally ill over in the USA.

Got to go away for a while….the Simpsons is starting.

Comment #58394

Posted by Ogee on November 17, 2005 1:13 PM (e)

Poor neurode. All of this theatrical overcompensation isn’t really necessary.

So you were looking at a few pictures of Bill Dembski’s glorious bespectacled face on the web, only to find that your left hand had gotten up to some rather un-Christian mischief. So what?

No one’s judging.

Comment #58396

Posted by PaulC on November 17, 2005 1:23 PM (e)

I can see it now the next DI release of ID on DVD
Block buster “Info-tainment”

I have a competing meme, but sadly one unlikely to catch on outside those who read the complete stories of Edgar Allan Poe in their youth. One of his lesser known works is “The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether”–it’s a story that’s literally about the lunatics running the asylum. It’s uneven but for some reason, maybe the title, it has always stuck in my memory.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/webdescrips/poe285-des-.html

In the modern version, our protagonist is passing by a famous science magnet school in Kansas known for turning out very promising candidates in the life sciences. He visits to find out more about their teaching philosophy and finds that it has recently been replaced with something called “The System of Dr. Bill and Prof. Behe.” Much hilarity ensues as he sits in on alleged science classes that employ highly unorthodox means of presenting ridiculous religious-motivated objections to standard scientific principles.

Eventually, the barely recognizable science faculty escapes from the basement to take back the school. It ensues they have been held host age there for weeks, tarred and feathered and forced to read copies of Jack Chick tracts.

Comment #58397

Posted by Wislu Plethora on November 17, 2005 1:27 PM (e)

Ogee wrote:

So you were looking at a few pictures of Bill Dembski’s glorious bespectacled face on the web, only to find that your left hand had gotten up to some rather un-Christian mischief.

In fairness to Neurode, I think you might be making an unwarranted presumption. He might be righthanded.

Comment #58401

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 2:14 PM (e)

Well, there you go. (OK, I admit it - it’s hard not to get a kick out of a forum that’s widely recognized as a bottomless pit of human psychopathology, but whose major participants don’t seem even remotely aware of it.)

Let’s review. I began by objecting to a slur against a U.S. Senator. Nobody can coherently argue that this slur is anything but disgusting and reprehensible; that’s painfully clear to anyone with a vestige of ethical awareness.

One or two of you then argued that the forum as a whole should not be blamed for the trangressions of a few random dirtbags. Why, it was simply unconscionable of anyone to suggest that even though PT occasionally provides a willing haven for the twisted viewpoints of such people, its lily-white participants can be held responsible in any way!

And yet what do we now witness? Instead of moving on to matters of weighty scientific and philosophical import, these selfsame immaculate participants, these mental giants and pillars of probity, have now targeted yet others - others who are not involved in the discussion, and not present to defend themselves - with vicious, sexually-loaded verbal attacks!

Now here’s a question for all of you: does this really say nothing at all about the Panda’s Thumb, and/or the type of person attracted to the general philosophical viewpoint most often espoused by its participants?

Don’t be afraid to think about it a little before opening your mouths again.

Comment #58407

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 17, 2005 2:36 PM (e)

neurode:

no, it tells us very much about you.

Tell us, do you really think it is you pushing our buttons?

Because to everybody else here it looks exactly the other way around.

Don’t be afraid to think about it a little before once again claiming to be somehow morally superior to anybody else.

Comment #58412

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 3:33 PM (e)

HAHA
I think neurode may be starting to lose it. If we push a little bit harder, that intracranial aneurysm in his head just might rupture and render him a drooling idiot without the ability to type, instead of just a drooling idiot. Again, his hypocrisy rears its beady-eyed little head for all to see. The santorophiliac just can’t see beyond his brainwashed agenda. Rock on, you drooling twit!

Comment #58420

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 17, 2005 4:33 PM (e)

Said it before,
neurode amuses me. Not so much that I would miss The Simpsons though.
I do find his hypocrisy a huge indication of what the fundies are really like.
I was into ID myself about a year ago. The contrast in honesty between them and you persuaded me they (the fundies/ID crowd)were just a crock.

Comment #58448

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 17, 2005 6:56 PM (e)

Comment # 58377

neurode wrote:

Comment #58377
Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s)
I’m still not sure you quite understand.
As I’ve already stated, I’m not homophobic (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don’t care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves a pull-all-the-stops gay hootenanny over here, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it.
I only object when your behavior becomes public and vicious….

neurode saying that you are not homophobic doesn’t make it so.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

Your words equate to definition 2

Saying “I’m not homosexuals it I just don’t think they should be able to kiss in public” is homophobic

You can try to say I’m a homosexual for saying that couples should be able to show normal affectionate behavior in public regardless of their partners gender when compared to theirs. The term used for someone like me is homophile. I’m a person concerned with the rights of homosexuals just like I’m concerned with the rights of heterosexuals. Unless you think all public kissing, hugging, holding hands, etc should be band then get over your homophobic ideas and accept not everyone is like you.

Lets put your statement in another light….I’ll change some key words and see more clearly your statement for what it really is.

I’m still not sure you quite understand.
As I’ve already stated, I’m not racist (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don’t care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves negro friends, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it.
I only object when your behavior becomes public then it is vicious.

It is your interpretation that 2 people of the same sex passionately kissing is “vicious”. All it really is a restriction on someones rights if you try to ban it from one group and not another. Just like forcing someone of African descent to use a separate bathroom.

Comment #58458

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2005 7:30 PM (e)

Not necessarily. The Wedge Document only betrays the motives of a subset of ID supporters

And who are the other subset?

, while ID theory itself makes no reference, direct or indirect, to religion.

Then why all the bitching and whining about “naturalism” and “materialism”?

By the way, Neurode, I’ve heard of scientific studies showing that homophobes tended to become measurably more sexually aroused when watching gay porno than did non-homophobes, suggesting that many homophobes are actually self-hating and self-repressing homosexuals.

What’s the ID take on that?

Comment #58488

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 8:50 PM (e)

Lenny: “What’s the ID take on that?”

The unofficial ID take on that, Lenny, is that if this is the kind of “science” that lights your fire, then the proper place to discuss it is in the bedroom, with your boyfriend(s). In that private setting, as consenting adults, you can try to (1) replicate the key experiments, (2) work up the data to your full mutual satisfaction, and (3) enjoy a cigarette when you’re finished.

Comment #58498

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2005 10:04 PM (e)

Not necessarily. The Wedge Document only betrays the motives of a subset of ID supporters

And who are the other subset?

Well …. ?

, while ID theory itself makes no reference, direct or indirect, to religion.

Then why all the bitching and whining about “naturalism” and “materialism”?

Well …. . ?

By the way, Neurode, I’ve heard of scientific studies showing that homophobes tended to become measurably more sexually aroused when watching gay porno than did non-homophobes, suggesting that many homophobes are actually self-hating and self-repressing homosexuals.

What’s the ID take on that?

The unofficial ID take on that, Lenny, is that if this is the kind of “science” that lights your fire, then the proper place to discuss it is in the bedroom, with your boyfriend(s).

Not my cup of tea, I’m afraid, but I do have some friends who would certainly be game. On just one condition, Neurode — we get to hook you up to instrumentation and measure your sexual reaction to it.

Anything you want to tell us first, Neurode … ?

Comment #58499

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 17, 2005 10:12 PM (e)

I noticed neurode didn’t make a comment on my post.
Do you think he might actually be coming to terms that he is portraying himself and a homophobic biggit?

I bet you he’s just in denial. Just like many people in the south used to claim they where not racist in one breath and say African-Americans should not go to school with their kids in another. After all neurode isn’t saying that homosexuals can not exist. Just that they are not allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Comment #58540

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:36 AM (e)

Lenny: “And who are the other subset? Well … . ?”

That would be the subset consisting of those ID supporters whose motives differ from those expressed in the Wedge Document. (As far as most of us are aware, the Wedge Document came out of the DI, with which the majority of ID supporters have little or nothing to do. Of course, it’s entirely possible that you’ve tracked down all the ID supporters, dissolved their resistance by forcing them to read your PT posts, and made them confess their total obedience to the Wedge. But if so, then you must have slipped them all a memory eraser, because nobody seems to remember telling you squat.)

Lenny: “Then why all the bitching and whining about ‘naturalism’ and ‘materialism’? Well … . . ?”

Well, Lenny, I think it may be because unlike you, most people just don’t realize that materialism and naturalism are where it’s at. So when you gripe and grouse about how their religion just won’t stand up to the powerful rays of enlightenment streaming from your materialistic, naturalistic worldview, they sort of feel as though they have the right to disagree. Now, as all PT regulars are well aware, they’re dead wrong about that; nobody in his right mind disagrees with Lenny Flank, because Lenny Flank is always right. But for some strange reason, word of this hasn’t yet filtered down to the street.

Lenny: “just one condition, Neurode —- we get to hook you up to instrumentation and measure your sexual reaction to it. Anything you want to tell us first, Neurode … ?”

I hate to disappoint you, Lenny, but I’m afraid I won’t be participating in any sexual measurements performed by you and your little friends. I suggest that you go find a drunken sailor instead.

Comment #58548

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 1:05 AM (e)

neurode do you live by the sea ?
Is the drunken sailor …a tip ?
I used to drive a Cab for a few months and the one thing I noticed with all the sailors I picked up was their voracious appetite for pussy.
Tell us about your drunken sailor neurode.

Comment #58563

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 18, 2005 2:44 AM (e)

neurode again avoids/ignores my point that his own statements clearly show he is a homophobic biggit. Possibly I struck a nerve and he realizes that he might be racist too.

He’ll be OK…so will his daughter that he refuses to openly talk to about sex. She’s be good and stay a virgin never even kissing a boy until she is married because she is a good Christians and has the fear of the lord in here. When she gets pregnant at 15 it will be someone else’s fault completely because neurode would have instilled in her the threat of eternal damnation if she participates in any form of sexual contact with either herself or another person.

Comment #58592

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 8:09 AM (e)

Lenny: “And who are the other subset? Well … . ?”

That would be the subset consisting of those ID supporters whose motives differ from those expressed in the Wedge Document.

(1) and who would they be, again?

(2) and what would their motive be, again?

(As far as most of us are aware, the Wedge Document came out of the DI, with which the majority of ID supporters have little or nothing to do.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good one, Neurode.

Comment #58593

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 8:11 AM (e)

Well, Lenny, I think it may be because unlike you, most people just don’t realize that materialism and naturalism are where it’s at. So when you gripe and grouse about how their religion just won’t stand up to the powerful rays of enlightenment streaming from your materialistic, naturalistic worldview, they sort of feel as though they have the right to disagree.

Hang on there, Neurode — you just got finished telling me that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Make up your friggin mind.

Comment #58594

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 8:13 AM (e)

Lenny: “just one condition, Neurode —- we get to hook you up to instrumentation and measure your sexual reaction to it. Anything you want to tell us first, Neurode … ?”

I hate to disappoint you, Lenny, but I’m afraid I won’t be participating in any sexual measurements performed by you and your little friends.

Afraid of being outed, are ya?

Comment #58605

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 9:20 AM (e)

neurode wrote:

Well, Lenny, I think it may be because unlike you, most people just don’t realize that materialism and naturalism are where it’s at. So when you gripe and grouse about how their religion just won’t stand up to the powerful rays of enlightenment streaming from your materialistic, naturalistic worldview,

My emphasis

Slip of the tongue, or are you now saying ID is religious?

As for your material/naturalistic argument; I do not see the relevance.
I may be wrong on this but; as far as I can make out, science just says that science is the search for natural explanations for phenomena (or words to that effect).

Now how does that threaten belief in God?

God by definition is supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science.

What do you understand that I don’t, which makes you think a person would have to choose between religion and science?

If you think that you can confirm God through science, then you would have to make predictions that are verifiable; hence limiting God’s ability to choose what God does. Do you really think that is possible?

Comment #58611

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 10:12 AM (e)

Stephen Elliott: “As for your material/naturalistic argument; I do not see the relevance.”

That’s Lenny’s baby. I was just responding to Lenny.

Stephen Elliott: “I may be wrong on this but; as far as I can make out, science just says that science is the search for natural explanations for phenomena (or words to that effect).”

To even be “wrong”, your position would need to be better-defined. The terms “science” and “nature” are coupled without respect to any additional nonlogical constraint. Science is the study of nature; nature is that which science studies. So for any kind of “natural explanation” with a modicum of observational relevance, “science” can be defined to accommodate it pending empirical confirmation.

On the other hand, if your definition of science doesn’t accommodate it, then the burden is on you to establish the validity of your definition. People have been asking you “ID critics” to do that for years; you haven’t even made a step in the right direction. The obvious conclusion: you can’t. So why do you continue to bitch, moan, and write your congressmen as though you have something useful to say? It’s a waste of taxpayer resources designed to stop American citizens from deciding how their own children should be educated.

Stephen Elliott: “Now how does that threaten belief in God? God by definition is supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science.”

Obviously, the terms “supernatural” and “outside the realm of science” are coupled in a way parallel to their complements, science and nature. So if you regard God as supernatural (non-natural), the burden is on you to establish the validity of your corresponding definition of non-science. But this is something else that ID critics don’t seem able to do; again, they have nothing useful to say on the matter. This may be why they occupy themselves with (e.g.) propagating disgusting homosexual slurs against people they don’t know.

Stephen Eliott: “If you think that you can confirm God through science, then you would have to make predictions that are verifiable; hence limiting God’s ability to choose what God does. Do you really think that is possible?”

It could be that in order to create the universe, God adopted certain constraints in terms of which this could be accomplished. So to even begin to make sense of the issue you’ve tried to raise here, you need to distinguish between self-imposed constraints on God, and constraints imposed on God from without. More generally, you and your fellow “critics” need to define your own positions before accusing other peoples’ positions of being “ill-defined”.

Comment #58620

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 11:01 AM (e)

Stephen Elliott

Have a look at these and have another go

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/the_fundamental.html#comment-57636

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/templeton_found.html#comment-57396

Comment #58621

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 11:03 AM (e)

Stick around neurode I’ve got something for you too :)

Comment #58622

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 11:08 AM (e)

neurode,
To post quotations in a box…you type (quote) then insert the comment you wish to highlight. Then end the box with (/quote)

The traditionel rounded brackets need to be replaced with angle brackets ) changes to >

Not sure what you mean by this.

Obviously, the terms “supernatural” and “outside the realm of science” are coupled in a way parallel to their complements, science and nature. So if you regard God as supernatural (non-natural), the burden is on you to establish the validity of your corresponding definition of non-science.

How else can God be described other than supernatural?
We are talking about an entity that transcends the universe, dictates th laws of physics, can basically act without any constraint whatsoever. Surely you consider that supernatural.

I do not consider supernatural=non-natural,
rather; supernatural=not bound by any natural rules/laws.

Comment #58625

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 11:17 AM (e)

k.e.

Thanks, but I thought that I had covered that with this statement.

If you think that you can confirm God through science, then you would have to make predictions that are verifiable; hence limiting God’s ability to choose what God does. Do you really think that is possible?

Comment #58628

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 11:40 AM (e)

Stephen, I think you may be missing the point. If you want to describe God as “supernatural” and “beyond science”, you need to do two things: (1) Show that the God concept is irrelevant to the concept of nature associated with your definition of science; (2) justify your definition of science. You haven’t done either of those things.

Regarding predictions, they are meaningless in the absence of coherent causal theories by which they are implied. Therefore, theorization precedes prediction in the scientific process. Theories can be defined at various levels of resolution, from highly general to highly detailed; it is obviously hard to extract meaningful predictions from the former, but relatively easy to extract them from the latter.

For example, the “predictions” of neo-Darwinism deal with statistical population effects rather than the timing of speciation and the specific characteristics of new species. This is because even though the RM&NS component of neo-Darwinist theory has been around for a century and a half, neo-Darwinism affords no real grasp of biological causality on the level of resolution required by such predictions.

It is plainly hypocritical for neo-Darwinists to nevertheless accuse IDT, a brand new theory, of being “nonscientific” because it too fails to make sufficiently detailed predictions.

Comment #58633

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 12:01 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Stephen, I think you may be missing the point. If you want to describe God as “supernatural” and “beyond science”, you need to do two things: (1) Show that the God concept is irrelevant to the concept of nature associated with your definition of science; (2) justify your definition of science. You haven’t done either of those things.

I will attempt to deal with your 2nd point 1st.
While it is in no way up to me to define science I will attempt to describe what I understand by the term science.

A. Observe an event
B. Work out an hypothesis of what caused said event.
C. Make a prediction from the hypothesis.
D. Carry out an experiment to see if the prediction holds true.
E. If the prediction is accurate…make another and go back to D.
If the prediction fails change the hypothesis and continue through D and E.
F. When a number of predictions have been correctly made then forward hypothesis for review by other scientists. See if they are able to carry out predictive experiments using your hypothesis. When all this has been done; then your hypothesis could become a theory.

If that is correct (and I am not a scientist, so likely to be wrong). I can see no way to be able to apply it to God. Which means I am unable to deal with your 1st point.

Comment #58640

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:25 PM (e)

Then you lose the argument. In fact, given that neo-Darwinism itself can’t past your test (A-F) with respect to the timing and biological novelty of speciation, this is the downfall of your entire position.

Of course, you have the option of declaring neo-Darwinism a theory of statistical population effects rather than speciation events. But in that case, it lies outside the explanatory domain of ID theory, and its proponents need to stop emitting clouds of hot gas designed to obscure this important fact.

Comment #58645

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:29 PM (e)

(that is, “pass your test (A-F)…”)

Comment #58646

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 12:29 PM (e)

very good Stephen Elliott—–IDiots haven’t even gone through that process, yet they call ID a theory. That just shows you what we are dealing with here——IGNORANCE. Neurode displays IGNORANCE in oodles. I have yet to even hear ONE hypothesis generated by the IDiots that is testable or falsifiable. Let’s just hear ONE, Neurode. Gimme just ONE hypothesis. Please? Come on, big boy, you can do it. I’m really getting sick of your double-speak and juke moves to avoid actually addressing a point. This is the display of typical creationists/IDiots. They never actually answer a question; they just avoid the question and dazzle you with a bunch of nonsense. Come on, neurode, throw out ONE hypothesis that you IDiots are postulating. Come on, you homophobic twit.

Comment #58647

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 12:31 PM (e)

Neurode wants to avoid the evidence generated by the last 150 years of scientific work—wow, what a TWIT.

Comment #58648

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:40 PM (e)

Shut up and go powder your nose, nancyboy - by now, even your fellow sex creeps are getting tired of your unremitting venom. (On the other hand, maybe you’d like to address Stephen’s argument in something resembling a rational way.)

Comment #58652

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 12:43 PM (e)

“……the explanatory domain of ID theory”
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
hahahheheheheh

And that would be ?

1. Nothing until the Constitution separating Church and State is changed

2. Literal reading of Gen1. Gen2. the imagined collective history of the Jewish people, which for some passes as religion.

Change hands Neurode

Here is the theory of ID as it always has been

Its an Algorithm:-

Do until dead
Lie, Obfuscate,Conflate,Confuse,and Lie again
Learn nothing

Comment #58653

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 12:47 PM (e)

Oh….. I forgot the prediction of ID

Guaranteed Ignorance

Comment #58656

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:51 PM (e)

“And that would be ?”

…speciation events, with the correlational properties of which ID currently deals, and with the causation of which it must ultimately deal as well. (Can you read, or were you distracted by an unsightly run in your pantyhose?)

Comment #58657

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 12:57 PM (e)

So, where are those testable ID predictions again?

I have a testable non-ID prediction: neurode will dodge and handwave at questions he can’t answer, while continuing to indulge his not-so secret obsession with crossdressing and man-love.

Comment #58658

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 12:58 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)

Then you lose the argument. In fact, given that neo-Darwinism itself can’t past your test (A-F) with respect to the timing and biological novelty of speciation, this is the downfall of your entire position.

What argument did I just lose?
You asked me to define science. I said that was beyond my authority. I gave an example of what I think science is.

So please tell me; and in simple terms, what argument have I lost?

Comment #58659

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 1:00 PM (e)

Tell us all about it neurode

What was his name, or didn’t you get that.
is that the problem ?
he never calls ?
he never writes ?
do you miss his hairy kisses ?

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
hahahheheheheh

Comment #58660

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 1:02 PM (e)

The argument you started, Stephen. Remember?

Comment #58662

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:07 PM (e)

Again, the insufferable twit dodges the question–no hypothesis for the IDiots. Come on, Neurode, can’t you answer the question?

Comment #58663

Posted by James Taylor on November 18, 2005 1:12 PM (e)

Neurode, if the designer is perfect, then why is the design imperfect? Why is human biology open to outside attack, internal mutation and ultimately complete and utter breakdown? Was the designer just lazy and cut corners, did the designer include these “features” intentionally to ensure generations of human suffering or is there no designer?

Comment #58664

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 1:12 PM (e)

Come on neurode tell us what “sweet nothings” you and Bill “Don Quixote” Dembski and Slavadore “Sancho Panza” Cordova whisper in each others ears.

Comment #58665

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:13 PM (e)

Neurode, i know you can come up with something, boy. You don’t want to be exposed as a fraud in front of all us nancyboys and sex creeps, do you? You know you are better than us so why not rub it in our faces with some real answers? Come on and do it already instead of stringing us along and withholding the tantalizing details. You can do it, you fraudulent twit.

Comment #58666

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 1:13 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 01:02 PM (e) (s)

The argument you started, Stephen. Remember?

Do you mean the one where I stated that I believe that God is not testable using science?
If so; how have I lost that argument?

You surely can’t mean the argument where I said that I consider it hypocritical of you to protest at PT posters name-calling, then go on to do exactly that yourself.

Comment #58667

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 1:15 PM (e)

How on Earth did neurode get sidetracked from discussion of the unknown “intelligent designer” to talking about this “God” fellow?

You’d almost think ID was about religion instead of science.

Comment #58668

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:19 PM (e)

Neurode just kind of rambles, doesn’t he? Not much coherency in anything he says—–the only thing that is consistent in his posts is hypocrisy. He’s one of those guys that thinks he has all the answers and wallows in ignorance. Life must be pretty boring for a guy like that. Come on, neurode—–give us one hypothesis proposed by the IDiots. You can do it, you hypocritical twit.

Comment #58669

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 1:22 PM (e)

OK, PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen.

The ID hypothesis can be expressed as follows: “Because the structures and behaviors of biological organisms display properties which correlate with the products of human intelligence, species will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent or agency exhibiting a property analogous to human intelligence.”

Now butt out, Cornholeo. This is all way over your head.

Comment #58671

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 1:24 PM (e)

Quick question,

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 01:19 PM (e) (s)

Neurode… you hypocritical twit.

In your last word “twit”; is i your vowel of first choice?

Comment #58674

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:29 PM (e)

Neurode, very good—you did it. Now, provide a prediction derived from this hypothesis and what test will be carried out to see if this prediction holds true. I’m going to pin you down, boy. Way over my head, you say? HAHA, let’s see how much “over my head” this hypothesis is. Come on, neurode, play the game. I want answers. If i don’t get them, me and my other nancyboys and sex creeps may just have to show you the meaning of Bubba love. Come on, neurode, don’t disappoint me now. You can do it, you twattish twit.

Comment #58676

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:32 PM (e)

What if the properties of the complex structure and behavior of the organism resemble that of the products of a retarded child? What does this imply about your “hypothesis”. I’m still waiting for some experimental predictions and some evidence, you low-browed twit.

Comment #58677

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 1:34 PM (e)

Good grief. That is a prediction, dingbat. Now crawl on back down the smelly pipe whence you came, and leave the thinking to human beings.

Comment #58678

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:37 PM (e)

So the hypothesis is the prediction and the evidence is where? What has been done to potentially falsify this hypothesis? Come on, you neanderthal. Let’s hear it. Quit dodging and answer the question. Come on, you twit.

Comment #58680

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:40 PM (e)

If you can’t answer this question, i guess the nancyboys and I will just have to agree with you that ID isn’t science. But maybe you can prove us wrong with some actual ANSWERS. Quit dodging and quit with the derogatory bull, it really isn’t getting you anywhere. It only makes you and your fellow IDiots look worse off than you already are. Come on, you twit.

Comment #58681

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 1:42 PM (e)

neurode

“Species will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent similar to thought.”

Magical thought

Because the structures and behaviors of biological organisms display properties which correlate with thoughts,

More Magical thought

IF this is the official line take it back and get them to fix it.

Its not a bad description for a god though.

Keep going sunshine because you will kill whatever it is you you are trying to prove. Remember Behe “The man who thought he saw the mind of God”

Comment #58682

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 1:45 PM (e)

How about:

“Because the structures and behaviors of God display properties which correlate with the products of human intelligence (e.g. literary fiction), God will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent or agency exhibiting a property analogous to human intelligence.”

Comment #58683

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 1:45 PM (e)

How about:

“Because the structures and behaviors of God display properties which correlate with the products of human intelligence (e.g. literary fiction), God will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent or agency exhibiting a property analogous to human intelligence.”

Comment #58684

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:49 PM (e)

HAHA, good job, you guys. This neurode guy is getting filleted like the slimy lake trout he is. None of this will matter, though, since neurode has isolated himself from rationality and reality. Let him believe his fairy tale as long as it keeps him from pulling a Jeffrey Dahmer. Come on, neurode. We are all waiting for you witty and clever response to educate us all, you murderous twit.

Comment #58685

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:50 PM (e)

HAHA, good job, you guys. This neurode guy is getting filleted like the slimy lake trout he is. None of this will matter, though, since neurode has isolated himself from rationality and reality. Let him believe his fairy tale as long as it keeps him from pulling a Jeffrey Dahmer. Come on, neurode. We are all waiting for your witty and clever response to educate us all, you murderous twit.

Comment #58688

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 1:56 PM (e)

neurode,
you asked me a question.

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Stephen, I think you may be missing the point. If you want to describe God as “supernatural” and “beyond science”, you need to do two things: (1) Show that the God concept is irrelevant to the concept of nature associated with your definition of science; (2) justify your definition of science. You haven’t done either of those things.

I attempted to answer it.

I will attempt to deal with your 2nd point 1st.
While it is in no way up to me to define science I will attempt to describe what I understand by the term science.

A. Observe an event
B. Work out an hypothesis of what caused said event.
C. Make a prediction from the hypothesis.
D. Carry out an experiment to see if the prediction holds true.
E. If the prediction is accurate…make another and go back to D.
If the prediction fails change the hypothesis and continue through D and E.
F. When a number of predictions have been correctly made then forward hypothesis for review by other scientists. See if they are able to carry out predictive experiments using your hypothesis. When all this has been done; then your hypothesis could become a theory.

If that is correct (and I am not a scientist, so likely to be wrong). I can see no way to be able to apply it to God. Which means I am unable to deal with your 1st point.

Now please be honest.
In what way did I fail to answer your question?
How can science test for God?

Comment #58690

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 1:58 PM (e)

I’ll bet neurode’s erection is huge after getting all of this attention.

Comment #58699

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 2:28 PM (e)

Stephen Elliot”[1] In what way did I fail to answer your question? [2] How can science test for God?”

You’ve answered your own question [1] with another question [2]. You’re not allowed to do that, especially when your “answer” question is essentially the same as the question you asked in the first place (“How else can God be described other than supernatural?”).

It has already been explained to you that if you wish to assert that a certain concept, i.e. God, is beyond science, i.e. “supernatural”, then you need to precisely define “science”. You seemingly attempted to do this by throwing up a rather naive set of conditions (A-F) which are failed by neoDarwinism itself with respect to speciation. (You then appealed to your betters in the scientific community for aid; they didn’t respond.)

It follows that in order to win the argument, or in fact to do anything but lose the argument, you need to dump neoDarwinism. Otherwise, you need to dump the test on which your argument depends, thus pulling the rug out from under your feet like some goofy little Wiley Coyote clone. All of your other comments are extraneous, unless you can use them to save neoDarwinism from flunking your “science” test. Can you understand at least this much?

Remember, not even the entire Gay Navy can protect your little rump if you can’t follow elementary rules of logic.

Comment #58701

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 2:28 PM (e)

“With our thoughts we create the world”

Buddha 2500 years ago

Comment #58704

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 2:33 PM (e)

I think i’m about done with Neurode since he can only evade basic questions instead of answer them—talk about answering questions with questions—Neurode, you are the king. Grow up and learn how to defend your position a little better, you immature twit.

Comment #58713

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 3:08 PM (e)

Ogee wrote:

I have a testable non-ID prediction: neurode will dodge and handwave at questions he can’t answer, while continuing to indulge his not-so secret obsession with crossdressing and man-love.

My heartfelt thanks for confirming my prediction in record time.

Does WAD really let you touch his naughty bits with that dirty mouth of yours?

Comment #58719

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 3:19 PM (e)

You made some mighty lofty claims in that last post of yours, neurode. How about you justify calling a perfectly reasonable formulation of scientific method “naive”? How about you show how neo-Darwinism “fails” by the standards of the scientific method? How about you do anything but whine, lie and generally act like a (sexually frustrated) weasel?

Comment #58722

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 3:22 PM (e)

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s)

Stephen Elliot”[1] In what way did I fail to answer your question? [2] How can science test for God?”

You’ve answered your own question [1] with another question [2]. You’re not allowed to do that, especially when your “answer” question is essentially the same as the question you asked in the first place (”How else can God be described other than supernatural?”).

It has already been explained to you that if you wish to assert that a certain concept, i.e. God, is beyond science, i.e. “supernatural”, then you need to precisely define “science”. You seemingly attempted to do this by throwing up a rather naive set of conditions (A-F) which are failed by neoDarwinism itself with respect to speciation. (You then appealed to your betters in the scientific community for aid; they didn’t respond.)

It follows that in order to win the argument, or in fact to do anything but lose the argument, you need to dump neoDarwinism. Otherwise, you need to dump the test on which your argument depends, thus pulling the rug out from under your feet like some goofy little Wiley Coyote clone. All of your other comments are extraneous, unless you can use them to save neoDarwinism from flunking your “science” test. Can you understand at least this much?

Remember, not even the entire Gay Navy can protect your little rump if you can’t follow elementary rules of logic.

neurode,
I attempted to explain to you what I believed science to be.
Now if you are going to say that it is wrong, at least have the decency to say where I was wrong. Or, better still tell me what the definition of science is.

God; I believe to have the power to dictate the rules of the universe and not be constrained by them.

Now please tell me how science can threaten, limit or test such a being.

If you refuse to answer this post with a clear answer I am done trying to communicate with you.

Comment #58724

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 3:26 PM (e)

I’m sure it will get discussed elsewhere at PT, but:

More good news for IDiots.

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” - Rev. George Coyne, Vatican Observatory’s Jesuit Director.

Comment #58727

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 3:47 PM (e)

You’re making too many bad assumptions there, Stephen. I see no percentage in attempting to educate you, particularly since you don’t appear to understand why you lost the argument you started, or even to have read the post in which I explained that the definitions of science and nature are coupled in a way free of additional nonlogical constraints. (If you don’t understand what this means, I can only suggest that you think about it, somewhere else, on your own time.)

For now, suffice it to say that your rules A-F do no more than skim the very surface of scientific methodology, and cannot do the job you seem to want them to do: prove that God is supernatural. If you dispute that, then feel free to write a paper on it. If I see it out there someplace, I’ll be happy to critique it for you at length.

As far as the rest of you are concerned, I’m terribly sorry, but I have better things to do than trade ripostes with the PT’s (obviously sizable) subpopulation of bitchy little brain-dead fags (with due exception, of course, for rational and socially responsible members of the gay community). Accordingly, we’ll have to wait until something resembling a normal, mentally healthy person posts something at least vaguely suggestive of real intellectual activity.

Comment #58728

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 3:53 PM (e)

What an ass. Neurode will forever be ignored by me beyond this point. Funny thing is, on Dumbski’s blog, neurode is considered somewhat of an intellectual by the other sycophants allowed to post there. HAHA

Comment #58729

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 18, 2005 3:56 PM (e)

Can it possibly be true? Ueber-troll neurode has decided he has better things to do than spouting pseudointellectual gibberish in plain sight of people who can actually, like, think?

I don’t believe it for a moment. My bet is that he will continue to insult homosexuals while denying being homophobic, to insult logical thinking while accusing everybody else of not knowing how to think logically, and generally to behave in his usual neurodic, sorry, neurotic way.

By the way, if you still have two neurons connected, neurode, re-read your first sentence. Nobody else sees any “percentage” in trying to educate you, either. Please explain, for the amusement of the crowd who’s watching you devolve in real time, what exactly your superior intellect was thinking when you typed that brainfart.

Comment #58730

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 4:01 PM (e)

For now, suffice it to say that your rules A-F do no more than skim the very surface of scientific methodology, and cannot do the job you seem to want them to do: prove that God is supernatural. If you dispute that, then feel free to write a paper on it. If I see it out there someplace, I’ll be happy to critique it for you at length.

Was that a deliberate misrepresentation of my point of view?
I was arguing against science having any ability to predict/prove anything about God.
Bah! Begone with you.You are using debating trickery.

Comment #58731

Posted by Ogee on November 18, 2005 4:07 PM (e)

And so hemorrhode flees, having accomplished nothing but exposing himmself as a coward, liar, moron and bigot.

Comment #58755

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 6:57 PM (e)

Hey Neurode, if ID isn’t about religion, then why on earth do you keep dragging your god-thing into the discussion?

Comment #58758

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 7:05 PM (e)

Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 06:57 PM (e) (s)

Hey Neurode, if ID isn’t about religion, then why on earth do you keep dragging your god-thing into the discussion?

That was me, but no I don’t think my religious view has any more claim to accuracy than anyone else’s.
I was just trying to get neurode to give an honest answer to where he stands, by giving him my opinion on God and science.
I failed miserably.

Comment #58786

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 8:43 PM (e)

Hey Neurode, if ID isn’t about religion, then why on earth do you keep dragging your god-thing into the discussion?

That was me

No, I’ve seen Neurode’s blathering before. Like every other IDer, he can’t go ten minutes without preaching about his religious opinions. When he declares here that ID isn’t about religion (because it is convenient for him to declare so here), he is flat-out lying to us. And he KNOWS he is lying to us, since he himself drags his religious opinions into it at every available opportunity (unless, of course, it’s convenient for him to deny it).

Just like Dembski, Meyer and all the others.

They are evasive dishonest liars, all.

Comment #58788

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 8:50 PM (e)

They are evasive dishonest liars, all.

That was the conclusion that I came to.
After originally being persuaded that ID had something to offer. The dishonesty of the main supporters led to believe they were full of hot air ( to use a polite phrase).

Comment #58949

Posted by Rich on November 20, 2005 5:56 AM (e)

Nevertheless, staff members remain reluctant to dismiss intelligent design entirely, in part because the doctrine’s popularity could help achieve the foundation’s goal of persuading evangelical Christians to pursue scientific careers. The foundation also complains that academia is too quick to censor the doctrine.

I find the fact that the Templeton Foundation is ambivalent to ID not surprising since they tend to be more on the irenic side. That being said, I believe they have it backwards here. ID keeps evangelical Christians from pursuing scientific careers. The reason it does is because it creates a false dichotomy between faith and science. If a young scientist who is also an evangelical Christian believes the earth is old or that evolution is how “intelligent design” works they tend to hide that belief because ID is so popular. For many, this can only go on so long and eventually they choose between the two, usually at the expense of their faith.

Old Earth creationist, Hugh Ross, has complained that the age of the earth has become an essential doctrine for evangelicals. (Evangelicals tend to divide doctrines into essential and non-essential categories. What separates irenic from polemic Evangelicals is usually the size of these sets.) The same is even more true concerning evolution. The censoring of doctrine within the evangelical church should more concern the Templeton Foundation than the censoring of ID within academia. Maybe ID should teach the controversy within the church. ID is popular because many without scientific backgrounds believe that it is effective. What the example above shows is the support is “soft” and once the lack of effectiveness becomes more apparent then it will become far less popular.

Comment #58954

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 7:18 AM (e)

Hddl tht’s th snst thng ‘v sn y pst.(gggl)