PZ Myers posted Entry 1701 on November 21, 2005 01:10 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1696

In an opinion piece in the Seattle Times, Jonathan Witt is in high dudgeon over those intolerant "Darwinists" who want to suppress the Truth. Sadly, his piece is one half-truth after another, all misleadingly twisted to give an overwhelmingly fraudulent impression. You would think that someone who honestly wants to address a scientific issue would not resort to such distortions and propaganda…but that's the Discovery Institute for you.

He begins with the outrageous action by certain Dover citizens to hold their school board accountable for diluting the science content of the classroom.

In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.

What don't they mention? Well, that the Discovery Institute abandoned Dover and would not help with the defense of the book, and the book itself (strangely unmentionable in Witt's article, for reasons I don't understand; are they ashamed of it?) is Of Pandas and People. As has been amply demonstrated by the testimony of its publisher and any examination of its contents, it is not based on scientific evidence, but is creationism warmed over, plain and simple. I'm afraid all of Witt's claims of scientific legitimacy for the book are false, and I suspect that he knows it, or he wouldn't have been reluctant to mention the title.

Witt also singles out a comment I made on the Panda's Thumb (I have to mention, since Witt names me in my home town newspaper, an important message: Hi, Mom!):

Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Of course, he excludes all the context to claim that it's all about defending dogma. I've already discussed this ID claim in a post titled, "While we're at it, let's also fire the math teachers who can't do algebra"—it's not about dogma, it's about competence. Witt wants to pretend it's a sign of a "growing controversy," but it's not. If we fire math teachers who can't do basic algebra, does that mean that algebra is a concept under attack from a growing body of educated critics, or that we've got standards that teachers are expected to meet?

Witt's next complaint is to bring up the "martyrdom" of Richard Sternberg, who apparently was under attack by the PZ Myers Playbook.

The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.

Sternberg promoted the publication of an exceptionally poor paper and rightly enough elicited the disgust of competent scientists. Witt recites the complaints received by the US Office of the Special Counsel from Sternberg, but doesn't bother to mention that the OSC dismissed his complaints, and that he's still working at the Smithsonian…some martyr!

He also neglects to mention how the NCSE recommended handling the issue:

However, one particularly entertaining part of the opinion occurs when NCSE’s advice to Smithsonian staff is discussed. Among the Smithsonian staff, there was evidently a fair bit of outraged email discussion of Sternberg’s actions — Sternberg had, after all, just involved the PBSW and the Smithsonian in an internationally-noticed scientific scandal, and had guaranteed that the PBSW and Smithsonian would now have their good names put on Discovery Institute bibliographies and talking points for the foreseeable future. In NCSE’s limited contact with individuals at the Smithsonian, we gave our usual advice (also found in the PT critique of Meyer’s paper), namely: don’t overreact, and instead focus on criticizing the scientific problems with Meyer’s article and Sternberg’s editorial decisions. In the OSC complaint, this gets portrayed as some kind of scandal.

This can't be emphasized enough: Meyer's paper was shoddy work, and Sternberg shepherded it through peer review in a shifty manner. What Witt actually wants us to do is shut up when his fellow travelers try to publish bad science; it's not about some mythical Darwinian dogma at all.

Witt dives into the quote mines, again.

One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

If anyone is familiar with A.S. Wilkins work, they'd know that this was a very peculiar comment, one that perhaps must have had something more to it. Yes, it did, as the rest of the paragraph shows:

Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them.

That was from the Panda's Thumb, in August. Here it is in November, and the DI is still shamelessly promoting this dishonest partial quote. And he compounds it this time!

And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view.

Philip Skell is not a credible source. This is a guy who argues that discoveries of hominid fossils are not informed by or contribute to our understanding of evolution. His whole obsessive schtick is to claim that biologists (he is not one) do not use evolutionary concepts at all, and that the whole field would be unchanged if we abandoned it. Need I add that this is not in corroboration of any view held by A.S. Wilkins?

It's all more fireworks and smoke from the Discovery Institute, a recycling of tired old lies into yet another press release that a gullible media will print without verifying anything in it. John Lynch also finds Witt's article appalling—isn't it about time for newspapers to realize that the Discovery Institute is all spin and no substance, and to start roundfiling their submissions in the same way they would press releases from the Flat Earth Society?

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 #59145

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 1:51 PM (e)

“One cause for their insecurity may be the theory’s largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.’”

Taking a quote like this one out of context would seem to point to a deliberate cover-up. Trying to figure this one out.

DO they know that the science behind evolution is good but they just don’t want others to notice? I admit to having little religious training and I have only been to church once but that experience left a similar taste in my mouth. The details of that adventure definitely affected my desire to experience God’s love.

I was 23 years old in my senior year of college. My future wife insisted that I experience a church service. I had always sort of wanted to go to a church, but owing to the fact that it wasn’t particularly important to me, I always found something else to do on Sundays. Anyway, her prodding was enough to get me to go. As an aside- if you are planning to do the same thing I did, attend church for the first time in your 20’s, I have some advice: don’t go to a church that is close to your house.

So we pick a little church on the next block over from our apartment. Glad Tidings was the name. It sounded so happy. We could sing and praise Jesus, have a potluck picnic and maybe help out at an old folk’s home. Hmmm…. Are you guessing that is how it turned out? Right! I was wrong. Well we did sing. A little. Badly. Then we heard the sermon. The very first story he told involved Mahatma Gandhi and how he was in hell because he never accepted Christ. The preacher went on to tell the story of a confused young lady, a member of the church, who had asked him for advice. It seemed her boyfriend, a local college student, had asked her one day, “why does heaven and hell matter?” The preacher’s advice? Dump the guy. He is dangerous. He will corrupt your soul. And stay away from those bastions of sin and satanic learning we call colleges. By this point, he was really into it. Hell! Damnation awaits those who refuse to submit to Jesus’ will.

Not really the sort of answer I expected. I am seriously asking this, DOes it seem like they are assembling a concerted effort to put their fingers in their “flock’s” ears and sing “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEEEAARRR YOU”?

Comment #59146

Posted by Bobby Novak on November 21, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

PZ, you remind me of why I’am not a darwinist. Thanks man!

Comment #59148

Posted by jonboy on November 21, 2005 2:15 PM (e)

BWE, been there done that.BUT not as bad as a Hugh Ross lecture I attended last week,

Comment #59150

Posted by k.e. on November 21, 2005 2:20 PM (e)

Wot…. no mention of his fellow Conspiritors from the ID
..Behe and Dembski and their brilliant mindless meandering at the trial hahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah

No claim of victory over the ACLU ….no mention of the naughty goings on on the Dover Board.

The paradigm wasn’t reversed it was “refashioned” hahahahaha

Those paradigm’s are slippery little snarks.

Kafka could not have dreamed of this.

Comment #59151

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 21, 2005 2:24 PM (e)

The same edition of The Seattle Times features this thoroughly anti-ID opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002636485_krauthammer21.html.

Comment #59155

Posted by Don on November 21, 2005 2:32 PM (e)

Bobby, PZ’s not really a “darwinist” either. No more than a physicist is a “newtonist”.

Always have to straighten out those jesusists.

Comment #59157

Posted by rampancy on November 21, 2005 2:34 PM (e)

The preacher went on to tell the story of a confused young lady, a member of the church, who had asked him for advice. It seemed her boyfriend, a local college student, had asked her one day, “why does heaven and hell matter?” The preacher’s advice? Dump the guy. He is dangerous. He will corrupt your soul.

…and of course, the confused young lady in question couldn’t have been a certain young lady you were dating at the time, right? ;)

Comment #59158

Posted by Nerf on November 21, 2005 2:40 PM (e)

My question is why religious folks are supporting ID as something other than creationism. Isn’t that blasphemous? After all it is giving god-like ability to an unnamed ‘designer’ who is not God? Seems to be a good question to run past them…

Comment #59160

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 2:45 PM (e)

Y’know, he never did say who she was. The certain young lady I was dating at the time lived a block away from the church. She could have been a closet christian. We did have a pastor marry us three years later. Hmmm. I could very well have asked her why do heaven and hell matter. Hmmm. She goes pretty crazy with Christmas and Easter. Christmas lights all over the house just like a million little stars of Bethlehem, rabbit eggs all over the yard just like Jesus walking on the water. I’ll have to ask her when she gets home from work. Now I’m worried, she teaches science to 6, 7 and 8th graders.

Comment #59161

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 21, 2005 2:46 PM (e)

From the link posted by Steviepinhead;

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education too.

Classic.

Comment #59162

Posted by k.e. on November 21, 2005 2:47 PM (e)

Nerf
“why religious folks are supporting ID as something other than creationism”

Big tent- the full spectrum

YEC to Atheists (who see the benefit of “Pascals Wager”)

Comment #59164

Posted by Nerf on November 21, 2005 2:53 PM (e)

So in other words, these people are saying “We’re cool with blasphemy, as long as it’s double-secret-not-really-blasphemeing-more-sneaky-scheming blasphemy?

Comment #59169

Posted by k.e. on November 21, 2005 3:03 PM (e)

ssshhhhhhh!!

Comment #59174

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 3:25 PM (e)

That’s what I’m saying. In order to use the kinds of tactics they are using, misquoting, taking things out of context, claiming victory where defeat is king, these kinds of things, they must KNOW that the science is good and that reasonable people employing logic and the scientific method of verification will come to that conclusion. I think they don’t want their sheep to go down that road. It’s right out of Max Webers theory of organizational maintenance (or whoever’s , its been a while since I took that class).

This is an organization fighting back against threats to it’s existence. The leaders KNOW that ID and for that matter creationism is crap. THey don’t want their members to find out. Otherwise, this isn’t the sort of tactics used by those who want to come to the truth of the matter. ???

Comment #59180

Posted by alpha9er on November 21, 2005 3:35 PM (e)

It’s funny, before the Dover resolution, I read an article posted by the DI from a Texan lawyer. Basically the argument from the loud mouthed logic basher was that evolution was going to lose, and ID was going to win, because “Darwinists” (sorry Don) are acting like losers. He went on to define a “loser” as someone who made illogical arguments, bashed the opposition when the losing party is going down, attacks the core values of the subject, meanders around direct questions, ignores evidence that blatantly disagrees with their ideas, and doesn’t support the “word of God”. Besides the last little piece of that rant, I felt that the description fit ID supporters rather nicely. So well described was his own side in his own essay, that if a creationist was given a subject, and a definition equally compatible, I guarantee you he/she will claim that both were made by God alone. I told him this, and I never got a response.

Comment #59184

Posted by Ron Zeno on November 21, 2005 3:46 PM (e)

I recently read a very good argument against ID (and its propogandists like Jonathan Witt) that I don’t see brought up often enough: the process of science requires extreme openness and honesty; intelligent design creationism is the opposite because it purposely refuses to address who the intelligent designer is, what mechanisms the intelligent designer uses, etc. The processes that the intelligent design creationists are using are not scientific in any way - there is no openness, no honesty, just an agenda to fool people into thinking what they’re doing is somehow scientific. Sadly, I’m unable to find the article again.

Witt’s ploy to overlook all the dishonesty of the intelligent design proponents that he mentions demonstrates yet again that he’s not interested in science, only fooling others that there is a scientific controversy where there is none.

Comment #59189

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 4:13 PM (e)

So, let’s all do a little soul searching, decide if we are giving them the benefit of the doubt, and then using intellectual honesty in fashioning our opinions. Once we have decided this, and then examine the DI’s point of view for the same biases, and we discover that there is considerable intelectual dishonesty on the ID front, we can ask ourselves, “Why? Why would they do this? They aren’t stupid people. WHy would they purposefully decieve and mislead? Are they trying to get something? DO they know that they are wrong? WHat do they stand to gain from the success of their purposeful deception? Money? Women (or Men)? Power? Status? Free meals? What is their game?”

If their game is as deceptively simple as the reactionary fear of the challenge science has presented to their dogma, why do the MSP give them the time of day? I mean, here they are, proclaiming that volcanoes don’t erupt and magnets point east and the Seattle times prints competing op ed pieces do debate the subject.

It is ok to be upset. THere isn’t a debate. Many of us are scientists of one sort or another and we have been educated in the scientific method and we understand it and we know many of the experiments and have read much of the data, hypothoses, theories and whacked out ideas concerning astronomy, Biology, Oceanography, Geology, physics, marine biology, genetics and etc. and we can understand that it is just a pile of horse sh/*t.

So we sit there and debate why they are wrong rather than why are they doing this? WHy are they commiting this deception on the uneducated? It isn’t me they are trying to decieve. I know that they are full of it. It is the guy down the street who goes to church, fulfills it’s social obligations and doesn’t have a science education at all.

I could go on and on here but Witt is consciously decieving. We should ask ourselves what he has to gain from his deception.

Comment #59190

Posted by PaulC on November 21, 2005 4:13 PM (e)

The same edition of The Seattle Times features this thoroughly anti-ID opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer

When I read this, I was worried for a second that I might have to agree with Krauthammer. Fortunately, we get this opening throat clearing.

Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous

Not a bad opening, but I think he meant to say: “Because I make my living as a conservative pundit, I am under contractual obligation to present at least one big lie as self-evident truth in the first paragraph. So how about:”

the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

What nonsense. Not to deny the greatness of Newton or Einstein, but they’re just the biggest celebrities in their category. How do I take the rest of this seriously? First off, this choice is heavily weighted towards mathematical theorists and leaves out experimentalists. Second, it’s just obviously wrong and Krauthammer doesn’t even try to justify the claim before running with it.

Newton was matched by Leibniz in the discovery of calculus. As a mathematical physicist, well off the top of my head, there’s Hamilton, Lagrange, and Gauss with some very important results with relevance to physics. But let’s take Maxwell for a direct comparison. Maxwell’s equations are at least as significant as Newton’s laws in defining classical physics. Newton also seems questionable as an experimentalist. He was very wrong in rejecting the wave theory of light when there were experiments to demonstrate it. He devoted an amazing proportion of his prodigious intellectual to the study of alchemy and did not move it any closer to chemistry. This seems clear evidence against the claim that he was a great scientist and not merely a great mathematician. He was indeed very religious, maybe even by the standards of the day, and came up with specious biblical analyses. Nobody’s doubting Newton’s brilliance, but I don’t see any reason to single him out.

Einstein may present an even clearer case. Relativity is important, but no more so than quantum physics as spearheaded by Bohr’s group. Einstein won a Nobel for the photoelectric effect, so he did contribute to quantum physics, but he really seemed to miss the boat later on. I am very sympathetic to Einstein’s universalist worldview, but he was just one of many collaborators in the project of 20th century physics.

Krauthammer wants to claim these scientists were relgious, but the big question is where they fell with respect to the baseline. As I said, Newton may have been at least as religious as those of his day. Einstein had a sort of fashionable agnosticism and liked to talk about God in figurative terms. I really don’t think he was more religious than the average 20th century scientist, most of whom were far less religious than the population at large then or now.

So I sort of skimmed the rest of Krauthammer’s essay, but honestly how do I pay attention when it starts with a howler like this one? I’m glad he thinks ID doesn’t belong in the schools, but I’m not sure I have much patience for exploring his reasoning any more than the reasoning of his opponents on this issue.

Comment #59194

Posted by Jason on November 21, 2005 4:22 PM (e)

This is an organization fighting back against threats to it’s existence. The leaders KNOW that ID and for that matter creationism is crap. THey don’t want their members to find out. Otherwise, this isn’t the sort of tactics used by those who want to come to the truth of the matter. ???

Did anyone see the recent South Park where Scientologists thought that Stan was the second coming of L. Ron Hubbard?

It was classic.

The leader finally had to break down and tell Stan that Scientology was total crap, but that they had to keep people convinced so that they would pay them.

Hmm…

Comment #59196

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 4:27 PM (e)

Also, might I add that Einstein wasn’t actually religious.

Comment #59197

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 4:29 PM (e)

The funny thing about South Park doing Scientology is that Isaac Hayes does the voice of Chef on SP and he is also a Scientologist. I didn’t see the episode but I wonder if Chef was in it.

Comment #59200

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 4:31 PM (e)

PZ writes:

Witt also singles out a comment I made on the Panda’s Thumb (I have to mention, since Witt names me in my home town newspaper, an important message: Hi, Mom!): (Begin PZ quote)

Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

(end PZ quote)

Of course, he excludes all the context to claim that it’s all about defending dogma. I’ve already discussed this ID claim in a post titled, “While we’re at it, let’s also fire the math teachers who can’t do algebra”—it’s not about dogma, it’s about competence.

PZ,
The orginal post from which the quote was lifted has nothing to do with competence issues, and everything to do with protecting dogma. For example in the orginal quote (to which you link above) you wrote:

Here I am, a biologist living in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the two biology teachers in my kids’ high school is a creationist.

You say nothing of this biology teacher’s competence. Rather, you want to implicate him/her by association by slapping on the dreaded ‘C’ word. Further, you don’t tell us what you mean by the term “creationist”. The way the anti-ID crowd employs the term, it could mean just about anything you wish it to mean. I wonder if you would have said anything at if that same biology teacher were an atheist. Apparently, some religious (or anti-religious) views are acceptable in a science classroom and some are not. Your dogma seems to be: “Atheism = competence; creationism = incompetence.” One thing from that original post is clear: it doesn’t discuss competence at all. It is just another in a long string of your diatribes against ID containing little in the way of logic or reason. Go figure!

Comment #59203

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 4:37 PM (e)

A biology who is a creationist is a sign of intellectual incompetence. This would be akin to having a physics teacher who rejected any physics that had been discovered post-1850.

Comment #59205

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 4:40 PM (e)

That should be a biology TEACHER who is a Creationist…

Comment #59206

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 4:42 PM (e)

I would argue that creationism=incompetence. Sure.

THat’s the trouble. You can go blow goats for all I care. Empirical data present conclusive proof that pretty much all of the creation myths from the dawning of civilization are bunk. If you want to believe that Mother Earth Castrated Father sky or that Yaweh kicked adam and eve out of the garden or that Tetatktlquitl needs virgins cast into his cavernous mouth in order to let the villiage remain on his slopes then go ahead. But then don’t profess to teach the scientific method. THey are in fact, incompatible. Science is not incompatible with the recognition of the miracle of life or in fact the miracle of existence. A great many deeply spiritual people are scientists. THey are not creationist, though.

Comment #59207

Posted by Greg Peterson on November 21, 2005 4:45 PM (e)

My problem with the Charles Krauthammer piece had less to do with the stature of Newton and Einstein as scientists–I’ll grant that–and more to do with a mischaracterization of their religious positions. Anyone who saw Nova on PBS last week knows that Newton was NOT a Christian, in an orthodox sense. He denied the trinity and, not to put too fine a point on it, was a raving lunatic religiously. You know that fine line between genius and madness? Newton didn’t.

And Einstein’s best-known statement on religion is, “If there is something in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world.” Richard Dawkins would easily, eagerly say the same thing. There’s nothing theistic about it.

My background is in religion, so I appreciate the points made about how Newton and Einstein are merely iconic and not necessarily the best scientists. From my perspective it was troubling because it simply misrepresented the religious component–and for that reason, I immediately dismissed the piece as poorly reasoned.

Comment #59208

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 4:46 PM (e)

And how do you figure we use the term “Creationist” loosely? Because we call IDist for what they truely are?

Comment #59211

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 4:50 PM (e)

If a teacher is going to come in and pass off a bunch of ancient myths or basless assertions as scientifically valid theories than that is incompetence. For a teacher of science to hold these views shows that they do not fully understand the subject that they are supposed to be teaching.

Comment #59212

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 4:54 PM (e)

Amen Brother

Comment #59213

Posted by PZ Myers on November 21, 2005 4:58 PM (e)

The ID position is not to promote myths, but I would say that it is just as clearly a case of incompetence to peddle the methodological vacuousness of ID in a science classroom. It says nothing.

Comment #59214

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 5:04 PM (e)

RIght, so why are they using lies and deception to promote their cause? Why? What do they gain? Television Shepherds with living room sheep? I didn’t know it was the holy land but I believed from the minute the check left my hand?

Has anyone been inside this place? Known one of the top dogs? Is it just simple fear or is there more to it?

Comment #59217

Posted by Alan Fox on November 21, 2005 5:12 PM (e)

OnUncommon Descent in a rant about PZ Myers

Bill Dembski wrote:

I preserve it here for the record books.

Well, that will be a first.

Comment #59218

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 5:15 PM (e)

Van Bebber and Taylor have reported on the questionable biblical teachings of Ross.10 While this work has alerted some to Ross’s theological problems, many in the church resist that message, primarily because they are convinced that Ross has overpowering scientific arguments for an old earth and universe to which the Bible must be accommodated. Of course, accommodating the Bible to science is the exact opposite of what many intend, but this is what I have observed. Most theologians, pastors, and laymen lack the expertise to adequately evaluate Ross’s scientific claims. Most critiques of Ross have taken the approach of attacking his theological position, because this is obviously the root of his problem. But are the scientific arguments of Ross as powerful as many seem to think?

Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-20 state that the world around us indicates that there is a Creator. This limited information of God that the physical world impresses upon the minds of men is often called general revelation, as opposed to the special revelation of the Bible. Both reveal some information about God, but Ross elevates what the physical world reveals nearly to the level of Scripture itself. This is called the dual revelation theory. It is argued that since God is the author of both books, the Bible and the book of nature, the two must necessarily agree. Ross has expanded the dual revelation theory to the point of likening nature to the sixty-seventh book of the Bible.11

THese come from a site titled “The DUbious Appologetics of Hugh Ross” http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp

Comment #59222

Posted by Mark on November 21, 2005 5:34 PM (e)

Well … the dishonesty and deceit goes on and on! These IDers are tenacious, to the point of grinding obsession. I still think that these people, by their words and behaviour, are deeply disturbed; they need help before everyone else gets dragged down into their wacky pit of insanity. Unfortunately, I see this fight only getting tougher, as the Supreme Court (and other lower courts) are being stacked with like minded individuals who intend on creating a theocracy. They can’t do this without getting rid of scientific theories, such as evolution, which challenge their fundamental beliefs. I don’t know .. are you guys (and gals) getting sick and tired of this crap? Keep up the fight for sanity … hopefully we’ll prevail.

Comment #59223

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 5:58 PM (e)

That “True Origin” site was pretty weird. One article claimed that there was a scientific theory of Creationism. The article basically just blasted “naturalism” and by the end of it I still didn’t know what the scientific theory of Creationism was.

Comment #59226

Posted by Doyle on November 21, 2005 6:12 PM (e)

Uh, Mark. Take a breath. There is no evidence - none- that a conspiracy is afoot to stack the courts with “like-minded individuals who intend to create a theocracy.” And the more exposure these hypocrites get, the less support they will have even among those who are only paying a little attention. ID will die off from two pressures: as its message is explained and therefore rejected as bad science by mainstream Christians, and as its central deceit - that it is not saying that the God of the Bible did this–is absorbed by the Fundamentalists who should find that proposition blasphemous.

Comment #59228

Posted by Wayward on November 21, 2005 6:26 PM (e)

The “True Origin” site is indeed very strange. The whole section on the 2LoT seems confused and I do understand some of that stuff.

The question has been asked, paraphrased, “What does ID / et.al. have to gain with their tactics?” I think the ultimate end is what one debater I heard, in a debate about the existence of God, said “I am here to prove that it is rational to believe in God.” The more weak ID is about “proving” a rational case for more liberal creationism and the more strong ID (identifying the designer clearly as the Christian God) about “proving” a rational case for literal Biblical creationism.

And I realize that I have no evidence for this contention whatsoever. I do find it interesting that people so annoyed with “materialism” would take such pains to veneer their beliefs with a “rational” layer. It would seem to be more profitable to take a Marcus Borg or Paul Tillich approach and blow by the whole rational bit. Of course, that would preclude literalism.

Comment #59229

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 6:43 PM (e)

A biology who is a creationist is a sign of intellectual incompetence. This would be akin to having a physics teacher who rejected any physics that had been discovered post-1850.

I see. So, even though no one, including PZ, has offered one shred of evidence that the teacher in question taught, promoted or otherwise attempted to “sneak” ‘creationism’ (whatever the definition du jour of that term is supposed to be) into his/her science classroom, he/she is incompetent by virture of his/her religious beliefs? For all we know, this biology teacher teaches evolution more thoroughly and correctly than anyone in the school or even the school system, yet by virtue of holding a particular religious belief, he/she simply must be considered to suffer “intellectual incompetence”.

As I said, PZ quote has absolutely nothing to do with competence and everything to do with protecting the Darwinian dogma.

Comment #59230

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 6:47 PM (e)

Unfortunately, I see this fight only getting tougher, as the Supreme Court (and other lower courts) are being stacked with like minded individuals who intend on creating a theocracy.

Perhaps you could offer some actual evidence for this bold claim. Name names or something. Demonstrate that the goal is to establish a theocracy, otherwise this looks like so much vigorous handwaving with no substance behind it…which is all it really is. This isn’t even remotely connected to reality…yet you seem to think it is the IDP’s who are disconnected from reality…go figure!

Comment #59231

Posted by PaulC on November 21, 2005 6:56 PM (e)

Donald M wrote:

Demonstrate that the goal is to establish a theocracy

I have a hunch that the goal is plutocracy, and the religious angle is mostly for fooling the rabble, so if that’s your point I can hardly argue.

Comment #59232

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 6:57 PM (e)

Donald,
it sounds like you’re on the inside. What are you wttempting? why do ou care? what do you hope to gain with ID?

Comment #59233

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 6:58 PM (e)

If a teacher is going to come in and pass off a bunch of ancient myths or basless assertions as scientifically valid theories than that is incompetence. For a teacher of science to hold these views shows that they do not fully understand the subject that they are supposed to be teaching.

Translation: “How dare anyone question the established paradigm. To do so is intellectual incompetence of the first order. No one, absolutely no one, should be allowed to question, criticize or otherwise cast doubt upon the Darwinian tale of biological life, especially someone who is a scientist. Science, after all, is about reinforcing the existing dogma, not questioning it or casting doubt upon it. We can’t have that in the science classroom.”

As I said, none of this has thing one to do with competence and everything to do with protecting the dogma. Nearly every post in this thread is evidence of that. “Let me assure you, ve haf vays to make you teach the dogma!”

Comment #59234

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 7:00 PM (e)

Donald,
it sounds like you’re on the inside. What are you wttempting? why do ou care? what do you hope to gain with ID?

On the “inside” of what?

Comment #59235

Posted by Mark on November 21, 2005 7:00 PM (e)

Doyle and Donald. Yeah, ok, I may have been exaggerating … I just hope you guys are right.

Comment #59237

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

PaulC writes:

I have a hunch that the goal is plutocracy, and the religious angle is mostly for fooling the rabble, so if that’s your point I can hardly argue.

Well, Paul, I’ll give you 100 points for creativity. Wow! This is even more off the wall than the theocracy angle.

Comment #59238

Posted by Wayward on November 21, 2005 7:04 PM (e)

Donald M, you are of course correct that one’s beliefs to do not necessarily infer competence or incompetence. However, I personally would have some reluctance to have a child of mine taught physics or geography by a flat-earth believer, for example. I read PZ’s comments in that light, mixed with a touch of hyperbole.

I am new to this site and this discussion in general. From what I have seen a touch of hyperbole (or a shovel full) seems to be par for the course. I do not see ID proponents as ready theocrats nor do I see some sort of dogmatic conspiracy keeping ID from being recognized as science.

What I have not seen yet is an ID proponent elucidate a clear scientific theory, with testable predictions. Until such time I will not render any judgment on ID - there has been nothing yet to judge.

Comment #59241

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 7:11 PM (e)

Translation: “How dare anyone question the established paradigm. To do so is intellectual incompetence of the first order. No one, absolutely no one, should be allowed to question, criticize or otherwise cast doubt upon the Darwinian tale of biological life, especially someone who is a scientist. Science, after all, is about reinforcing the existing dogma, not questioning it or casting doubt upon it. We can’t have that in the science classroom.”

Your translation is off. I said “if a teacher is going to come in and pass off a bunch of ancient myths or baseless assertions as scientifcally valid theories than that is incompetence.”

I have no problem with criticism of evolution based on actual evidence but Creationism/ID comes down to the old arguement from ignorance fallacy “life is so complex it must have been designed - evolution cannot explain the complexities of life”. That is not science, it is not legitament criticism it is a fallacy. Coming in and teaching that that is a proper way to think about science reflects badly on the teacher. Now you might be correct that the teacher in question did not actually try to spread this illogical mindset to the students but you are completely wrong to suggest that a poorly reasoned arguement from ignorance should be considered legitament criticism of evolution.

Comment #59242

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 7:13 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #59243

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

Donald M. wrote:

This is even more off the wall than the theocracy angle.

Call me an optimist for placing rational self-interest motives ahead of sheer fanaticism. You may be correct that religious fanaticism is a more plausible explanation.

Comment #59244

Posted by knut on November 21, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

… As I said, none of this has thing one to do with competence and everything to do with protecting the dogma. Nearly every post in this thread is evidence of that. “Let me assure you, ve haf vays to make you teach the dogma!”….

This would appear to be a classic case of projection, i.e. the one making the allegation of dogma has the most to answer for on that count. Scientific truth is always considered provisional, and is subject to revision at any time, though as evidence accrues that task becomes less plausible as time goes by.

The only question I have for creationists who wish to be called ‘scientific’ is the most elemental scientific question of them all, and the one that delineates the line between knowledge obtained by intellectual rigor and wishful thinking is this: what evidence would you accept as refuting your position?

Any true scientist is constantly testing their assertions against this question. Ask a creationist what would dissuade them from their assertions and the answer is nothing.

Comment #59245

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 7:20 PM (e)

Well it would be like if a flat earther accused us all of dogma because we wouldn’t consider his position on the shape of the earth.

Comment #59246

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

Guys (and gals).

“Unfortunately, I see this fight only getting tougher, as the Supreme Court (and other lower courts) are being stacked with like minded individuals who intend on creating a theocracy.{“

In hindsight, that was a rather brainless comment, and I apologise … oh no, my tea’s getting cold!

Comment #59248

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 7:24 PM (e)

Oops, I already posted this in the wrong thread:

Gee, whenever I ask an IDer to tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, all I get is thundering silence. But give them chance to tell us all about their religious opinions, and the IDers can’t seem to shut up.

Odd, if ID isn’t really about religion.

Unless, of course, IDers are simply lying to us about that.

But hey, Heddle, Donald, and everyone else who wants to regale us with your religious opinions —- I have a simple question for you. Why, exactly, are your particular religious opinions any better than anyoen else’s? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particualr religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor’s or my car mechanic’s or my veterinarian’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?

(Note: this question doesn’t really apply to Carol, since she’s just here to shill for her employer’s book.)

Comment #59250

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 7:26 PM (e)

On the inside of the ID proponents’ in-group.
-but if 3 people walked in, singing a bar of Alice’s restaraunt, they might think it was a movement. and friends…

I mean, if you mean by dogma that I have examined the evidence and come to the only rational conclution that is available, that evolution is the mechanism for speciation, then I guess that dogma is what it is.

But if you mean that my dogma is trying to force out the ID argument purely because it doesn’t jibe with my own then… Mmm. Well, refer to the previous paragraph. ID is junk science. Evolution is not a controversial theory in the scientific community because it is well tested and 100% of the evidence supports it. THat is why us scientists support it. That is why, oh hell, forget it. You know that ID doesn’t work. Just like Witt. Yet you still support it. WHY?

Comment #59251

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 7:27 PM (e)

For those who doubt that theocracy is the fundie goal, I offer:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.html

Also, it is helpful to keep in mind who is the major funder for Discovery Institute, and what his openly-stated political goal has beenf or the past 20 years.

An excerpt from my website:

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be’s are the members of the “Reconstructionist” movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris’s book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony’s view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. “There can be no separation of Church and State,” Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) “Christians,” a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, “are called upon by God to exercise dominion.” (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible—they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the “Godly” have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: “The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God’s People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ’s feet, the end shall come.” (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) “Christian Reconstructionism,” another pamphlet says, “is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God … Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint.” (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the “enemies” which must be “put under Christ’s feet” if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the “Christian” equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris’s first book, “The Genesis Flood”, and Morris’s son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR’s Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR’s “curriculum director” until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents “A Manifesto for the Christian Church” (COR, July 1986), and the “Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview” (COR,1989), which declares, “We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man.” (“Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for “intelligent design theory”, is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson’s gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting “intelligent design theory” (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security “reform”, and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation – a major Reconstructionist think-tank – for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris’s first book, “The Genesis Flood”, intelligent design “theorist” Phillip Johnson dedicated his book “Defeating Darwinism” to “Howard and Roberta” – Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, “My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives.”

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, “Christian” political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent “recall” effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson’s donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation “Fieldstead” is Ahmanson’s middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI’s shining stars.

Ahmanson’s gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting “intelligent design theory”. By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group – only a museum trust in his wife’s hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it’s no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Comment #59253

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 7:28 PM (e)

Now wait a minute, True Origins has a page about their theory of creationism - I just haven’t been able to find it yet…..lots of dictionary definitions and anger over “materialism” but I just can’t see the theory….

Comment #59254

Posted by CJ O'Brien on November 21, 2005 7:29 PM (e)

Ask a creationist what would dissuade them from their assertions and the answer is nothing.

Oh, they’ll answer. They’ll mumble something like “Mmfbench experimey’know, lab lab flagel-flageflee, poof-poffmf…”

It’s great when they’re in front of a judge, because then they have to enunciate clearly for the reporter and they sound stupid instead of drunk.

Comment #59256

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 7:31 PM (e)

CBBB writes:

I have no problem with criticism of evolution based on actual evidence but Creationism/ID comes down to the old arguement from ignorance fallacy “life is so complex it must have been designed - evolution cannot explain the complexities of life”. That is not science, it is not legitament criticism it is a fallacy.

But, that is not what ID says at all. If you’re going to discuss fallacies, put this one in the category of “straw man” fallacy.
ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes.
One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity. Hence, if an artifact or phenomenon exhibits specified complexity, attributing it to intelligent cause is unproblematic…except when it comes to an artifact or phenomenon in biology. Then, it seems to create all sorts of problems. And the main reason seems to be that it just isn’t possible (we somehow know this in advance) for there to be any actual design in biological systems.

Far from being an argument for ignorance, ID is an argument from evidence.

Now you might be correct that the teacher in question did not actually try to spread this illogical mindset to the students but you are completely wrong to suggest that a poorly reasoned arguement from ignorance should be considered legitament criticism of evolution.

I never suggested any such thing. However, an argument from evidence is another matter altogether. That is what ID actually focuses on, contrary to what many seem to think. This whole idea of ‘religious agendas’ or ‘stealth creationism’ or whatever is nothing but a red herring (another fallacy). No one has yet demonstrated how we know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in biological systems can not be actual design, even in principle.

Comment #59257

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 7:33 PM (e)

Your dogma seems to be: “Atheism = competence; creationism = incompetence.”

Hey Donald, if ID doesn’t have anything to do with religious apologetics, then what difference does it make to you whether someone is or isn’t an “atheist”?

Or are you (and other IDers) just lying to us when you claim that ID is science and not religious apologetics?

By the way, Donald, since you already know that most people who oppose ID are not atheists, why do you continue to dishonestly imply that they are?

Do you think it’s OK to lie for the Lord, Donald?

Comment #59258

Posted by Mark on November 21, 2005 7:36 PM (e)

Hmmm … I take that back. I think it was rather a brilliant comment. damn! My tea’s gone cold again!

Comment #59260

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 7:37 PM (e)

One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity

And what exactly is the definition of specified complexity? Because I’ve never quite been able to figure this out. It seems like they’re just saying “if something looks designed it IS designed”. That seems like an uncovincing arguement to me.

Far from being an argument for ignorance, ID is an argument from evidence.

Such as….? They seem to be able to come up with a laundry list of criticism of evolution (most of them unfounded) but where’s the actual evidence for ID? Because things look designed they are designed? Because evolution has yet to come up with a perfect explanation of X?

Comment #59264

Posted by EmmaPeel on November 21, 2005 7:40 PM (e)

BWE wrote:

RIght, so why are they using lies and deception to promote their cause? Why? What do they gain? Television Shepherds with living room sheep? I didn’t know it was the holy land but I believed from the minute the check left my hand?

Has anyone been inside this place? Known one of the top dogs? Is it just simple fear or is there more to it?

The DI is pushing ID because they’re afraid that if too many people lose their belief in God, then we won’t be able to figure out any kind of objectively good moral system by ourselves.

These guys are on the right politically (yay!). But they start out their fight against nihilism (boo!) by basically agreeing with postmodernism: The real world gives us no objective criteria by which to judge an action as right or wrong. So every major moral debate comes down to Coke vs. Pepsi. So different interest groups argue their case using their own ad-hoc, self serving framework, and in the end the winner is always whichever interest group was willing to be the most ruthless in pursuit of their private goals.

Or as they themselves put it:

Materialism is a powerful philosophy of life today because it sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ”rules” that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon.

Indeed, if materialism is right – as most intellectuals propose – then ”God” is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn’t create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ”if God is dead then all things are lawful. ” Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.

The ID’ers hate this state of affairs (rightly so, if moral subjectivism were indeed true). But they’re stuck in Stage 3 of grief: Magical thinking. “If only we could get everyone to believe in one conception of God again who can come down and declare for us all what single moral code to follow, then everyone would be back on the same page and all would be right with the world again.”

So the DI’s ID crusade exposes more of a philosophical split within the conservative movement than a simple left-right divide. This is why conservative or libertarian writers like Krauthammer, George Will, John Derbyshire, & Ronald Bailey have felt comfortable weighing in against ID.

See their “What is Materialism” FAQ from the DI’s (CRSC’s) early webpages. See also their “About the Center” page, which was later lifted whole to become the fiery introduction to the infamous Wedge Document.

Comment #59266

Posted by PZ Myers on November 21, 2005 7:46 PM (e)

Donald M wrote:

For all we know, this biology teacher teaches evolution more thoroughly and correctly than anyone in the school or even the school system, yet by virtue of holding a particular religious belief, he/she simply must be considered to suffer “intellectual incompetence”.

Fancy that. I thought ID wasn’t about a “particular religious belief”.

For your information, I mentioned that there is a creationist teacher in my local high school. I have not “gone after” that person, because they do not inject that fallacious belief into instruction. If they were teaching that nonsense, then I would be furious, and yes, they would be pushing their incompetence off onto impressionable kids.

Comment #59268

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 21, 2005 7:50 PM (e)

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 07:31 PM (e)(s)

But, that is not what ID says at all. If you’re going to discuss fallacies, put this one in the category of “straw man” fallacy.
ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes.
One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity. Hence, if an artifact or phenomenon exhibits specified complexity, attributing it to intelligent cause is unproblematic…except when it comes to an artifact or phenomenon in biology. Then, it seems to create all sorts of problems. And the main reason seems to be that it just isn’t possible (we somehow know this in advance) for there to be any actual design in biological systems…

So ID is science?
What testable predictions does ID make?
How is ID falsifiable?

Comment #59270

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 7:55 PM (e)

In the ancient world people used to explain natural phenomenon by invoking the supernatural all the time. Lightning was caused by Zues, thunder by Thor, the Nile flooded annually because of the will of Osiris, the sun was the wheel of Apollo’s Chariot.

Humans got rid of these explanations because they were useless. But now it seems like the DI wants to take us back to those times. Why? Science based on natural explanations for natural phenomenon has been the most successful human endevour - why discard it? Are there any real, legitament reasons why to abandon this fruitful way of look at the world other than the fact that certain people’s pet theories can’t be included?

Comment #59271

Posted by Mark on November 21, 2005 7:56 PM (e)

There’s a cliche that goes something like: any publicity is good whether it’s bad publicity or good publicity. I’m not sure this applies in the case for ID.

Comment #59273

Posted by Longhorn on November 21, 2005 8:06 PM (e)

Emma wrote:

These guys are on the right politically (yay!).

Emma, could you elaborate on that? What do you mean by that? And why is that a “yay?”

Witt wrote:

Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin’s theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism’s idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.

Some of the people who signed that statement don’t have a doctorate in any natural science. And the statement can be interpreted in a way that it is reasonable. Here is the statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Given what I think the author of the statement means by “random mutation and natural selection,” those kinds of events did not cause the existence of, and differences among, all the organisms to live on earth. First, those things didn’t cause the first cells. Second, I don’t what they mean by “random mutations.” Finally, other kinds of events were hugely important in cells evolving into elephants. For instance, among sexually reproducing organisms, sexual reproduction was hugely important in brining about the differences among organisms. Sexual reproduction includes genetic recombination. Here is a quote from Ernst Mayr: According to Ernst Mayr: “Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species. Numerous processes, particularly mutation, contribute to these genetic changes to supply the phenotypic variation needed by selection. The most important factor is recombination, which is largely responsible for the virtually inexhaustible supply of new genotypes in every generation” (What Evolution Is, p. 157).

However, I obviously wouldn’t have signed that Discovery Institute statement because I know it would be use to suggest that I support ideas that I don’t.

Comment #59276

Posted by Ron Zeno on November 21, 2005 8:19 PM (e)

To repeat: The process of science requires openness and honesty from scientists. Intelligent design creationism requires obfuscation about the intelligent designer…

If you make the mistake in assuming its proponents are actually being open and honest about it, which they are not, “specified complexity” is an extremely poorly defined attribute of things that is complex and hard to understand by people who do not have a good education in science. This attribute indicates that the intelligent designer designed the item, except when the intelligent designer let it evolve instead. People claim items with “specified complexity” are evidence for intelligent design creationism, even after a prefectly sound explanation for their evolution is offered.

Comment #59277

Posted by EmmaPeel on November 21, 2005 8:21 PM (e)

longhorn wrote:

Emma, could you elaborate on that? What do you mean by that? And why is that a “yay?”

Just that the Discovery Institute is a conservative think tank. I’m an Objectivist, so we should in the same big tent. But their ID crusade only hurts conservatism.

longhorn wrote:

Given what I think the author of the statement means by “random mutation and natural selection,” those kinds of events did not cause the existence of, and differences among, all the organisms to live on earth…. However, I obviously wouldn’t have signed that Discovery Institute statement because I know it would be use to suggest that I support ideas that I don’t.

I actually think that Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, & all the prominent anti-ID people should sign the statement just to show how vacuous it is!

Comment #59278

Posted by Mark Smith on November 21, 2005 8:29 PM (e)

1. ID is not science.
2. ID is not a scientific theory
3. ID is conjecture, at best
4. ID should not be taught in science class
5. ID should not be taught in any class (except as an example of flawed logic in philosophy class)
6. ID isn’t even an issue outside the US

Comment #59281

Posted by Longhorn on November 21, 2005 8:39 PM (e)

Just that the Discovery Institute is a conservative think tank. I’m an Objectivist, so we should in the same big tent. But their ID crusade only hurts conservatism.

Thanks, Emma. I’m a registered Democrat, and I’ve been heavily influenced by John Rawls and John Stuart Mill. I’m pleased about the columns I’ve read by George Will and Charles Krauthammer on evolution.

Comment #59283

Posted by roger Tang on November 21, 2005 8:49 PM (e)

ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes.

ANd when ID starts to do research that does so, that might be the time to take it more seriously.

CSI is NOT a valid, operationalized concept; it hasn’t been successfully applied to real objects, and hasn’t been proven useful as a research concept.

Right now, you’re putting the cart before the horse and getting it all ass backwards. Do some research, get some results. THEN we can start talking.

Comment #59285

Posted by EmmaPeel on November 21, 2005 9:08 PM (e)

tang wrote:

ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes.

ANd when ID starts to do research that does so, that might be the time to take it more seriously.

And of course, ID conflates two questions: Unintelligent vs. intelligent, and natural vs. supernatural. They are separate issues, but ID tries to slip “intelligent” and “supernatural” causes into a package deal, thus making the reader think that intelligence must have a supernatural cause, or conversely that natural causes cannot produce intelligence.

It’s a rather smooth move. Slimy smooth, even.

Comment #59293

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 21, 2005 9:24 PM (e)

Dear Mr. Myers, It’s correct to say that evolution is a scientific fact, in an analogous sense to saying gravity is a scientific fact. But if science took the same approach towards gravity as some of its practitioners have taken towards evolution, we would yet have feathers falling slower than cannon balls, in a perfect vacuum. Let me tell you, I struggle with that fact about feathers vs cannon balls, but I accept it because of empirical observation and physics. Perhaps it’s about time certain practitioners of science did themselves the service of taking a similar, analytical approach to evolution.
This is your opportunity.
Go to my website, observe the Mainstream Science classification, recognize that anyone treating with this topic must take cognizance of Scripture - as did perhaps 75% of all venerated science figures - leave the Scripture aside and investigate the technical content. The world is waiting for the scientists to tell them a few things about nature. It is also waiting for intelligent Origins Education from the same source. Here and now, show the public the technical content of what you see as evolution, contrast it with other models, leave the religion and personality out, and support modern, technically accurate origins education. I look forward to a response from someone who understands and practices scientific principles. Yours etc., P.H..

Comment #59294

Posted by steve s on November 21, 2005 9:30 PM (e)

groan

Comment #59297

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 9:56 PM (e)

Go to my website

Great. Another shill. Just what we needed.

Comment #59301

Posted by k.e. on November 21, 2005 10:14 PM (e)

PBH ill bet you a $100 “Pascal’s Wager” is wrong

Comment #59303

Posted by BWE on November 21, 2005 10:18 PM (e)

As a marine biologist married to a middle school science teacher, I can assure you, Philip Bruce Heywood, that Intelligent Origins Education is only waiting for information from the same source.

If you’ve got proof of God, you’d be on the cover of newsweek. I can tell that you don’t because you’re not on the cover of newsweek.

However, I would be happy to discuss evolution on a point by point basis. As a matter of fact, I think I am going to post my thoughts with a trackback to this article on my blog tomorrow at
brainwashedgod.blogspot.com

I’ll be glad to have a point by point discussion about the more subtle details of evolutionary theory, its implications and its boundaries. Please go to my blog anyway and post a comment. It would make me feel good. I am a sensitive artist and I need feedback to thrive. And y’know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian’s highest calling.

Comment #59304

Posted by Norman Doering on November 21, 2005 10:20 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

… if science took the same approach towards gravity as some of its practitioners have taken towards evolution, we would yet have feathers falling slower than cannon balls, in a perfect vacuum.

Why? Explain your twisted logic.

I struggle with that fact about feathers vs cannon balls,…

I would consider that a sign of stupidity.

…but I accept it because of empirical observation and physics.

Did you know evolution has been observed empirically? Do you know why bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics? Do you know anything about the reproductive functions of horses, donkeys and mules?

… I look forward to a response from someone who understands and practices scientific principles.

Then you’ll have to do better than the gibberish you’re posting.

Comment #59305

Posted by Norman Doering on November 21, 2005 10:23 PM (e)

BWE wrote:

… And y’know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian’s highest calling.

No he didn’t. You’re a liar.

Comment #59306

Posted by s num on November 21, 2005 10:37 PM (e)

From Dembski’s blog:

‘I preserve it here for the record books. Let the humiliation of ID proponents continue and intensify.’

Yes Dembski, let it.

Comment #59307

Posted by k.e. on November 21, 2005 10:52 PM (e)

From Dembski’s blog:

‘I preserve it here for the record books. Let the humiliation of ID proponents continue and intensify.’

oh on come now……. defeat(of clay)ism ?

isn’t that the opposite of …….triumphalism?

At least he could spin paridgm “reversal” to “re-fashioning” or “retrofitting” or ……just look the in postmodernist bible and find another way of mangling reality

And as for “Materialism” isn’t that the BIGGEST bit of projecting you ever saw. Man talk about religion on VIAGRA

Comment #59308

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 21, 2005 11:01 PM (e)

Donald M said:

I see. So, even though no one, including PZ, has offered one shred of evidence that the teacher in question taught, promoted or otherwise attempted to “sneak” ‘creationism’ (whatever the definition du jour of that term is supposed to be) into his/her science classroom, he/she is incompetent by virture of his/her religious beliefs? For all we know, this biology teacher teaches evolution more thoroughly and correctly than anyone in the school or even the school system, yet by virtue of holding a particular religious belief, he/she simply must be considered to suffer “intellectual incompetence”.

A creationist who teaches evolution well and thoroughly would be a first. I’ve been looking for 30 years for a creationist who could accurately describe Darwinian theory, without success. No, Dembski can’t do it, either. For that matter, Behe appears unable to do it anymore, if he ever could.

Can you name a creationist who accurately teaches evolution? Name, school, etc., would be good.

Comment #59309

Posted by CBBB on November 21, 2005 11:02 PM (e)

Hey that Donald guy never came back to answer questions about whether ID was testable for falsifiable. He didn’t even bother to explain Specified Complexity any further.

Comment #59312

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 21, 2005 11:23 PM (e)

More.

Donald M said: But, that is not what ID says at all. If you’re going to discuss fallacies, put this one in the category of “straw man” fallacy.

ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes. One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity. Hence, if an artifact or phenomenon exhibits specified complexity, attributing it to intelligent cause is unproblematic…except when it comes to an artifact or phenomenon in biology. Then, it seems to create all sorts of problems. And the main reason seems to be that it just isn’t possible (we somehow know this in advance) for there to be any actual design in biological systems.

ID advocates claim to seek to make such a distinction. But they do not in fact make such distinctions, and most of the time they fail to do any work at all. “Specified complexity” is one trait of some human designed things, but it is not the only trait, and it is not an exclusive trait. Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply “I know it when I see it.” Otherwise, he can’t tell you what ID is.

And, mind you, that is the most scientifically rigorous statement any ID advocate has ever made on the topic.

Darwin’s book demonstrated the facts: What appears to be design often is the result of natural processes which do the designing. What ID needs to do is separate natural, common (though awe-inspiring) design from supernatural, non-evolutionary design. It can’t do that. ID is sterile as science.

There’s lots of “design” in biological systems. It got there by natural and sexual selection. No ID advocate has been able to propose a system that we can’t find evolutionary histories for. We should expect that, since Darwin himself first proposed that finding such systems as “irreducibly complex” systems would disprove evolution. No one has been able to find such a system prior to Darwin nor in the intervening 146 years.

Donald M continued: Far from being an argument for ignorance, ID is an argument from evidence.

Now you might be correct that the teacher in question did not actually try to spread this illogical mindset to the students but you are completely wrong to suggest that a poorly reasoned arguement from ignorance should be considered legitament criticism of evolution.

I never suggested any such thing. However, an argument from evidence is another matter altogether. That is what ID actually focuses on, contrary to what many seem to think. This whole idea of ‘religious agendas’ or ‘stealth creationism’ or whatever is nothing but a red herring (another fallacy). No one has yet demonstrated how we know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in biological systems can not be actual design, even in principle.

There is no argument from evidence proposed by any ID advocate. Were there such an argument, it could be placed into an article in a science journal, and textbooks could make mention of it, legally. Pressed by schoolboards in a dozen states to show such an argument, for the past 6 years ID advocates have been totally mute.

Nor do you offer such an argument, Donald M. Should be believe ID is an argument from evidence? Others have already asked you: What evidence? Why are you keeping it secret?

Comment #59321

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 12:47 AM (e)

$100 on Pascal being wrong

THat’s good. Mind if I use it?

Comment #59323

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 12:53 AM (e)

BWE wrote:

… And y’know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian’s highest calling.

No he didn’t. You’re a liar.

How do you know? DId you ask Jesus? I just realized that their are holes in the christian theory. We should really teach the controversy.

Comment #59324

Posted by k.e. on November 22, 2005 1:06 AM (e)

BWE I don’t want to give too much away but consider a few “moves” ahead.
And remember an ancient sage once said “All desire causes suffering -even thoughts of desire”

Comment #59325

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 1:14 AM (e)

Bible passage of the day:

And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.[a]

13The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns[b] of the golden altar that is before God. 14It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” 15And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.

17The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. 18A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. 19The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.

20The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Comment #59328

Posted by k.e. on November 22, 2005 1:31 AM (e)

Hah!
MONSTERS?
I eat MONSTERS for BREAKFAST!!

But before that I like to have a Little appetizer……
a CHILDREN’S monster story

From the tales of Tripitaka

Comment #59331

Posted by Mark on November 22, 2005 2:56 AM (e)

Donald M writes (comment 59230) writes: “Perhaps you could offer some actual evidence for this bold claim. Name names or something. Demonstrate that the goal is to establish a theocracy, otherwise this looks like so much vigorous handwaving with no substance behind it…which is all it really is. This isn’t even remotely connected to reality…yet you seem to think it is the IDP’s who are disconnected from reality…go figure!”

Well, try this on for size (but you’ll have to read the whole article):

“Republican appointees control ten of the thirteen federal courts, a number that should increase to 12 in 2008. As of today, according to the “National Law Journal,” close to 85% of Appeals Court judges will have been chosen by Republicans. The jackpot is obviously the Supreme Court, where, after John Roberts’s confirmation as Chief Justice, hard-line Republicans are about to obtain a solid majority with the nomination of Samuel Alito, an eminent member … of the Federalist Society.”

and this:

“the fundamentalists’ theoretical justification is defended at the Supreme Court by Judge Scalia, Judge Thomas, and, if he is confirmed by the Senate, Judge Alito. Their philosophy: in its interpretation by judges, the Constitution must mean exactly what it meant at the moment of its ratification. No more, no less. At first blush, the idea of ridding this admirable text of all posthumous political interpretation can only seduce, and one understands why Bush placed his judicial offensive under the sign of “objectivity.” But in reality, the rigidity of the fundamentalists is a decoy - or rather, a convenient fig leaf for these ultra-reactionaries. In their style, fundamentalists such as Scalia are models of intolerance. They reduce their critics to the ranks of “cretins” and their hatred for evolutionists - those who think that the Constitution is a living organ the interpretation of which must necessarily evolve over the centuries - is equal only to “Creationists’” hostility to Darwin. Their stict reading of the Constitution “finds a parallel in the literal interpretation of the Koran or the Bible,” remarks Cass Sunstein, author of the best book on this radical crusade. [2] And the consequences of their philosophy are potentially terrifying.”

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105H.shtml
“America: the Fundamentalist Invasion

How’s that for being disconnected from reality, Donald? I’m not advocating some kind of conspiracy, but this certainly does not bode well for the nation.

Comment #59338

Posted by Norman Doering on November 22, 2005 5:26 AM (e)

BWE wrote:

How do you know?

Because it’s not in the Bible. He does say things like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which seems to mean if you like getting whipped by a dominatrix you should go around whipping people.

DId you ask Jesus?

No. I just assume you haven’t either and that you have no evidence.

Are you going to claim you did ask Jesus and got an answer? There are people like Pat Robertson who make such claims.

Comment #59340

Posted by Norman Doering on November 22, 2005 5:35 AM (e)

BWE wrote:

Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian’s highest calling.

Then BWE wrote:

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Is this a contradiction BWE?
Or does god just not practice what he preaches?

Comment #59348

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 7:59 AM (e)

Hey that Donald guy never came back to answer questions about whether ID was testable for falsifiable. He didn’t even bother to explain Specified Complexity any further.

Donald never answers questions. He’s just here to preach and run.

Comment #59350

Posted by PZ Myers on November 22, 2005 8:09 AM (e)

…and then he scurries over to Uncommon Descent to repeat his comments and get praised and petted for them, rather than face the criticisms they get here.

Comment #59352

Posted by Red Mann on November 22, 2005 8:31 AM (e)

RE Theocratic takeover. Don’t forget that the beloved Pat Robertson has a major law school going at Regent U here in VA making “Christian” lawyers who become legislators, who become judges, who become the “Supreme Council”. Yipes!

Comment #59358

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 22, 2005 9:48 AM (e)

CBBB wrote:

Hey that Donald guy never came back to answer questions about whether ID was testable for falsifiable. He didn’t even bother to explain Specified Complexity any further.

I gotta give the man some credit; the last time he came around he made a brilliant case for Methodological Naturalism.

Comment #59362

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 10:24 AM (e)

Because it’s not in the Bible. He does say things like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which seems to mean if you like getting whipped by a dominatrix you should go around whipping people.

We must read different versions. It’s right in Thomas 4:87 in mine.

Comment #59366

Posted by PZ Myers on November 22, 2005 10:43 AM (e)

What Bible are you using, that it includes the Apocrypha? I’m confused by your numbering, too – Saying 87 in the Gospel of Thomas is “Wretched be the body which depends upon (another) body, and wretched be the soul which depends upon their being together.”

Comment #59367

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 10:47 AM (e)

No corporate sponsors for Darwin exhibition

The evolution vs. creationism debate in the US is now so contentious that the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York has been unable to find a sponsor for its new exhibition detailing the life and discoveries of Charles Darwin.

With American companies apparently unwilling to be seen to be taking sides, the whole of the $3m bill for the exhibition has been met by donations, large and small, from private individuals, The Telegraph reports.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/22/corporate_sponsors_darwin/

Alright, you got me. I made up the part about Jesus. Took you for a good ride though didn’t I?

Comment #59371

Posted by Donald M on November 22, 2005 11:21 AM (e)

PZ:

Fancy that. I thought ID wasn’t about a “particular religious belief”.

For your information, I mentioned that there is a creationist teacher in my local high school. I have not “gone after” that person, because they do not inject that fallacious belief into instruction. If they were teaching that nonsense, then I would be furious, and yes, they would be pushing their incompetence off onto impressionable kids.

Who said anything about ID. You were the one who called this teacher a creationist implying that her/his religious belief somehow was a problem in the classroom. Now you’re telling us that the teacher in question doesn’t present any of those views in the classroom.
So, why would you bring it up in the first place? It was your contention, not mine, that somehow creation = incomptence. Apparently not, as you just admitted. I do wish you’d make up your mind.

Comment #59375

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 11:44 AM (e)

But you’re the one who accused PZ of saying Athiesm = Competence. This isn’t what PZ meant, he meant that a competent biology teacher should accept evolution. You’re the one who linked evolution with atheism but apparently Evolution Vs. ID has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Comment #59376

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 11:49 AM (e)

Who said anything about ID. You were the one who called this teacher a creationist implying that her/his religious belief somehow was a problem in the classroom. Now you’re telling us that the teacher in question doesn’t present any of those views in the classroom.
So, why would you bring it up in the first place? It was your contention, not mine, that somehow creation = incomptence. Apparently not, as you just admitted. I do wish you’d make up your mind.

That’s the problem with discussion. I picked up on that one too. It doesn’t matter. We all want to be nice and so we don’t go around blasting on peoples belief’s in zeus or yaweh or tehtktletl if it doesn’t hurt anyone(although that’s a contentious issue whether religion is inherently dangerous), but it’s a fine line because I want my children to be able to adapt to their world and not be held back by religion.

Do you know about why the Vikings died out in greenland and the inuits flourished when the world cooled off and farming became impossible? Because the preist wouldn’t let them adapt. He required ridiculous tithing and told them to keep farming. THe bodies were found frozen in the houses. My children should know that books about god are written by people and represent a human attempt to communicate spiritual experience through language.

My kids need to know that god is not jesus or yaweh or zues and that they need to worry about natural dangers and not look for supernatural cures. If my kids’ teacher tells them that god periodically creates new species (I am reminded of the martian in the flintstones) then they will have an innaccurate understanding of how things work and thus may be inadequately equipped to deal with some future issue. THat is the reason we educate our kids. We have evolved to understand that the feature we possess which allows us to exploit our niche is the ability to learn and employ logic.

Comment #59377

Posted by Donald M on November 22, 2005 12:09 PM (e)

Mark:

How’s that for being disconnected from reality, Donald? I’m not advocating some kind of conspiracy, but this certainly does not bode well for the nation.

You may not be advocating for some kind of conspiracy, but exactly how objective do you think the “Truthout.org” is being here? They clearly have a liberal agenda and thus selectively present only what suits their cause. Fine to do in public debate, but I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from it. But we’re getting way OT here, so ‘nuff said.

Comment #59379

Posted by Tukla in Iowa on November 22, 2005 12:15 PM (e)

Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply “I know it when I see it.”

Isn’t that the same way pornography is defined?

Comment #59384

Posted by AC on November 22, 2005 12:53 PM (e)

Donald, you make a valid point. Of course, a person’s religious beliefs do not inherently preclude them from teaching (or practicing) science thoroughly or accurately.

However, people who strongly hold beliefs tend to enjoy stating them. Combined with Christianity’s directive to proselytize, this is more than enough reason to be suspicious of a creationist biology teacher in a public school. I think this is the cause of concern in most cases.

I don’t think any reasonable person would “go after” such a teacher merely for being a creationist, since that would be a truly ideological act. But suspicion is warranted.

Comment #59387

Posted by PaulC on November 22, 2005 1:00 PM (e)

The following comment is independent of what you think of Christianity as a religion. I’m not religious myself, but this doesn’t stop me from reaching conclusions about “what Jesus said” or more precisely what the gospels say that he said.

Norman Doering wrote:

BWE wrote:

… And y’know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian’s highest calling.

No he didn’t. You’re a liar.

Matthew 25:31-46 effectively says that we will be judged on whether we help those in need, specifically in need of food, drink, shelter, clothing, and companionship in illness or prison, but it can conceivably be extended to other basic needs. This is a large subset of making people “feel good” (passing the bong probably doesn’t count though) and it is not just a high calling but arguably a litmus test for the determining Christian behavior. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46

Granted, it sort of contradicts other passages that support the view that salvation is through faith alone. However, I think that it it’s a mischaracterization to call BWE’s comment a lie rather than sloppy theology.

Comment #59393

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 1:24 PM (e)

Thank you Paul C. They really put my feet to the fire there. I had to admit I made up the words bit. But you are right, I meant it in the spirit of Mathew 25:31-46.

Comment #59395

Posted by Norman Doering on November 22, 2005 1:35 PM (e)

PaulC wrote:

Matthew 25:31-46 effectively says that we will be judged on whether we help those in need, specifically in need of food, drink, shelter, clothing, and companionship in illness or prison, but it can conceivably be extended to other basic needs. This is a large subset of making people “feel good”

Yea, a really tiny subset. Being fed and clothed will keep you alive, not make you feel good. I guess you do have to be alive to feel good, but you also have to be alive to feel bad, to live in fear, to be a useful slave…

… it’s a mischaracterization to call BWE’s comment a lie rather than sloppy theology.

No, it’s not.

Comment #59398

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 1:49 PM (e)

Well, to finally come clean, Norman is right. I fabricated the jesus part from thin air. It was a bald-faced lie. The kind of lie that I was attributing to the ID camp just a few comments earlier. I would be more worried about going to h$$$ll for it but I just finished a fabulous interview with the antichrist who says not to worry about the end times. I posted in my blog, http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com just a few minutes ago. I assure you that I did NOT make that one up.

But Paul is right too. I did intend it in the spirit of the Mathew bit.

Comment #59399

Posted by PaulC on November 22, 2005 1:50 PM (e)

Being fed and clothed will keep you alive, not make you feel good.

OK, then what’s the point of visiting the sick or imprisoned? Unless you’re a doctor, this won’t help extend their lives. The general concept here is to comfort the afflicted.

No, it’s not [a mischaracterization to call BWE’s comment a lie]

To be more precise, you initially called BWE a “liar.” Unless you can demonstrate intent, your accusation is unfounded.

Comment #59400

Posted by PaulC on November 22, 2005 1:55 PM (e)

I guess my point is moot now. Normally I would say BWE’s comment qualified in context as a joke rather than a lie, but it’s a little hard to argue that his intent was other than what he said it was.

Comment #59401

Posted by PaulC on November 22, 2005 1:57 PM (e)

Finally, to make the obvious pun, it’s clear that the ID position is to “sucker” those in need.

Comment #59402

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 2:04 PM (e)

Sorry paul, the secular humanist in me made me do the honorable thing and come clean. I really did mean it in the sense of the mathew bit though so my intent, though i knew i was making it up, was that jesus message about doing unto etc. probably covered making others feel good and i don’t know why else you would heal the hungry asnd feed the lepers.

Comment #59403

Posted by Norman Doering on November 22, 2005 2:25 PM (e)

PaulC asked:

OK, then what’s the point of visiting the sick or imprisoned?

To convert them so the church can scare them into giving them more money.

Comment #59405

Posted by Mark on November 22, 2005 2:31 PM (e)

Donald said:
“You may not be advocating for some kind of conspiracy, but exactly how objective do you think the “Truthout.org” is being here? They clearly have a liberal agenda and thus selectively present only what suits their cause. Fine to do in public debate, but I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from it. But we’re getting way OT here, so ‘nuff said.”

“Liberal”, “conservative”, up, down, right, left, ventral, dorsal, round and round - I’m not an advocate of labels. You asked me to support my comment and I did. Take it with a grain of salt. The thing about politics and religion is that everyone’s got an opinion. Thanks for your contribution.

Comment #59407

Posted by Steven Sullivan on November 22, 2005 2:50 PM (e)

Donald has yet to address the Wedge Strategy, which is the manifesto of of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which is the what drives the Discovery Institute, which is what drives the ‘ID debate’ these days (it used to be called ‘creation science’ in the pre-DI days).

The Wedge Strategy identifies *itself* as:

– antimaterialist
– Christian
– a plan to gain total ‘science and cultural’ hegemony in the US

Just *read* the damn thing. This is what the ‘ID’ people really are aiming for. Bogus ‘questioning’ of evolution in science classes is just the thin edge of the *wedge*. The ID crowd is *completely* full of shit when it says it’s interested in scientific debate. It wants to *redefine* what science is.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Comment #59408

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 2:52 PM (e)

From the various comments by people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell I also lean towards the belief that the religious right wishes to establish a kind of theocracy in the US. Now it might not be full fledge Iran/Saudi Arabia style Theocratic Dictatorship but it certainly is a desire to implement an array of laws based on fundementalist Christian beliefs.

Comment #59409

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 2:59 PM (e)

The ID crowd is *completely* full of shit when it says it’s interested in scientific debate. It wants to *redefine* what science is.

That’s another thing Donald M has yet to address. Why, if ID is legitament science and Evolution is merely dogma, does ID require science to be redefined. In Kansas the BOE redefined science and this was also a concern in the Dover trial. What is the benefit of redefining science to allow ID in? Why should science be the one to change, why doesn’t ID change to conform to science?

Comment #59411

Posted by Mark on November 22, 2005 3:09 PM (e)

CBBB said:
“From the various comments by people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell I also lean towards the belief that the religious right wishes to establish a kind of theocracy in the US. Now it might not be full fledge Iran/Saudi Arabia style Theocratic Dictatorship but it certainly is a desire to implement an array of laws based on fundementalist Christian beliefs.”

Let’s just say, this is probably their idea of the perfect society. On the bright side, look what recently happened in Dover to the ID supporters on their school board.

Comment #59414

Posted by Norman Doering on November 22, 2005 3:18 PM (e)

PaulC

I guess my point is moot now. Normally I would say BWE’s comment qualified in context as a joke rather than a lie, but it’s a little hard to argue that his intent was other than what he said it was.

Fine, but if it’s about intent and mind reading then, as BWE noted, you can’t go around calling ID proponents liars either. You just have to say they’re wrong. What BWE did was worse than quote mining.

I’m not Christian. I think all the passages that can be interpreted as about being nice and making people feel good are just bait in a bait and switch scam. My religious opinions haven’t changed much since I wrote these essays over a decade ago:
http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/notcrst1.html
http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/notcrst2.html

and mirrored here:
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst1.txt
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst2.txt

And for all those ID proponents who might read this, here’s a question: What does the word “let” mean? Because if you read the Bible it says:

Genesis 1:11 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree.

Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

If god lets “the earth bring forth” the plants and animals, rather than create them directly maybe that does mean he used evolution.

Comment #59415

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 3:23 PM (e)

I don’t think the religious right is against democracy in the sense of having elections and that sort of thing. I doubt that they’d opt for a Saudi style religious monarchy. I do, however, believe that they would rather have it so non-fundementalists didn’t vote or had a very small say in matters of government. Basically they want to use the state to increase their political power and give their specific beliefs a special place in US law.
Go visit a blog like Vox Day and you’ll get an idea of how these people think. They have convinced themselves that Christians, and specifically the Fundementalist variety, are the victims of an atheist/secularist agenda. If you point out to them the fact that Christians represent the vast majority of people in the US while athiest represent a tiny minorty they suggest that most people who call themselves Christian are not “True Christians” and this is evident from the increased “secularism of American society”. They seem to believe that the presence of anything which is Not-Christian is an infringement on their religious rights.

Comment #59416

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 22, 2005 3:32 PM (e)

My personal take is that these people envision a perfect world as a world where everybody thinks alike, give or take small, ininfluent minutiae, like food preference or whether they like R&B more than classical music and so on.

Think about it: if only everybody were like that, democracy would work beautifully!

What they can’t stand is the messy “distortion” of democracy that is only due to the existence of “libruls, pinkos, athiests” and in general people who stubbornly refuse to “see the light”.

Comment #59418

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 3:37 PM (e)

I’d hate to imagine what things would be like if Robertson had won the Republican nomination in 1988 and been elected.

Comment #59421

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 22, 2005 3:43 PM (e)

Disclaimer: of course, moderate Republicans and non-Fundamentalist Christians are included in the number of “libruls, pinkos, athiests” and suchlike who make democracy so messy.

Comment #59422

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 22, 2005 3:48 PM (e)

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 03:37 PM (e) (s)

I’d hate to imagine what things would be like if Robertson had won the Republican nomination in 1988 and been elected.

I am sure things would have been much better.
Robertson is a humanitarian (he says so on his site} and he has God on his side (so those pesky natural disasters never would have happened).
Although I may be mistaken;)

Comment #59424

Posted by EmmaPeel on November 22, 2005 4:02 PM (e)

Well put, Aureola! Democracy is so hard. You have to marshall good arguments & then go out and convince other people, who may have their own set of well-researched arguments which you haven’t even heard of before. Not to mention their unacknowledged agendas that color their perception of which facts are reasonable & which ones aren’t. And then when it comes to the really big questions of how society or laws should be structured, it can take a generation or two for the full effects of the competing ideas to play themselves out. (You need to see what happens to the generation that is born & raised under the new regime, with no memory of how the world worked under the old system.)

It would be so much easier if everyone simply understood that God, the all-powerful supernatural Authority Figure, has already decided for us what the moral ground rules should be.

But that pesky biological theory keeps getting in the way - preventing the intelligentsia from taking our Supreme Authority Figure’s well-crafted cover story seriously. It must be discredited!

Comment #59427

Posted by PaulC on November 22, 2005 4:21 PM (e)

Norman Doering wrote:

Fine, but if it’s about intent and mind reading then, as BWE noted, you can’t go around calling ID proponents liars either.

You can build a case for intent and it’s done all the time in court. I don’t have a lot of trouble calling Dembski a liar for instance, but it’s based on a long pattern of behavior. His actions would be harder to explain through mere incompetence. I also doubt his own insistence, when trapped, that he was just yanking the chain of whoever caught him, because he’s used this excuse too often.

It’s also just my opinion. I’m not a mindreader. I’d place bets on it though, if there was a way to have it decided by an independent arbiter.

I think all the passages that can be interpreted as about being nice and making people feel good are just bait in a bait and switch scam.

I’ll look at your essays when I get a chance. I find it easier to explain as an agglomeration of ideas that sound good individually but are contradictory and open to all sorts of interpretations when taken together. To suggest that it is all part of one preordained scam ignores the way that Christian practice has changed over time.

Comment #59430

Posted by Julie on November 22, 2005 4:52 PM (e)

Incidentally, if you want to see a great howler of a typo in the Wedge Document, it contains an absolutely wonderful transposition of two letters. It has been propagated through many other websites that quote the document, so I went to the original website (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349) to make sure someone wasn’t just making a joke.

Christianity Toady

– Julie
(No quarrel in general with observant Christians or other religious folks, but for me, that typo sums up the DI nicely.)

Comment #59431

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

Fine, but if it’s about intent and mind reading then, as BWE noted, you can’t go around calling ID proponents liars either. You just have to say they’re wrong. What BWE did was worse than quote mining.

Wow. I’ll be writing sentences on the chalkboard for a long time. I’m sorry. I really am. I made up the quote from jesus. THe only reason I did it was because that’s the way they do it in the bible and my intent was to paraphrase. Wait. I didn’t quote. I was paraphrasing. My lie was in the apocryphal passage which I utterly made up. I chose 87 because I couldn’t imagine it would go up that high in one chapter. My interview with the antichrist is really pretty good. My feelings are hurt that no one said anything about it. I guess that’s what happens to liars. No one gives them the time of day. Maybe if I pray on my rosary 3000 times?

Comment #59439

Posted by Mark on November 22, 2005 5:45 PM (e)

Interesting discussion…. Someone linked to Dembski’s site, which I posted in for kicks… and had both my reasonable-but-unsycophantic posts deleted. [rolling eyes]

The discussion about democracy is fine and dandy, but the US isn’t a Democracy: it’s a Constitutionally-Limited Republic. Imagine three wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for dinner. A Democracy would have the wolves eating the sheep. A Constitutionally-Limited Republic would have a sheep touting an M5 telling the wolves that it’s unlawful to eat him/her for dinner and they should find something else.

Donald M, you keep neglecting to answer the questions people have posed regarding ID (that’s a banning offense on some forums I frequent). What testable predictions does ID make; how can ID be falsified; what is “specified complexity,” and how is it quantified; and what is the evidenciary support for ID (since it’s a “argument from evidence,” as you say)?

Best regards!

Comment #59449

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 6:31 PM (e)

I wouldn’t hold up any hopes for a real answer from Donald. He might come around claiming that “testing” and “falsification” are merely “materialistic dogmas”.

Comment #59450

Posted by stefan on November 22, 2005 6:37 PM (e)

Translation: “How dare anyone question the established paradigm

This is an interesting assumption - that an existing paradigm is, by itself, a bad thing. Why is that? We have many “existing paradigms” that aren’t perceived that way, such as “the universe is big”, “education is good”, or “self-reliance is important” - and many others I can’t articulate because they are, well, paradigms. Using the sense of the word popularized by Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, an “established paradigm” isn’t overturned by lone heroes battling the system, but by a drip-by-drip accumulation of data contrary to the current beliefs, until there’s an overwhelming need for an updated model. Usually the “old” model - along with the “old” data - isn’t thrown out anyway. Just because quantum physics is “new” doesn’t mean apples stop falling from trees and Newtonian mechanics ceases to be relevant. And acquiring new data doesn’t happen by political coup or lobbying or preaching - it happens by RESEARCH. With ID, however, there is no data, no research at ALL - much less an accumulation of it (even if you accept concepts such as “gaps” and “irreducible complexity”, those would have to be areas of RESEARCH - using them as political arguments is scientifically useless). And instead of lone researchers going against mainstream thought - as some ID’ers would have us imagine - there are instead organized religious fanatics engaging in court battles and manipulating educational curricula. To the extent they step down from the pulpit to actually get near a picture of a test tube, it’s only to misquote others’ work.

REAL science people are happy to have people question “the paradigm” AND DO RESEARCH. If there was research, it could be reviewed and evaluated. And if it somehow challenged “the paradigm”, then great. But simply posing rhetorical or tricky questions does not make for any kind of science.

Like many posters here I also do not understand WHY the ID people even WANT to have their opinions established this way, by decree and by stealth. OK so ID is forced onto people so … why? What’s accomplished? Why bother “establishing” ID as a science without data and research to back it up? All I can think is that the target is not evolution at all. Instead, I suspect, they want to capture “mind share” for religion. Which then implies that religion isn’t good enough to sway people on its own, so they work to use The State to push their dogma for them. This whole ID thing, to me, says less about evolutionary science and more about the insufficiency and vacuousness of their beliefs.

Comment #59451

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 6:42 PM (e)

Wow stefan. THat is it in a nutshell. A really good nutshell. Major props.

Comment #59460

Posted by tally-ho on November 22, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

bwe said:

If their game is as deceptively simple as the reactionary fear of the challenge science has presented to their dogma, why do the MSP give them the time of day? I mean, here they are, proclaiming that volcanoes don’t erupt and magnets point east and the Seattle times prints competing op ed pieces do debate the subject.

Stefan said:

Like many posters here I also do not understand WHY the ID people even WANT to have their opinions established this way, by decree and by stealth. OK so ID is forced onto people so … why? What’s accomplished? Why bother “establishing” ID as a science without data and research to back it up? All I can think is that the target is not evolution at all. Instead, I suspect, they want to capture “mind share” for religion. Which then implies that religion isn’t good enough to sway people on its own, so they work to use The State to push their dogma for them. This whole ID thing, to me, says less about evolutionary science and more about the insufficiency and vacuousness of their beliefs.

I had an interesting email discussion with an intelligent guy who wrote a piece about ID and how we should just give it a chance. I wrote to his email and surprise, he answered. after a few go rounds where he really never answered my questions, I sent this:

There is a lot of science to cover but the places to look begin with physical sciences (Geology, Oceanography, Physical Geography, etc.) to learn the mechanics of natural forces here on Earth. This is critically important for a few reasons: One, to understand how scientists date things; two, to understand how fossils are created and what physical conditions must be met for their formation; three, to understand how research into the physical properties of our world is conducted; four, to understand the processes that are at work on the world- notably Plate tectonics, the Coriolis effect, Erosion (wind, water, ice), sedimentation, the carbon cycle, glaciation and the earth’s polarity; and five, why there are gaps in the fossil record where there are gaps.

The second place we go is to the life sciences (Biology, marine biology, medicine, and the field of genetics. Here is where we learn the mechanisms life uses to occupy niches and utilize resources. This is the part where we learn that the flagellum is, in fact, reducible and the bubonic plague bacterium uses it in a reduced form to inject its toxins into cells. It is also where we learn that the eye is reducible and simple light detecting nodes provide a distinct advantage for certain organisms. It is where we learn that each and every irreducible complexity is actually reducible. It is also where we discover the thousands and thousands of “intermediary species” that show the gradual (sometimes quick) transitions between species.

So, if you are seriously open-minded, I can send you published, peer reviewed research to demonstrate these effects, organisms and mechanisms for any individual issue that might make ID look appealing. It is true that discoveries in many fields of science have discredited a number of Bible stories as being not “literal”. But you have to remember that they didn’t have what we call science. They had stories, handed down through Sumerian and Egyptian writing but mostly they relied on the oral tradition. The writers of the bible might have met some resistance if they had mentioned that the speed of light was a constant and that the Earth had undergone several distinct ages. No one would have believed them because they had no evidence. They had to communicate in the language and comprehension of the day. That language used the power of allegory as its mainstay. The power of allegory is still just as good today as it was.

Even though we have made refinements to our understanding of the physical world, we have not been able to make refinements to our understanding of our moral sense, the power of love, the mystery of consciousness or communion with God. I would posit that that is because the people who wrote the bibles could experience the Holy Spirit and that Jesus preached to absolve us of the sins of arrogance and pride. How can you doubt those things when you can experience them? When you commune with God, there are unshakable truths that you can experience and those truths are expressed in the New Testament.

Anyway, religion aside, the science is solid and I would be happy to help you discover it if you want.

And got this:

Thank you so much for your irenic, informative explanation. I probably think that more of the Bible is “literal” than you do, but you might be surprised at how much I believe to be non-literal, or at least, questionable as to its literalness. Yet, like you (apparently), I believe it is all ‘God-breathed,’ in the original Greek ‘theopneustos,’ with a divine purpose for every section. (For example, I believe the main purpose of Gen. 1-11 is polemical.)

If all the ID theorists’ examples have been shown to be fallacious, why don’t they acknowledge that? Aren’t they honest?

Let’ suppose for the sake of argument, that it’s true that all the ID theorists’ examples have been refuted. Isn’t there still an awfully lot of natural phenomena with the appearance of intelligent design?

Maybe this sheds a little light on their thinking and why logic doesn’t get through.
BWE, I met that guy. I wish I would have known he was the antichrist.

Comment #59462

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 7:06 PM (e)

They clearly have a liberal agenda and thus selectively present only what suits their cause.

Oh, quit BSing us, Donald.

Anyone who doubts that ID has a theocratic agenda can (1) read the Wedge Document, and (2) do some research itno who funds DI and why.

Or, Donald, do you think that Howard Ahmanson has a “liberal agenda”, too?

Comment #59463

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 7:08 PM (e)

It was your contention, not mine, that somehow creation = incomptence.

Yes, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent.

Comment #59464

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 7:10 PM (e)

I also lean towards the belief that the religious right wishes to establish a kind of theocracy in the US. Now it might not be full fledge Iran/Saudi Arabia style Theocratic Dictatorship

Yes, it is. The Christian Reconstructionists are already on record as declaring that only Christians should have the right to vote, and Pat Robertson is on record as saying that only Christians should have the right to run for public office.

“Christian”, of course, as defined by THEM.

Comment #59465

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 22, 2005 7:12 PM (e)

Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)

Yes, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent.

Not necessarily…
They might be a very competent deliverer of pizza;)

Comment #59470

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 7:57 PM (e)

Yes, it is. The Christian Reconstructionists are already on record as declaring that only Christians should have the right to vote, and Pat Robertson is on record as saying that only Christians should have the right to run for public office.

I’m aware of this but I don’t think that these are goals that these people/groups are actually attempting to attain. I don’t know if the majority of the rank-and-file right-wing Christains would support a position this extreme - I think it’s really only a wishful hope of the upper level leadership. I could be wrong, I just think that a position as extreme as disenfranchising any non-fundementalist wouldn’t be popular enough, even amongst most fundies to get anywhere politically. That’s why they go for the somewhat more tenable goal of trying to create a special, and advantageous legal position for Fundementalist Christainity.
Mainly to make it so that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Fundementalism and only to other religions and also trying to get Atheism and Secularism classified as religious beliefs and thus tossed out of the public square so schools are All-Christainity All-The-Time and we go back to the days where Bibles are used as textbooks.

Comment #59471

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on November 22, 2005 7:58 PM (e)

I’ve put up with being called a pizza deliverry “kid” for more years than some of you (like BlastFromThePast, I suspect) have been around.

I’ve put up with Lenny’s cheapskate “tips.”

I’ve put up with being trotted out every time Lenny wants to make the point that no one’s religious opinions are entitled to any more respect than anyone else’s.

So long as it helps:
–unmask the IDiot charlatans
–injects a little humor into a sometimes contentious wrangle
–and sells a few of the boss’s excellent pizza pies,
I’ll put up with quite a lot.

But up with this I will not put:

anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent.

Not necessarily…
They might be a very competent deliverer of pizza;)

Yeah, yeah. I see the little “;)” indicating the humorous intent. But some things just aren’t ALL THAT DARN funny!

Please remember, we have plenty of high school (and younger) students–some trying desperately to escape the constraints of home-schooling or the fetters of religious brainwashing–who come to this blog for a breath of fresh air, a whiff of reality. Young people who may need a wholesome afterschool job in the food service industry. Young people who are now being told that any incompetent creationist idjit can deliver pizza.

Well, take it from Lenny’s Pizza Guy: IT JUST AIN’T SO. Pizza delivery requires competent, hardworking, intelligent, and socially-adept workers who can cope with the brutal realities of driving the roads in a legal manner under severe time pressure, looking for obscure and ill-lit addresses, making change, discussing a staggeringly complex variety of toppings in a multitude of languages and dialects. So for all you potential pizza delivery kids out there: we do indeed need competent performance that far exceeds that required to be a mere reality-shunning brain-dead creationist!

Don’t let anyone tell you different. rAmen!

(And, Stephen Elliott, that’s two nights in a row that you’ve missed out on a perfectly good pizza. Why do you do this to yourself?)

Comment #59472

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 8:04 PM (e)

Non-Christains could still vote of course, but the Fundies would have free reign to try to convert you anywhere at any time. The Fundies would like to make it so that resisting conversion was an infringement on religious rights. That’s what I really get the feeling of when I read right-wing blogs, the Fundies seem most upset that Jesus isn’t smiling down from every billboard and that every movie and television show is chock full of positive Christain references and God-Talk.

Comment #59474

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 8:28 PM (e)

I’m aware of this but I don’t think that these are goals that these people/groups are actually attempting to attain.

I take them at their word, and when they say what they want. I think that is EXACTLY what they want, and what they are trying to attain.

Comment #59475

Posted by tally-ho on November 22, 2005 8:30 PM (e)

It isn’t so much that you couldn’t vote or run for office or whatever, it’s that you couldn’t tell them anything new. Their hard disk is full. Did you read that guy’s response in my last post? He has a phD in philosophy. He runs a mennonite school and he has really good intentions. He just can’t challenge his paradigms.

On another note: You guys post good blogs.
Rev Dr Lenny-great info, good quotes,a bit dry but all the rightous indignation you could want and I found myself shaking my head over and over. Ditch the gray background.

Philip Bruce Heywood-Creation theory. Hmmm. need more expletives.

BWE- Funny yet tending toward juvenile. Definitely liked the one about the woman who converted just before skydiving.

Ron Zeno- Very intellectually stimulating. Interesting subject matter, well linked. Surprisingly unweird for someone who posts here.

PZ Myers- Very good graphics. Is that a pharangula? Good opinion.

I wish lenny the pizza guy would do one from point of veiw of the pizza guy.

BWE mentioned that the sensitive artists needed validation so there you are.

Comment #59478

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 22, 2005 8:32 PM (e)

Posted by Lenny’s Pizza Guy on November 22, 2005 07:58 PM

I’ve put up with being called a pizza deliverry “kid” for more years than some of you (like BlastFromThePast, I suspect) have been around.

I’ve put up with Lenny’s cheapskate “tips.”

I’ve put up with being trotted out every time Lenny wants to make the point that no one’s religious opinions are entitled to any more respect than anyone else’s.

So long as it helps:
—unmask the IDiot charlatans
—injects a little humor into a sometimes contentious wrangle
—and sells a few of the boss’s excellent pizza pies,
I’ll put up with quite a lot.

But up with this I will not put:

anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent.

Not necessarily…
They might be a very competent deliverer of pizza;)

Yeah, yeah. I see the little “;)” indicating the humorous intent. But some things just aren’t ALL THAT DARN funny!…

Oh mister deliverer of all things noodly and spaghetti like.
You are too quick to damn.
I was only preaching the non-literal (but inerrant) way to look at things.
If you can’t understand Latin, then you may know of or about Italian; but you wont know Italian… therefore Pizza Orders may be Incorrectly translated.

Now I know everything. I am infallible. But I did not write the Bible..No seriously, it was not me that wrote it..

Now if a natural God sent dissaster hit Dover…

Comment #59487

Posted by BWE on November 22, 2005 10:14 PM (e)

thanks tally-ho. It’s hard to get that juvenile bit in there. I put in extra hours to make it juvenile. I appreciate that you liked one of my posts but I would appreciate it if you could tell the truth and say it was Very juvenile. What kind of a name is tally ho?

This post is devolving and I fear I may carry some of the blame. Entropy. Intelligent entropy.

Comment #59489

Posted by Norman Doering on November 22, 2005 10:28 PM (e)

PaulC wrote:

To suggest that it is all part of one preordained scam ignores the way that Christian practice has changed over time.

Did I say bait and switch scams were irreducibly complex? Do you think bait and switch scams are irreducibly complex?

Just because it’s a bait and switch scam doesn’t mean it was preordained or conscious. Bait and switch scams have fewer functional parts than an eye or mousetrap.

Religions, like parasites, evolve.

Comment #59499

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 11:45 PM (e)

Still no reply from Donald?! I Came back here to find out. I still don’t fully understand what Specified Complexity means.

Comment #59502

Posted by Mark on November 23, 2005 12:44 AM (e)

I’m not holding my breath either, CBBB. I admit to just wanting to pidgeon-hole him, but I do also have a desire to know the answers to the questions I listed earlier today.

People ask why “they” push ID despite the overwhelming opposition…. They want what all people with power want: more power. ID is means to organize, to control, to obtain and retain power (and therefore wealth), and to feed one’s ego. That’s all organized religion has ever been, aside from a superficial attempt to explain the unexplainable. But those superficial explanations regarding the meanings of life and death are what makes religion so infectious, IMO.

Best regards!

Comment #59524

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 8:07 AM (e)

We may take it then that the “science” contributors to this page are quite pleased to push onto a thinking public an idea based on dogs giving birth to cats, ape-like creatures in our ancestory yet not being born as offspring - thus negating systematic Biology - species struggling slowly into existence through incremental change - which if true destroys both Biology and Geology - all the while refusing to acknowledge any evolutionary theory except Darwinism - thus negating History - and refusing even to update Darwinism - thus making Darwin a perpetual laughing-stock.
Owen, of course, never existed (although he was a far greater systematic anatomist than Darwin or perhaps any Darwinist) and his idea which even Professor Dawkins might possibly accept - namely, pre-programming, which through information technology built into nature actually begins to tell us something about species actuation - must at all costs be buried forever.
The only reasonable conclusion to draw from pages such as the one above, appears to be that a proportion of 21st Century academics have departed from orthodoxy, abandoned the scientific method, hide behind a “snow” cloud created by religious nuts - whom they actively cultivate - and are dead scared of certain findings of science, especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature. They refuse point blank to consider any theory but the one in which they have been indoctrinated, and insist that the Public join them in obscurantist HarryPotterisms rather than cold hard fact. Yes, the species were evolved (sequentially revealed) just as modern technology suggests - through information technology processes. Information input probably can “trip” the species “lock”.
Each species receives discreet new (pre-existent) information, re-programming its DNA. It would be easy to be over-simplistic, and misleading, hence the invitation to view my internet publication which investigates these concepts. One can even teach the topic without overtly mentioning the Bible - so no-one need concern themselves about nauseating input such as we see illustrated above. Most of the above is what will be AVOIDABLE. Science was always like that - it can be divided from religious controversy.
Care to add anything, PageProvider? Or is Science outside the interests of this publication?

Comment #59537

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 9:17 AM (e)

and refusing even to update Darwinism

What an absurd charge. Evolution today is much different than the the theory was in the days of Darwin. Think about the inclusion of genetics in evolutionary biology for instance.

especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature

What is it with crackpots and the constant invoking of quantum mechanics and information theory? It’s like the be-all-end-all for crackpots.
And what’s with this whole “information technology” and “pre-programming” of Biology - please no more grand designs based on extended analogies between DNA and “code”.

Comment #59541

Posted by Julie on November 23, 2005 10:09 AM (e)

Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply “I know it when I see it.” Otherwise, he can’t tell you what ID is.

I wonder what his response would be if one of his graduate students used that same line of (non)reasoning in a dissertation proposal. (Hmmmm, there’s a thought. Maybe I could suggest Behe as a peer reviewer for my next grant proposal. Y’know, just slip the word “intelligent” in there somewhere so he’ll look at it favorably, and then I wouldn’t have to worry about any of those inconvenient critiques of my experimental design. No requests for more detail about my proposed methods, no disagreements over whether the goals are achievable in the stated time frame, no need for me to spend so much time reviewing prior literature and consulting statistics texts …)

If I had to sum up the scientific process in one sentence, it would be the question, “How will you know it when you see it?” If you can’t or won’t ask that question, you’re not doing scientific research; the best you can do is relate anecdotes.

Comment #59544

Posted by steve on November 23, 2005 10:43 AM (e)

Hey Phil, can you find me any legitimate, recognized Information Theory scientists who say Dembski’s ideas are worth anything?

Because I can find you a few who say they aren’t.

Comment #59545

Posted by Wislu Plethora on November 23, 2005 10:45 AM (e)

CBBB wrote:

What is it with crackpots and the constant invoking of quantum mechanics and information theory?

While the public at large is mostly ignorant with regard to science, quantum physics and information theory are two areas where the ignorance is deepest. This means that for cranks like Dembski and Heywood, they make for the perfect pseudoscientific specious pronouncements. They use big words and talk about things that sure sound like they make sense…

Comment #59551

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 23, 2005 11:07 AM (e)

Posted by Julie on November 23, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s)

Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply “I know it when I see it.” Otherwise, he can’t tell you what ID is….

If I had to sum up the scientific process in one sentence, it would be the question, “How will you know it when you see it?” If you can’t or won’t ask that question, you’re not doing scientific research; the best you can do is relate anecdotes.

Who on Earth would do such a silly thing?
Do I take it you some people in mind?

Comment #59552

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 11:11 AM (e)

I just read this http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf

By Jeffrey Shallit who is a REAL mathematician, and Wessley Elsberry. I STILL don’t understand what Specification means in Dembskian terms but the article is a pretty damning criticism of Dembski’s whole ideology - the parts that didn’t deal with Specification any way. I don’t really understand what Specification means so I don’t understand the criticisms of it either.

I’d like it if these IDiots stopped coming around here and throwing up vague references to Quantum physics and information theory and complexity and chaos theory or whatever else they harp about now - as if these words are some sort of great evidence against evolution.

Comment #59559

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 11:55 AM (e)

Does Specified just mean an object looks like something else? Is that it? So a Flagellum looks like a motor so it is specified?

Comment #59576

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on November 23, 2005 1:45 PM (e)

CBBB:

I just read this http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/e…

By Jeffrey Shallit who is a REAL mathematician, and Wessley Elsberry. I STILL don’t understand what Specification means in Dembskian terms but the article is a pretty damning criticism of Dembski’s whole ideology - the parts that didn’t deal with Specification any way. I don’t really understand what Specification means so I don’t understand the criticisms of it either.

I’d like it if these IDiots stopped coming around here and throwing up vague references to Quantum physics and information theory and complexity and chaos theory or whatever else they harp about now - as if these words are some sort of great evidence against evolution.

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist) and Elsberry did not successfully refute Dembski in my opinion.

See:
Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003

TSPGRID miscount of bits

And by the way Jeff the real mathematician was teacher and mentor to another real mathematician, Bill Dembski. We in the ID world salute Jeff for training and teaching one ID’s leading lights.

Salvador Cordova

Comment #59579

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 1:51 PM (e)

Dembski isn’t a real mathematician. Having a Phd in Math doesn’t make you a mathematician any more than having a degree in Law makes you a lawyer. Dembski doesn’t actually do any real math - where’s his list of peer reviewed mathematical research? All he does is ID related stuff which is bogus.

Comment #59580

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 1:58 PM (e)

In fact, there is great benefit from this work by Elsberry and Shallit as some of the objections in the paper, when properly addressed, will clarify definitions in common use within the research community of Intelligent Design, and help design theorist to better formulate their hypotheses.

Alright you start off your review of Shallit’s paper by essentially brushing aside his criticism as merely helpful suggestions that can be incorporated into ID to make it stronger. The fact remains that this paper is 2 years old and I haven’t seen Dembski recast his position in light of Shallit’s paper or retract any of the claims that were challenged.

I see no evidence of Dembski taking these major flaws in his reasoning into account.

Comment #59581

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 2:01 PM (e)

Also what attempts have been made to test and falsify CSI in the real world? Is there anything more to CSI than poorly done mathematical masturbation?

Comment #59582

Posted by Ginger Yellow on November 23, 2005 2:06 PM (e)

quote aureola nominee=”My personal take is that these people envision a perfect world as a world where everybody thinks alike, give or take small, ininfluent minutiae, like food preference or whether they like R&B more than classical music and so on.”>

The Bible’s pretty clear on food preferences too.

Philip, there’s only one laughing stock around here, and it’s not Darwin. Besides your near incomprehensible syntax (try using shorter sentences), you creationists really need to get your stories straight. Half the time you say “you cheating evilutionists keep changing your theory” and half the time it’s “you refuse to update Darwinism”. It can’t be both. In case you’re wondering, it’s option a). All scientific theories change.

Comment #59583

Posted by Norman Doering on November 23, 2005 2:09 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

We may take it then that the “science” contributors to this page are quite pleased to push onto a thinking public an idea based on dogs giving birth to cats,…

No. Dogs giving birth to cats is impossible without some serious genetic engineering.

Dogs giving birth to cats would be an ID miracle.

…ape-like creatures in our ancestory yet not being born as offspring - thus negating systematic Biology - species struggling slowly into existence through incremental change - which if true destroys both Biology and Geology …

The way you’re being lied to by the ID crowd, Philip, is a crime. Now you want to spread your disease of delusion and ignorance to others and make the whole world as blind and ignorant as you.

Your whole view of science is based on a lie that will forever cripple your ability to understand the world around you. You have been blinded and rendered ignorant and now live in a fantasy world that is so far from ours we can barely communicate across the gulf.

… and refusing even to update Darwinism

Darwin has been seriously updated. Darwin knew very little about how the actual process of evolution worked. Darwin knew nothing of how DNA actually worked, he didn’t know about Lynn Margulis and the endosymbiotic theory. We are not stuck on Darwin, it’s just a foundational theory.

… especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature.

I doubt if you know what you’re talking about.

Do you know who David Deutsch is?

Each species receives discreet new (pre-existent) information, re-programming its DNA.

Really? How do you know that?
I think you’re being lied to.

Comment #59586

Posted by RBH on November 23, 2005 2:24 PM (e)

CBBB wrote

I see no evidence of Dembski taking these major flaws in his reasoning into account.

That’s Dembski’s standard response: No response. He has a book called The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design in which he tosses himself a series of softballs and flails away at them. Unfortunately, he never gets around to the real “toughest questions” raised by people like Shallit & Elsberry, Mark Perakh, and David Wolpert.

RBH

Comment #59590

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 2:40 PM (e)

I do not see any refutation of the Shallit/Elsberry paper in your spiel Sal. Their paper still stands as a damning criticism of ID.

I don’t see where your spiel addresses:

- The fact that Dembski is inconsistent at assigning “complexity”(improbability) to an event. If the cause of the event is unknown he assumes that the probabiliy distribution is uniform and shows that there is a low probablity for the event thus labelling it as “complex” - Dembski does not take into account non-uniform probability distributions and he does not compare the probability of generation by random event to probability of generation through an intelligence. If an event is deemed “unlikely” by the uniform distribution approach he attributes the event to “design”. If the event has a known natural cause but would be determined improbable by his uniform distribution detection method than he switches to a different method which takes into account the history of the event in order that his idea of “complexity” not look foolish. Dembski wishes to apply his concept of Complexity to cases where the history of an event is unknown.

- Dembski demands an insanely unreasonable level of proof. Design is essentially assumed true by default and an unreasonable burden of proof is placed on critics. Note the implications listed by Shallit.

- Can Dembski’s system actually seperate things that are actually “designed” from those which really look designed but are not? I doubt it. SCI seems to be based almost entirely on opinion and perception rather than objective evidence.

Also your quote showing that Dembski was taught by Shallit is rather lame and hardly justification to call Shallit Dembski’s “Mentor”. So he was in Shallit’s class at Chicago - big deal, so if I take Shallit’s CS 360 class at Waterloo is he now my mentor too?

You continually claim that the Shallit/Elsberry paper will help move ID forward but where has Dembski attempted to add author’s suggestions to ID? Has Dembski retracted any of his flawed arguments?

Comment #59593

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 2:49 PM (e)

I Can’t STAND reading ID spiels like yours Sal - always so chock full of jargon. The Shallit/Elsberry piece was fairly easy to follow for me (except in certain sections)but when the IDers go on about Specifications and what not, it just seems like a lot of rambling and hand waving to me. I still do not really understand what “Specified” means with respect to ID. My guess is that it means “if X looks like Y than X is a type of Y” but I haven’t been able to come across a clear definition.

Comment #59600

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 3:02 PM (e)

Sal hasn’t responding yet? Do you just post something and then vanish without response? You should stay a while to defend your own assertions.

Comment #59611

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 4:08 PM (e)

Sal hasn’t responding yet

And I should learn to start previewing my posts.

Comment #59616

Posted by shenda on November 23, 2005 4:28 PM (e)

CBBB:
“…I still don’t fully understand what Specified Complexity means.”

Specified complexity is the scientific proof that God created life, the universe and everything. That’s your answer and that is all you need to know. Now shut up, stop questioning, and convert! (or move to Kansas)

Comment #59619

Posted by AC on November 23, 2005 5:23 PM (e)

CBBB wrote:

The Fundies would like to make it so that resisting conversion was an infringement on religious rights. That’s what I really get the feeling of when I read right-wing blogs, the Fundies seem most upset that Jesus isn’t smiling down from every billboard and that every movie and television show is chock full of positive Christain references and God-Talk.

That’s the trick with individual rights in a free society: The rights of a proselytizing religion end on my doorstep when I say “No-thank-you.” But some people do not respect this tenet of our society. They are aware of it - as an obstacle to their religion’s goals.

The sad thing is that the less pernicious among them, heads full of that image of Jesus smiling down on the world, simply do not understand why anyone would not welcome that image. They do not understand why a person would prefer life lived on his own terms to submission to a god-image, however benevolent. Failing to comprehend self-determination, they confuse it with arrogance, and condemn it as “the sin of pride”.

Comment #59628

Posted by shenda on November 23, 2005 6:13 PM (e)

“The sad thing is that the less pernicious among them, heads full of that image of Jesus smiling down on the world, simply do not understand why anyone would not welcome that image. They do not understand why a person would prefer life lived on his own terms to submission to a god-image, however benevolent.”

When I was growing up, I absolutely could not comprehend how anyone could be an atheist (atheist = non Christian). The word was meaningless to me. After all God was real and the absolute reason for existence. This was so obvious that I *knew* everybody else *had* to know it. Therefore if somebody was an atheist, they had to be stupid, deluded and evil. There was no middle ground.

I also knew as a fact that America was God’s favorite country and that to be patriotic, was to be Christian. To be unpatriotic was to be unchristian, deluded and evil. This was an absolute FACT!

It was not until my early 20’s, with a great deal of exposure to other people and ideas, that I eventually “got better”.

It is this kind of exposure to other ideas that many Christians want to eliminate. They want to be able to isolate themselves within the flock so as not to risk exposure to the infection of external ideas. IMO this is the reason they want to ruin science education in the US; to them science really is a competing ideology.

Comment #59639

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 6:47 PM (e)

Hello Mr. Doering. CarefulL there, you’re starting to think. For a moment, you almost applied analytical reasoning. I am almost in a mood to congratulate you.
Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter “miracle”. Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened. We are of course painting with a broad brush. Now discern how the genetic engineering happened - it did, it wasn’t H.Potter - and you will do a service to the world. “Science is honour-bound to investigate every question fairly put to it” (W. Thompson, not an exact quote). Some modern scientists are of the opinion that they are honour-bound to put their heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars. They have a following here on this page. But whilst there is free speech, there is hope.

For the record, (speaking to contributors in general); I don’t know what people are talking about when they serve up the names of various players in the modern I.D. field; I have no specific connections to I.D as a movement; if you wish to communicate with myself and the Public, talk fact or discuss realistic policy. Yours etc, P.H..

Comment #59641

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 23, 2005 6:57 PM (e)

PBH: if you wish to communicate with anyone else, even those of us with our heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars, you first need to learn to express yourself in English.

Thanks ever so.

Comment #59644

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 23, 2005 7:09 PM (e)

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)

Hello Mr. Doering. CarefulL there, you’re starting to think. For a moment, you almost applied analytical reasoning. I am almost in a mood to congratulate you.
Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter “miracle”. Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened. We are of course painting with a broad brush. Now discern how the genetic engineering happened - it did, it wasn’t H.Potter - and you will do a service to the world. “Science is honour-bound to investigate every question fairly put to it” (W. Thompson, not an exact quote). Some modern scientists are of the opinion that they are honour-bound to put their heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars. They have a following here on this page. But whilst there is free speech, there is hope.

For the record, (speaking to contributors in general); I don’t know what people are talking about when they serve up the names of various players in the modern I.D. field; I have no specific connections to I.D as a movement; if you wish to communicate with myself and the Public, talk fact or discuss realistic policy. Yours etc, P.H..

Are you deliberately making your posts difficult to understand?

If so, then why?

Comment #59646

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 23, 2005 7:15 PM (e)

It is this kind of exposure to other ideas that many Christians want to eliminate. They want to be able to isolate themselves within the flock so as not to risk exposure to the infection of external ideas. IMO this is the reason they want to ruin science education in the US; to them science really is a competing ideology.

And I think that David Heddle is their idea of what all intellectuals should be like, the kind of people colleges should turn out.

Comment #59648

Posted by ben on November 23, 2005 7:22 PM (e)

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter “miracle”. Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened. We are of course painting with a broad brush. Now discern how the genetic engineering happened - it did, it wasn’t H.Potter - and you will do a service to the world. “Science is honour-bound to investigate every question fairly put to it” (W. Thompson, not an exact quote). Some modern scientists are of the opinion that they are honour-bound to put their heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars. They have a following here on this page. But whilst there is free speech, there is hope.

Is there a point here?

Can you afford to hire an editor/proofreader?

Comment #59650

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 7:29 PM (e)

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist) and Elsberry did not successfully refute Dembski in my opinion.

And we should care about your uninformed opinion because … ?

But hey, Sal, it’s good to see you back. The last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I’ve asked of you. So I’ll ask again. And again and again and again and again, every time you show up here, until you either answer or run away. I want every lurker who comes in here to see that you are nothing but an evasive dishonest coward.

(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?

I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly
inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely
irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing—-
the one you want taught in public school science classes, the one
that creationists and intelligent design “theorists” testified under
oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is
NOT based on religious doctrine. Let’s assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely
completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead
wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your
scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology
does. Let’s see this superior “science” of yours.

Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide
answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the
current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used
in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.

Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able
to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did
the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the
Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can
we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective
criteria can we use to determine what entities are “intelligently
designed” and what entities aren’t (please illustrate this by
pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think
is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).

If your, uh, “scientific theory” isn’t able to answer any of these
questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to
scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we
perform, in principle, to answer these questions.

Also, since one of the criteria of “science” is falsifiability, I’d
like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can
be falsified. What experimental results or observations would
conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.

Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does
not establish “B” simply by demonstrating that “A” did not happen. I
want you to demonstrate “B” directly. So don’t give me any “there
are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is worng
so creation must be right” baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want
a big long laundry list of “why evolution is wrong”. I don’t care
why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and
how it explains data better than evolution does.

I’d also like to know two specific things about this “alternative
scientific theory”: How old does “intelligent design/creationism theory”
determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or
thousands of years old. And does ‘intelligent design/creationism theory’
determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or
does it determine that they have not.

I look forward to seeing your “scientific theories”. Unless of course you don’t HAVE any and are just lying to us when you claim to.

(2) According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

(3)

What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or “divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, “materialistic” and “naturalistic” —- we don’t want any judges to think ID’s railing against “materialism” has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?

I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say “materialistic” and “naturalistic” — we don’t want any judges to know that it is “atheism” we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?

(4) The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be’s are the members of the “Reconstructionist” movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris’s book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony’s view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. “There can be no separation of Church and State,” Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) “Christians,” a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, “are called upon by God to exercise dominion.” (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible—they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the “Godly” have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: “The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God’s People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ’s feet, the end shall come.” (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) “Christian Reconstructionism,” another pamphlet says, “is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God … Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint.” (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the “enemies” which must be “put under Christ’s feet” if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the “Christian” equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris’s first book, “The Genesis Flood”, and Morris’s son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR’s Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR’s “curriculum director” until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents “A Manifesto for the Christian Church” (COR, July 1986), and the “Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview” (COR,1989), which declares, “We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man.” (“Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for “intelligent design theory”, is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson’s gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting “intelligent design theory” (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security “reform”, and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation – a major Reconstructionist think-tank – for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris’s first book, “The Genesis Flood”, intelligent design “theorist” Phillip Johnson dedicated his book “Defeating Darwinism” to “Howard and Roberta” – Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, “My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives.”

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, “Christian” political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent “recall” effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson’s donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation “Fieldstead” is Ahmanson’s middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI’s shining stars.

Ahmanson’s gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting “intelligent design theory”. By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group – only a museum trust in his wife’s hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it’s no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson’s teats, I’d still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

Oh, and your latest round of blithering about “anti-God” and “anti-religion” prompts yet another question, Sal (whcih, of course, you also will not answer).

(5) Sal, you must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now
trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS
PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that
creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine,
then your ID crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So
you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID
is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are
UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public,
that your heroes are just lying under oath when they claim that
creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here
yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so
desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are
you really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

Comment #59651

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 7:31 PM (e)

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist)

After Dover, Sal, it WILL be.

BTW, Sal, whaddya think about all those IDers in Dover getting kicked out on their holy little asses?

Comment #59652

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 7:33 PM (e)

Are you deliberately making your posts difficult to understand?

If so, then why?

Because, if you can’t dazzle them with knowledge, then baffle them with BS. (shrug)

Comment #59653

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 7:35 PM (e)

I have no specific connections to I.D as a movement

Dude, you are a nobody of a nothing. (shrug)

Why on earth do you think anyone CARES what you do or don’t have “connections” with?

Comment #59656

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 23, 2005 7:43 PM (e)

This one I particularly liked.

Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 07:31 PM (e) (s)

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist

After Dover, Sal, it WILL be.

Damn funny!

Comment #59658

Posted by Norman Doering on November 23, 2005 7:50 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter “miracle”. Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened.

But it didn’t happen. The fossil record indicates that something else happened.

We are of course painting with a broad brush.

The problem is, god and the devil are in the details your broad brush covers up.

Now discern how the genetic engineering happened -

Through gradual accumulated mutations and survival of the fittest says the fossil record.

For the record, (speaking to contributors in general); I don’t know what people are talking about…

That is called ignorance. I’m glad you’ve admitted to it.

Comment #59660

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter “miracle”. Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened.

Where did you get the idea that this was the position of Neo-Darwinian evolution?

Also it is apparent that Sal is a very dishonourable person as he has yet to come back and defend his initial posting. I still do not see how Dembski has not been refuted. Neither Dembski nor Sal have addressed the concerns and criticisms raised by Shallit and Elsberry to any significant degree. The article Sal linked to did not, for instance, address the concern that Dembski used faulty reasoning when trying to determine “complexity”. And why does Dembski used the term “Complexity” instead of the accurate term “improbability” which is what he actually means by “Complexity”. Is Dembski deliberatly trying to make his work more confusing and technically impressive looking than it should be?

Comment #59666

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 23, 2005 8:32 PM (e)

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 08:08 PM (e) (s)

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter “miracle”. Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened.

Where did you get the idea that this was the position of Neo-Darwinian evolution?

Also it is apparent that Sal is a very dishonourable person as he has yet to come back and defend his initial posting. I still do not see how Dembski has not been refuted. Neither Dembski nor Sal have addressed the concerns and criticisms raised by Shallit and Elsberry to any significant degree. The article Sal linked to did not, for instance, address the concern that Dembski used faulty reasoning when trying to determine “complexity”. And why does Dembski used the term “Complexity” instead of the accurate term “improbability” which is what he actually means by “Complexity”. Is Dembski deliberatly trying to make his work more confusing and technically impressive looking than it should be?

And so the game goes on…
ID supporter makes outrageous claim, gets disputed, gives an irrelevant answer, claims rebuttal is dealt with.

The chances of getting a honest answer from an ID supporter are virtually nil and probably plummet into the negative if you ask a difficult question.

Comment #59667

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 23, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

Just because Sal ran away from you here, CBBB, doesn’t mean he’s actually gone anywhere (our more boringly-persistent trolls always remind me of that old country-radio line: “How can I miss you if you won’t go away?”)…

After posting this here at 1:45 pm today:

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist) and Elsberry did not successfully refute Dembski in my opinion.

See:
Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003

TSPGRID miscount of bits

And by the way Jeff the real mathematician was teacher and mentor to another real mathematician, Bill Dembski. We in the ID world salute Jeff for training and teaching one ID’s leading lights.

Salvador Cordova

Sal then ran over to the Intelligent Myths thread, where at 7:07 pm, he posted this:

Not at all, it distorts and mischaractersizes, and even fails by equivocating the concept of bits in TSPGRID.

That critique with it’s mathematical theatrics would be persuasive to gullible PandaThumbites (of which there are many here at PT), but not to serious students of those topics such as found in the electrical engineering and camputer science disciplines….

A basic outline of the flaws in that critique is here:
Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003

and I point out some of the miscalculation through equivocation that the critique flaunts as a refutation at:

TSPGRID Miscounts

I look forward to the opportunity for Dembski’s work and Shallit/Elsberry to be compared by knowledgeble students in math, computer science, and electrical engineering, even physics…..

I’m not even insisting in my comments that Dembski is right (though I believe he is), I only merely had to point out that his work was not appropriately characterized by the Elsberry and Shallit critique, and the supposed counter example of TSGRID was fatally flawed.

Salvador

Sal’s blah-blah #1 sounds a whole lot like his blah-blah #2, doesn’t it? In short, Sal isn’t going to actually stick around and interactively debate these points with evidence. Nah, he’d rather flit from thread to thread, making it sound like he’s making points, without really advancing the plot.

If it wasn’t so pitiful, Sal’s cut-and-run routine could actually be pretty funny. Anyone remember the night that Lenny and his pizza guy were chasing each other from thread to thread? Now I see that that was just a parody of Sal’s real-life persona.

Comment #59671

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 8:43 PM (e)

Sal then ran over to the Intelligent Myths thread, where at 7:07 pm, he posted this

Challenge them in one spot they pop up somewhere else.

This is like a giant game of Whack-a-Mole.

Comment #59674

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on November 23, 2005 8:50 PM (e)

Whack-a-Troll!!

I love it!

Comment #59680

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 9:05 PM (e)

I almost think people like this should be banned. It’s extremely irritating when someone constantly makes the same assertion and fails to stick around to back it up every time. He won’t even address BASIC questions. His article seems like BS to me, I admit I have no background in information theory but it seems like a very muddled and unclear article based heavily on quotes from Dembski.

Comment #59684

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 9:17 PM (e)

Sal actually responded on the other thread.

Comment #59699

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 10:41 PM (e)

Hey. If Sal - bless him, whoever he is - isn’t answering, it could be because he’s a wise man. “The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.” “Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted a wise man.”

The idea that species were transformed through gradual change under environmental pressure,is worthy of consideration. Now explain exactly what happens, especially in relation to DNA, immune system, birth and rearing of new species, and attainment of more complex information. The pageprovider can’t tell us; let’s hear it from the minders. Or have we suddenly decided to become wise men?

Comment #59701

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 10:51 PM (e)

Yeah I’m sure it’s because Sal is very wise indeed.

Comment #59702

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 10:56 PM (e)

The fact is that Sal didn’t “hold his peace” he made a comment and then ran away.
Also are you implying once again that dogs give birth to cats? That through evolution one generation is radically different from another generation? This seems like quite the straw-man.

Comment #59718

Posted by Jeffrey Worthington on November 24, 2005 2:00 AM (e)

I have to wonder what the fundies plan to replace “Secular Humanism” with in schools? I can only conclude that any point of view that is non-sectarian would have to be replaced by fundy dogma. I have to conclude that anything that ‘contradicts’ the bible would be replaced. I can just imagine history text books being replaced by the bible (I love history and find this possibility repugnant.) or by history text books that concur with there point of view. Lets replace are lit classes with bible friendly view points while we are at it. Lets stop the reactionary fundies on the subject of intelligent design to prevent this tide of religiosity from infecting are classrooms. Subjects such as biology, history, or even literature are not religions or dogmas, they hopefully open the minds of young people to a wider world of ideas. (Speaking of ideas, I think that Pepperoni and sausage pizza would be great right now.)

Comment #59730

Posted by Norman Doering on November 24, 2005 3:29 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

The idea that species were transformed through gradual change under environmental pressure, is worthy of consideration.

Then consider it, learn about it. I can tell by your questions you haven’t considered it. For one thing, there’s more than environmental pressure – there’s competition between species and within species.

Now explain exactly what happens, especially in relation to DNA,

DNA mutates. It mutates at a known rate.
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML

…immune system

It evolves.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-345Spring-2005/CourseHome/

You say you don’t know the major ID proponents, but you’re spouting their BS:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html

…birth and rearing of new species,

It happens, gradually.

… and attainment of more complex information.

It happens, gradually.

Comment #59732

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 24, 2005 3:32 AM (e)

Hello, CBBB, I take your question a couple back to perhaps have a note of genuine enquiry in it. Speciies are reproductively separate from each other, Sure, there are qualifications to that, but as a rational person, you don’t wish to be identified as someone who insists that, say, dogs give birth to cats. Further, if you were to say that a genetically transmissible feature that was present in your ancestors, will not appear at some time in your descendants, you would need a rather good story to convince a geneticist. No matter how many generations; something that’s in the blood-line, stays in the blood line. Again, there are probably riders, but the principle holds true.
Every amateur knows these things to be factual.
Since you are a rational person you will immediately see that any coherent theory of evolution must account for these facts (as well as others, such as adaptation to environment).
As we have seen amply demonstrated above, the way Neo-Darwinists explain these observations is to avoid facing them, whilst perhaps falling back on slow, incremental change. But change can take as long as you wish: the laws of heredity stand regardless of time. Time is not a mechanism.
Thanks to the advance of technology, the mechanisms (such as that which causes one species to transform to another without being a genetic product of the other) are just beginning to be perceived.
These developments leave some room for Darwin, but vindicate Owen, Darwin’s contemporary. Owen’s evolutionary idea leaves space for the new technologies.
The current bun-fight is to be expected, given the way the world works. Some people are feeling uncomfortable: the thing to watch is a reaction that carries it too far the other way. P.H..

Comment #59744

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 24, 2005 6:44 AM (e)

There may have been a question directed at myself regarding mathematicians/information technologists who support “I.D.” Likewise one asking whether Darwinism hadn’t in fact been updated?
Adressing the second, first: natural selection and survival of the fittest are timeless, but by failing to build a practical mathematically-based model showing how environmental pressure actually interacts with the information in the cell, Darwinism was left to wither on the vine. All processes of nature ultimately can be modelled and described in a mathematical sense. Crick may have understood this, and after discerning the structure of DNA, turned to Panspermia rather than acknowledge that what he had seen could be the product solely of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Thus to the first question. I am a geologist with mediocre mathematics and no links with “I.D.” The question of the Source of intelligence need no more concern nor confuse the capable biologist than need the question of the Source of the Universe confuse the physicist. Species transformation, like the Big Bang, is ultimately a mathematical phenomenon. All natural processes follow energy paths that can be described in terms of mathematics. Although I don’t know of any specific “I.D.” theories in this regard, I think Einstein and Lord Kelvin have some useful information about math/physics and nature.
Darwinism fell short because its proponents did not insist on rigorous, practical, math-based modelling. We all know the species were evolved: what were the individual steps, expressed in hard, verifiable fact? I don’t believe we need to be particularly bright to see that a computer code implies a computer. A computer code that materializes out of the aether, is magic: a code that results from transmission from a computer is a verifiable, mathematicaL fact. This could be all the info.technology we require to understand species transformation. The computer, incidentally, is natural - but we are being misleadingly simplistic. Species evolution was influenced by many interacting factors and processes. My site goes into this at more depth. P.H..

Comment #59760

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 24, 2005 8:49 AM (e)

P.B.H.
Your posts are very difficult to read.

Try to use shorter sentences. Use spaces. Anything to break up that big grey cloud of letters.

Several times I have struggled through your ramblings. It takes effort to read, for no other reason than you can not be bothered to edit it with some consideration.

Then you keep using longer and more obscure words than necessary. Why? Do you really think it makes you sound more intelligent?

Winston Churchill once said (and I think this was to either the US congress or senate) “I am sorry my speech was so long, I did not have time to write a short one”.

It takes more intelligence, understanding, patience, consideration and skill to put an argument plainly and easily understandable than…

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 21, 2005 09:24 PM (e) (s)

Dear Mr. Myers, It’s correct to say that evolution is a scientific fact, in an analogous sense to saying gravity is a scientific fact. But if science took the same approach towards gravity as some of its practitioners have taken towards evolution, we would yet have feathers falling slower than cannon balls, in a perfect vacuum. Let me tell you, I struggle with that fact about feathers vs cannon balls, but I accept it because of empirical observation and physics. Perhaps it’s about time certain practitioners of science did themselves the service of taking a similar, analytical approach to evolution.
This is your opportunity.
Go to my website, observe the Mainstream Science classification, recognize that anyone treating with this topic must take cognizance of Scripture - as did perhaps 75% of all venerated science figures - leave the Scripture aside and investigate the technical content. The world is waiting for the scientists to tell them a few things about nature. It is also waiting for intelligent Origins Education from the same source. Here and now, show the public the technical content of what you see as evolution, contrast it with other models, leave the religion and personality out, and support modern, technically accurate origins education. I look forward to a response from someone who understands and practices scientific principles. Yours etc., P.H..

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 08:07 AM (e) (s)

We may take it then that the “science” contributors to this page are quite pleased to push onto a thinking public an idea based on dogs giving birth to cats, ape-like creatures in our ancestory yet not being born as offspring - thus negating systematic Biology - species struggling slowly into existence through incremental change - which if true destroys both Biology and Geology - all the while refusing to acknowledge any evolutionary theory except Darwinism - thus negating History - and refusing even to update Darwinism - thus making Darwin a perpetual laughing-stock.
Owen, of course, never existed (although he was a far greater systematic anatomist than Darwin or perhaps any Darwinist) and his idea which even Professor Dawkins might possibly accept - namely, pre-programming, which through information technology built into nature actually begins to tell us something about species actuation - must at all costs be buried forever.
The only reasonable conclusion to draw from pages such as the one above, appears to be that a proportion of 21st Century academics have departed from orthodoxy, abandoned the scientific method, hide behind a “snow” cloud created by religious nuts - whom they actively cultivate - and are dead scared of certain findings of science, especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature. They refuse point blank to consider any theory but the one in which they have been indoctrinated, and insist that the Public join them in obscurantist HarryPotterisms rather than cold hard fact. Yes, the species were evolved (sequentially revealed) just as modern technology suggests - through information technology processes. Information input probably can “trip” the species “lock”.
Each species receives discreet new (pre-existent) information, re-programming its DNA. It would be easy to be over-simplistic, and misleading, hence the invitation to view my internet publication which investigates these concepts. One can even teach the topic without overtly mentioning the Bible - so no-one need concern themselves about nauseating input such as we see illustrated above. Most of the above is what will be AVOIDABLE. Science was always like that - it can be divided from religious controversy.
Care to add anything, PageProvider? Or is Science outside the interests of this publication?

Why do you show no courtesy?

Oh, BTW how are the working conditions in Mordor?
Please send a postcard.

Comment #59768

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 24, 2005 9:14 AM (e)

Heywood, you’re babbling again.

Comment #59774

Posted by frank schmidt on November 24, 2005 9:30 AM (e)

Heywood, may I suggest you read this recent paper and then come back to defend your fatuous statement:

PBH wrote:

by failing to build a practical mathematically-based model showing how environmental pressure actually interacts with the information in the cell, Darwinism was left to wither on the vine.

I am amazed by the persistent failure of the ID-ealogues to learn anything about 20th century Biology, let alone the 21st. And this is not limited to you - even those who claim to be professional scientists are way behind on the literature of the fields they criticize. Hence, they and you continually state things that are contrary to fact, thus missing out on an important commandment, you know, the one about “not bearing false witness.”

Not surprising, really, since their arguments haven’t developed beyond Paley’s (1802) Natural Theology.

Comment #59822

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 24, 2005 1:25 PM (e)

I am amazed by the persistent failure of the ID-ealogues to learn anything about 20th century Biology, let alone the 21st.

Blast, in particular, seems to have a penchant for citing 100 year old “science”.

I notice, though that Blast has shut his mouth tightly over in the “monitor lizards” thread. Apparently he recognized pretty quickly that he was in WAYYYYYYY over his uneducated head.

Comment #59921

Posted by orrg1 on November 24, 2005 7:41 PM (e)

I’ve been a somewhat frustrated lurker here. How can anybody take someone like PBH seriously when so many of his statements are clearly false? Either he’s a troll or woefully uninformed, in either case not worth talkng to:

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Further, if you were to say that a genetically transmissible feature that was present in your ancestors, will not appear at some time in your descendants, you would need a rather good story to convince a geneticist. No matter how many generations; something that’s in the blood-line, stays in the blood line.

Ridiculously wrong! Transcription is not error free! Jaw bones can and have become modified into components of the inner ear over time. Introduction of random mutations is a fundamental postulate of evolutionary theory, abundantly confirmed by geneticists! Every high school student learns this, but I guess this is one thing IDers want to put a stop to.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

As we have seen amply demonstrated above, the way Neo-Darwinists explain these observations is to avoid facing them, whilst perhaps falling back on slow, incremental change. But change can take as long as you wish: the laws of heredity stand regardless of time. Time is not a mechanism.

Utter BS.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

I don’t believe we need to be particularly bright to see that a computer code implies a computer. A computer code that materializes out of the aether, is magic: a code that results from transmission from a computer is a verifiable, mathematicaL fact.

Just another not particularly clear way of stating that anything that looks designed is designed. But wait a minute, A basic purpose of Darwin’s theory was to explain how something could look like it was designed without being designed, given several requirements:

1. There is a mechanism to pass down characteristics without dilution.
2. There is a mechanism to induce random changes in these characteristics.
3 There is enough time for changes to accumulate, producing speciation in populations that become geographically or otherwise separated.

Let’s stop here for a minute. If any of these suppositions were disproved, that would have been the end of evolution. But, in fact, natural explanations for all of them were later discovered - namely DNA and its ability to mutate, as well as nuclear fusion occuring in the sun, allowing the Earth to be 4 billion years old.

Ok, once we have confirmed these astonishing predictions, we only need a simple, common sense concept like natural selection (although granted the details can become highly complicated) to allow evolution to occur. That make evolution a ratchet, instead of a “tornado passing through a junkyard and constructing a 747”, as some have described it.

PBH seems to suggest a couple of other explanations. Dogs give birth to cats (and he claims that there are holes in the evidence for evolution!)through “preprogramming”. Shades of Behe, with unexpressed genes carried forward for billions of years, with no means to prevent drastic changes through mutation since they are not expressed. And/or an intelligent designer/programmer steps in at various times to keep things going smoothly - no holes in the evidence here - just no evidence whatsoever. The idea,as has been stated countless times, is scientifically useless. What purchase on future knowledge does it possibly give us? I haven’t seen anybody answer this yet.

Comment #59924

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 24, 2005 8:26 PM (e)

How can anybody take someone like PBH seriously

No one DOES. (shrug)

Comment #59930

Posted by Norman Doering on November 24, 2005 9:28 PM (e)

orrg1 asked:

How can anybody take someone like PBH seriously?

I posted a response to PBH, but it got censored apparently. It deserved to be, I was highly insulting.

PBH said:

Darwinism fell short because its proponents did not insist on rigorous, practical, math-based modelling.

He has obviously been lied to by ID proponents who never mention people like Sewall Wright who did rigorous, practical, math-based modelling of evolution:

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

He also wrote:

I don’t believe we need to be particularly bright to see that a computer code implies a computer. A computer code that materializes out of the aether, is magic: a code that results from transmission from a computer is a verifiable, mathematicaL fact.

He obviously never head of one of the hottest fields in computer science today, genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming.

http://www.genetic-programming.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
http://www.cs.sandia.gov/opt/survey/ea.html
http://www.geatbx.com/links/ea_matlab.html

Go ahead and try to educate him on these matters – it won’t work.

I don’t see it being a productive exchange.

Comment #59954

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 25, 2005 12:26 AM (e)

Note to CBBB, Mr Doering, and other science-minded folks: congratulations. You have shown yourselves wise men. Cheers.

Comment #59970

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 7:25 AM (e)

Wow! This is a crazy site! I have been reading all of the posts and their links and views on this debate (if you can call it that:-)
Evolution/Creationism are both Theory and hypothesis….
Neither have been proven to be THE story of where we came from……
Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don’t have one shred of evidence FOR
Macro evolution (otherwise they would win all the money that’s been offered by philanthropist to who could prove it once and for all)
Creationists argue that there is more than one model in science for the origins of all living things and that all paradigms should be explored….
When you look at all the arguments being debated (so called) and put all of the evidence on the table, the only conclusion I can come to so far is that Evolutionists are afraid of their PhD’s not being worth a damn if they are proved wrong (because of the childish comments on this site) and Creationist aren’t afraid of looking at all the evidence at their own peril (of whether God, Intelligent Designer, exist or not).
This has always concerned me about Scientist in all disciplines…..that most of them are less than dishonest when it comes to facts in evidence that go against their theories or hypothesis….true science dumps the bad and keeps the good no matter where it leads……even if it goes against their personal beliefs……I have yet to see that from most evolutionists…..and some Creationists.
It amazes me that Scientists on both sides, trained in the same institutions
with the same degrees can’t look at the evidence in an impartial way. But, I’ve noticed that when an evolutionist is confronted by his counterpart in the other camp with opposing views and evidence, the evolutionist will inevitably start name calling and putting down the person instead of the evidence, and that the creationist will try to get his voice heard over the noise of babble that won’t let them speak—–are the evolutionists afraid of admitting they might be wrong? True Creationists don’t seem to have that problem…
So much for true science and looking for the truth!

Comment #59972

Posted by limpidense on November 25, 2005 7:41 AM (e)

Is it my wacky, wacky imagination, or does EVERY post that opens with claims of “openmindedness” or demands for “fairness” turn out to be the ugliest kind of disingenuous bu–sh–? As evidence: Mr/Ms “Stoner” above.
I’m sure scientists around the globe shiver at the prospect of losing her/his respect.

Comment #59974

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 8:57 AM (e)

Yes, it’s all a plot by PhD’s.

(yawn)

Comment #59980

Posted by PZ Myers on November 25, 2005 9:26 AM (e)

I’ve always found the “Neither have been proven…” opening to be a giveaway that the writer is about to advance his preference for some flaming poppycock.

Comment #59981

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 9:26 AM (e)

Stoner, your name explains everything.

You obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Comment #59982

Posted by steve s on November 25, 2005 9:31 AM (e)

Comment #59671

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 08:43 PM (e) (s)

Sal then ran over to the Intelligent Myths thread, where at 7:07 pm, he posted this

Challenge them in one spot they pop up somewhere else.

This is like a giant game of Whack-a-Mole.

Only if you choose to argue with them. Salvador’s going to spend several hours per day issuing ridiculous statements for ID, and might do so for the next 50 years. How much of your time do you want to spend replying to them?

Comment #59983

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 9:34 AM (e)

PBH I don’t really understand what you’re talking about?

Something that’s in the blood line stays in the blood line? I don’t believe this is true - what about deletion mutations, or almost any mutation for that matter?

Note I am not a biologist.

Comment #59984

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 9:37 AM (e)

Sal seems to have a strong educational background, I don’t understand why he’s Dembski’s witting pawn. Many of his arguements are terrible and combine that with the fact that he ignores basic criticism or questions he’s VERY unconvincing.

Comment #59986

Posted by orrg1 on November 25, 2005 10:30 AM (e)

C. Stoner actually is spot on regarding one of his points, but gets another bass-ackwards. I’m guessing that the latter mixup is a result of Stoner having no idea how science is actually done in the day-to-day world.

Also, can’t we once and for all just try to advance the discussion by dispensing with endless repetition of statements known to be false, such as:

C. Stoner wrote:

“Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don’t have one shred of evidence FOR
Macro evolution”

Macroevolution in the ID/Creo lingo means usually means speciation, which these folks have a fixation on since it conflicts with the notion that God created immutable “kinds”. However, there is a mountain of evidence for speciation, both fossil and genetic, and in addition it has been observed directly.

The simple minded explanation for why speciation is not commonly observed is that the life time of an individual human being is limited, while speciation is a gradual process. The formation of the Rocky Mountains by upthrust of continental plates has not been directly observed, and for that matter, neither has the formation of the solar system from dust orbiting the sun, but that doesn’t mean that they were Intelligently Designed.

Stoner says that

“true science dumps the bad and keeps the good no matter where it leads”

This is exactly right. The enemy of good science is preconceived notions. A scientist may have an idea of how he expects a process to work, but if he allows it to color his interpretation of the data, he will likely go off track. A good scientist will always follow the data wherever it leads; that is how true discoveries are made. This is how evolution was discovered. However, creationism/intelligent design is the antithesis of this. It started with the idea that evolution knocks human beings off their pedestal as being created in the image of God as described in the Bible. Instead of following the evidence, creationist/ID “scientists” specifically look for any evidence that can be shoe-horned into discrediting evolution, resulting in the inanities of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. There is no attempt to find mechanisms that actually underlie intelligent design/creationism. We shouldn’t be surprised, though, since they are supernatural after all.

But shouldn’t openmindedness allow for supernatural explanations? Aren’t scientists in their narrowminded insistance on natural causes for all phenomena possibly missing the TRUE explanation?

First, there is no utility in allowing for supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Once you accept that an omnipotent intelligent being has actively interfered with a natural process, where do you go from there? You can conduct studies on how prayer effects the weather or the probability of a woman conceiving, but you will find no effect if you do the studies correctly.

In fact, for thousands of years, prayer WAS the primary method by which human beings tried to affect nature, with notably little success. In contrast, the application of the scientific method, including specifically the use of “natural cause” blinders, has been astoundingly successful. The average lifespan has been extended greatly through increases in anatomical knowledge, and development of the germ theory of disease, and genetic theory, with far greater advances likely in the future. Human beings can now fly through the air, travel to the moon and to the bottom of the ocean, converse with others through words and pictures on the other side of the world instantaneously. We can see nearly to the edge of the universe, and examine that universe as it existed billions of years back in time. At the other end of the spectrum ,we can view separate atoms, stacked neatly in crystals. For that matter, we now have the power to completely destroy our own species through nuclear or biological weapons.

In every single experiment underlying every single astounding discovery made since the Age of Enlightenment first dawned, there has been nary an encounter with the supernatural. Not a hint.

Don’t get me wrong, religion plays an important role in society. It can act to strengthen communities, and contribute to construction of a moral framework whose existence is necessary for our survival. However, the fundamentalist form of religion, which is behind ID/creationism, is only a power play. If the Bible is accepted as an inerrant source of fact, then those who interpret its contents for the people must by necessity control their actions. In science, your viewpoint is only useful if it results in observations that are reproducible by others. Contrary to what you hear from the ID/creationist conspirationalists, there is no appeal to authority in good science.

Comment #59988

Posted by k.e. on November 25, 2005 11:16 AM (e)

C. Stoners post says it all.
True Creationists don’t seem to have that problem….(Admitting they are wrong)

(Stoner that is called projecting look it up on Wiki. Get straight and find a nice girl who won’t take any of *your* shit and LISTEN to and love her. You just might make a valuable member of the Human Race)

This all has to do with the word/and “The WordTM

the word* /and the receivers ‘deconstructive rationalistic nihilism’ the only possible consequence of the likes of Dembski and their “Identity Politics” fellow travelers.

*(that’s the real honest to god truth the same truth as it hurts when you fall from the window of Alan Sokals apartment window truth) kill all pomo’s to paraphrase Shakespeare (Kill all the Lawyers)

It takes one to know one or “Why the Madrassa can raise an army of mindless robots.” (that’s my patented phrase and I’ll thank you all to acknowledge it or I’ll Denbski you… mmmppppghhff)

http://www.multifaithnet.org/images/content/seminarpapers/discussionaboutorallityandliteracy.htm

Has Humanity Gone Mad?
We have friends who are trying to save the enlightenment from the Monsters, Monsters of the ID.

(That’s where Freud met science fiction and the pure idiocy of the the Fundy project)

Francis Wheen is a journalist and author of several books, including a highly acclaimed biography of Karl Marx. His collected journalism, Hoo-Hahs and Passing Frenzies, won the George Orwell prize in 2003.
Francis Wheen’s new book, How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions, is published by Fourth Estate.

http://www.readysteadybook.com/BookReview.aspx?isbn=0007140967
http://books.guardian.co.uk/top10s/top10/0,6109,1140156,00.html

Comment #59989

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 25, 2005 11:41 AM (e)

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

Wow! This is a crazy site! I have been reading all of the posts and their links and views on this debate (if you can call it that:-)
Evolution/Creationism are both Theory and hypothesis….
Neither have been proven to be THE story of where we came from……
Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don’t have one shred of evidence FOR
Macro evolution (otherwise they would win all the money that’s been offered by philanthropist to who could prove it once and for all)….

C.Stoner,
Just suppose that ID was spot on, completely correct, and everything in nature is designed. ID still would not be science.

The scientific method works something like this:

1)You observe something.

2)You think of an explanation (hypothesis) for what you observed.

3)You work out a way to test your explanation (which could disprove it).

4)Carry out (conduct) the test.

5)If your test fails then consider another explanation and go back to 4. If your test is a success, consider another test and go back to 4.

6)After you have made several successful tests, then attempt to get
your hypothesis published in an appropriate peer reviewed journal.

7)Other scientists will then also carry out experiments (tests) for your hypothesis.

8)If numerous experiments tend to confirm your hypothesis then it may become an accepted “Theory”.

The ID crowd refuse to carry out the scientific method. Yet still want their “hypothesis” taught in schools as “theory”. This has understandably infuriated real scientists.

Other theories (eg plate-tectonics, relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics etc.) never asked for, or received special treatment; why should ID?

This you manage to get dead right:

This has always concerned me about Scientist in all disciplines…..that most of them are less than dishonest when it comes to facts in evidence that go against their theories or hypothesis……

Although I expect it was by accident.
Maybe your typo was Intelligently Designed.

Comment #59994

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 12:10 PM (e)

This is exactly what I was talking about!
I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.
I never claimed to be either an evolutionist or creationist! I was just observing things and trying to understand what all the fuss was about…..orrg1 in his response is the only one so far who has given me a respectful, intelligent, scientific response to check out and see if it is true.
The rest of you so far have proven to be less than honest (sorry about the typo in my original post!) about real discussion!
Thank you orrg1 for the info, I will look into it and try to reply on most points as I find them and understand them.

PS>For those of you who are mad at religion…….I never said anything about it except what needed to be said in order to use the word ‘Creationist’…..thanks for your understanding:-) (Elitism has never looked good on humans)

Comment #59995

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 25, 2005 12:20 PM (e)

Mr. Stoner:

I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.

What was your “simple question” again?

So much for who’s honest and who’s not.

Comment #59996

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 12:28 PM (e)

I never claimed to be either an evolutionist or creationist!

You didn’t need to. (shrug)

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen this exact same performance from ID/creationists, I could have retired to the Bahamas by now.

Comment #60000

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 1:23 PM (e)

Do you have any idea how many times people come into this site or Pharyngula or some other pro-science website and claim that they are impartial but “evolution is wrong about X, Y, Z” and X,Y,Z turn out to be bogus claims?

Do you know how many times we’ve heard the line:

Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don’t have one shred of evidence FOR
Macro evolution

Why don’t we turn this one on it’s head. What evidence to the Creationists have that so-called “macroevolution” didn’t happen/cannot happen? They readily accept “microevolution” but for some reason they refuse to take the next logical step and they don’t have any credible evidence to support their “reasoning” (or lack thereof).

Comment #60002

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 25, 2005 1:28 PM (e)

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 12:10 PM (e) (s)

This is exactly what I was talking about!
I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.
I never claimed to be either an evolutionist or creationist! I was just observing things and trying to understand what all the fuss was about…..

I do not think that I “shouted you down”. Indeed last year I was in exactly the same state of mind as you are.

I was trying to explain to you why scientists are angry.

Keep visiting this site (some cool things happen here [check out the dragon thread]) and you will understand why people here are very angry.

Look at Salvador’s posts! Watch how he keeps popping up, sprouting barely comprehensible dribble, yet refuses to answer basic questions.

I do hope you are not a troll and are genuinely interested to find out the truth.

Comment #60003

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 1:33 PM (e)

I mean there’s this guy, Salvador Cordova, who comes here and makes all these grandious claims about ID, how genetic algorithms are phoney, higher intelligences, complexity and how flipping coins is an accurate model of biological systems and then he refuses to even awknowledge, much less address some simple questions about ID.

So you want to talk about dishonesty why don’t you take a look at the ID side? They try and dodge simple questions like they were bullets.

Comment #60017

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 25, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

C.Stoner said:

This is exactly what I was talking about!
I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.

Regret you thought the attempts to educate you were, instead, “shouting down” and “ridicule.”

I have a suggestion: Learn what the theories of evolution are, and how they work, and why scientists with no axe to grind put so much stock in them.

You could start with the late Ernst Mayr’s book, What Evolution Is. You should be sure to read Jonathan Weiner’s Pulitzer Prize winner, The Beak of the Finch, and follow up the bibliography. While you’re reading Pulitzer winners, get Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, and especially John McPhee’s Annals of the Former World. Mayr’s book gives the view from the foremost exponent of evolution in the 20th century, a top notch researcher, adventurer and wonderful writer. Weiner’s book is a lay explanation of evolution based on the cutting edge proofs of speciation found by Peter and Rosemary Grant, though the side journeys in the book are perhaps most convincing (have you ever wondered where the apple maggot came from, since it doesn’t exist in Europe where apples came from?). Larson’s book deals with the social and political reasons creationism hangs on (Larson was a Discovery Institute fellow until they made the odd turn away from science and toward anti-evolution – though really his leaving had to do with his move to Atlanta). McPhee, perhaps the best non-fiction writer of the 20th century, wrote a wonderful series of books on geology, finally collected into one volume with much additional material. McPhee never confronts creationism head on, but a good reader cannot come away from his books without an understanding of geology that sinks all creationist boats. (Now ask yourself: Why is it that creationist books do not win Pulitzer awards for creationism texts?)

Now go study the pharmaceutical industry. Can you find a single company anywhere on Earth that is working on new lifesaving drugs based on an intelligent design hypothesis? Go look at the financial pages of your newspaper. See how many pharmaceutical companies are traded on the major exchanges – all of them basing much of their new research, or all of their research, in evolution. As you know, stockbrokers and investment bankers are no-nonsense guys, and they refuse to put money into ideas that don’t work. Now ask yourself: Why is it that so much of your retirement funds is invested in evolution, if evolution isn’t accurate theory? Why is it that ID advocates do not make pitches to investment house analysts? Do they fear laughter and tomatoes? If they are convinced of their correctness, why do they not make a pitch to save their own retirement funds? And ask yourself: How cynical must one be to claim to school boards that evolution is evil, while keeping one’s retirement funds invested in evolution-based science?

And if you’re just too time-pressed to do some of this legwork, go to these sites and get a basic understanding of what evolution really is:
http://www.darwinianmedicine.org/;
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html; from the National Academy of Sciences, http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/;
and don’t miss this excellent site at Berkeley that has the ID advocates quaking in their law boots:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.

In short, get the facts. When you see the facts laid out, you’ll see that by having read all the creationist stuff first, you adopted a creationist’s stance. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a creationist, do not walk with them and quack with them. Their waddles will not go by any library or laboratory, and if one wishes to learn about evolution, libraries and laboratories are the sources of information, not pulpits, not school board meetings, not slickly-produced DVDs.

We regret you were offended, C. Stoner. You got suckered by creationism. It’s as if you were told that the thing to wear to your local NAACP meeting was a white sheet. One would need to know why that was particularly inappropriate to know why it was particularly inappropriate. Knowledge is free; ignorance is expensive. Go get the knowledge, and don’t be offended.

Comment #60020

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 2:37 PM (e)

Now go study the pharmaceutical industry. Can you find a single company anywhere on Earth that is working on new lifesaving drugs based on an intelligent design hypothesis?

In my opinion this is what kills ID right on the spot. How can you deny the reality of something that has produced real results?

Comment #60022

Posted by k.e. on November 25, 2005 2:42 PM (e)

The nub of Stoners problem is the shear cognitive dissonance of his “feeling of knowing” how to tell if something is TRUE or NOT TRUE.

His intuition tells him “Of course there is a designer –are you stupid”

His mind is telling him “Man these guys are crazy.. they must be whacked out on drugs”

He is genuinely unable to fathom it. To do so would drive him nuts because he would then have to admit he has been taken for a ride and that is not easy for anyone to accept.

I’ll step you through it.

Stoner from as far back as he can remember kept hearing

“The Word,TM

“God does this, God did that, God made the world and God loves us all and God loves you (All the little god hears is. WOW HE LOVES ME ME ME)”

Now a quick perusal of creation Myths will show that it was the scientific (Fact)language du jour mixed with reason
(not for being here which is an adult view …a child view of reason it IS SO -SO IT MUST BE TRUE)

Some of the best creation stories are the North American Indian stories. I caught part of one of them on the radio today an interesting parallel with the Fundies is that tribe believed their own version of “The Word,TM” would protect them from white invaders.

Now to a kid the word god and “gods words” and LIFE are one and the same completely interchangeable, mutually exclusive, and
is the Icon, the Symbol, Meme in the mind for “The Word,TM” = TRUE

In a simple world this all makes sense.

How did we get here and what made everything?
Why are we hear?

Their creation God made everything that’s a given.
To hunt and live a good life and appreciate our world and each other told in the only language kids know, magical tales.
Thus LIFE IS TRUE = “The Word,TM

Children have wild dreams growing up that can seem more real than reality especially at night. The brain is growing and learning at a huge rate fitting ever thing in and building “a truth” which for them is the same as “The Word,TM““.

The ancient tribes would remove this childish belief through the adult initiation ceremony replacing it with a journey in search of the truth a spirit world where they carry the real truth and become one with god. your self identity NOT “The Word,TM” Myth in preparation for adulthood. Because the childish beliefs are completely useless and destructive in adults.
A very brief grieving period is involved

There is one underlying psychological trick that solidly plants the seed and that is the first time a kid is caught bald faced lying and the parents are going to stamp their authority With the assistance of “The Word,TM

Though shalt not bear false witness.

This is actually a normal human function no god needed as you are probably aware

Now here is the kicker.

If you lie and get away with it god can’t do a thing and everyone figures this out by themselves AND EVERYONE in the group KNOWS IT so “The Word,TM
BECOMES A LIAR.

The church fits in and takes advantage of this quirk of human nature.

For the Group “The Word,TM” becomes a minor white lie to a major pathological lie depending on the stripe…..do I have to go behind the curtain here?

There is a sliding scale here anyway I’m not going to tar them all with them same brush but institutional lying is a gentle to vicious art.

You will notice the major Difference between Buddhism and the CC on the definition of the natural truth .

Now note when you say “God loves you” to a child the child thinks of an exact replica of a “nicer” Santa Cause who really does love him …more than his parents.

If things get tough he can pray to god… its his little secret and the parents go right along with it because they have been taught the same.

Now at that stage in the child’s life its all “me, me, me” they don’t actually recognize there are other
“souls.. a subjective word meant in an objective use- self identity”

they actually are like little gods in their behavior. Its is simply stunning to watch how exited kids get about this sort of thing the more far out the reward the more exited they get—Rapture is not a pretty word it is a deep repression inserted at an early age and is an extremely dangerous form of fundamentalism.

Why don’t the CC etc blow the whistle on this, …what sell the shop? Like the guy that shovels Elephant shit at the Circus “What and give up show business ?”.there is no alternative for them.

Now really what is happening is the church does a deal with the kid. You give me your “soul” your self identity and I’ll promise forgiveness when you die. Its as simple as that.

In a pact with the Devil for their own pathetic aims The DI replace truth(evolution) with A LIE=”The Word,TM

The negative consequences of this are right here now.

George Orwell would be rolling in his grave.

“I Believed in Santa Claus until I was 17, until some
mean person told me it wasn’t true- Paris Hilton”

Comment #60027

Posted by k.e. on November 25, 2005 3:01 PM (e)

Man I keep doing that

TO BE READ SUBJECTEVLY
You will notice the major Difference between Buddhism and the CC on the definition of the natural truth .

They all play the same game with self identity.

The answer is, there is no secret.

However the jouney will always be there.

Comment #60035

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 3:52 PM (e)

Thank you Ed Darrell,
As I said in my last post, I will be looking this stuff up that you and a couple of gracious others have given me to see first hand what this is all about.
It seems the others assume to know who I am!
I guess I am supposed to be some kind of ‘stealth’ creationist/religionist/narrow minded drone or something of the like….!
I really want to know who is right and who is wrong on these issues!
But I guess evolutionists have their ‘righteous bunch’ just as much as religious followers!
There is a proverb that is true in all circumstances—-“in the council of many is wisdom” That is why I look at all sides…….some of your cohorts would have me not look at anything except what they have to say…..and why would I believe them?….I don’t know who they are…they could be writing from an asylum for all I know!
Your exhort for me: “If you don’t want to be mistaken for a creationist, do not walk with them and quack with them.” seems to break that proverb, though I can see your point…..they say the same thing about you guys! Yet, I am here trying to decide.
Again, thank you for your links and gracious manner on this issue, I truly appreciate it….I hope others could learn from you and orrg1 how to respond with true debate instead of 3rd grade antics…….Thank you.

Comment #60038

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 25, 2005 4:04 PM (e)

Mr. C. Stoner,

if one is sincerely interested in learning, he doesn’t barge in making grand unsupported claims that do not correspond to reality.

That’s why, your tirade notwithstanding, I remain of the opinion that you are, in fact, yet another creationist trolling for reactions and claiming martyrdom as soon as he gets them.

If you are not one of these agents provocateurs, by all means ask the “simple question” you said you had (and never uttered).

You’ll notice a sudden change in attitude, I promise you.

Comment #60042

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 4:13 PM (e)

I guess I am supposed to be some kind of ‘stealth’ creationist/religionist/narrow minded drone or something of the like….!

You have to understand this assumption is based on the fact that you presented yourself in almost exactly the same way that every ‘stealth’ creationist who has come around here in the past has presented themselves.

some of your cohorts would have me not look at anything except what they have to say

I don’t believe this to be true. If you look at our websites we have links to Creationist websites and blogs but that isn’t always the case with them. A good example is Answers in Genesis which, to my knowledge, does not have links to any critical material.

Comment #60043

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 4:17 PM (e)

how to respond with true debate instead of 3rd grade antics…….Thank you

Years of Creationist dishonesty has made people cynical.

Comment #60051

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 5:03 PM (e)

I didn’t know I was on a ‘tirade’!
Are you people so cynical that for me to get to the truth of the matter would require me to give up my mind blindly to what you have to say without looking it up?
Wow, talk about indoctrination!
While you all have been deciding my fate without true debate I have been using some of the gracious info given to me by
Ed Darrell and orrg1 to start learning about this issue……I just got off from the ‘Creation science debunked’ website and am going to other places to check what they have to say.
Maybe they will be more civil in their responses to someone who really wants to know…….
PS>I am sorry if I ‘sound’ like a creationist in my writing, but I have certain questions that are hard for me to postulate……I don’t know how to sound like an evolutionist because I am not sure or convinced of the evidence and a lot of you are not helping me to find it!
You are more concerned about being ‘Right’
than helping me…….
At least there are a couple of you who are trying to help and I thank you for it…..back to the hunt…..

Comment #60058

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

PS>CBBB,
So far I have found years of dishonesty on both sides…..that is why I am looking and searching both views.

Comment #60060

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 5:49 PM (e)

CBBB,
I was looking in Answers in Genesis and found these Biographies….I am not sure if they are complete as I still have to look them up and study them with the ones from evolution sites…….still on the hunt…..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp#pastsci

Comment #60061

Posted by steve s on November 25, 2005 6:01 PM (e)

Comment #60060

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

CBBB,
I was looking in Answers in Genesis

Well, that’s your first mistake…

Comment #60069

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 6:14 PM (e)

I’ll say. ID is pretty absurd but AiG is just off the absurdity charts.

Comment #60071

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 6:16 PM (e)

So far I have found years of dishonesty on both sides…..that is why I am looking and searching both views.

I don’t know where you’d find dishonesty on the evolution side. Of course I’m biased but the reality is everything we have is based on physical evidence, data, experiements, real world applications, etc.

With the other sides it’s not science, it’s just wild-eyed speculation dressed up as science.

Comment #60072

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 6:17 PM (e)

I really want to know who is right and who is wrong on these issues!

Then go to a library (the big building with all the books in it) and ask the nice librarian to point you to all the “biology” books. Read them. All of them. Twice. Then have an educated person explain all the big words to you.

If you want to learn science, you won’t learn it by reading ICR or AIG religious tratcs.

Comment #60073

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 6:20 PM (e)

THERE YOU GO STONER!
Here’s an example of dishonesty right there on that Answers in Genesis site.

They list a bunch of “creation scientists” but they list people like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, etc.

Listing ANYONE Pre-Darwin is being dishonest - there was no other explanation than ‘God Did it” pre-Darwin so they were creationists by default.
And Notice that the entire list is just a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all scientists today. These are fringe crack-pots (every field has crackpots) and do not ever represent a decent sized minority let alone anything close to a majoritiy.

Comment #60075

Posted by limpidense on November 25, 2005 6:25 PM (e)

You looked for information on science by FIRST going to a YEC, Xian site devoted 100% to fighting ToE at any cost and by any means (almost any means, actually: I forget that even they disavow “Dr. Dino”), and you claim to be trying to understand, even learn?

That is, to quote Popeye, “imbareasskin.”

Renounce publically your initial completely untrue presentation of your position as unbiased (and ignorant) and I’ll treat you as an honest guy actually curious about something other than himself.

Comment #60076

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 6:26 PM (e)

PLUS
Another dishonesty is while greats like Newton and Faraday may have believed in God and creation NONE of these greats used God in their scientific theories or research to explain something, while this is exactly what the Creationists want to do. So they differed GREATLY from the modern Creationists.

Comment #60077

Posted by CBBB on November 25, 2005 6:29 PM (e)

That’s the big difference, it’s not about believing in God, many real scientists do.
The creationist pseudoscientists want to use God in real scientific theories which is absurd and anti-scientific, by definition.

Comment #60078

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 6:50 PM (e)

Thanks CBBB,
I will keep that in mind…..
As for limpidense, can’t you read? Or are you so self-absorbed in your own arrogance that no matter what is said you are blinded by your own brilliance? I was first at a E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N site….CBBB mentioned AIG so I thought I would take a look…….
And the only thing ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank’
can come up with is to treat me as a child with ridicule (boy I really hope he is not indicative of who is a teacher today)He says:

“Then go to a library (the big building with all the books in it) and ask the nice librarian to point you to all the “biology” books. Read them. All of them. Twice. Then have an educated person explain all the big words to you.”
What a pompous ass! I really am trying to find out stuff and most of you are only playing stupid schoolyard games!

Thanks CBBB for at least being honest and trying to help…..by the way, I am on my to the library to check out some stuff…..I guess I will find someone to hold my hand and change me while I am there asking stupid questions……”there is no such thing as a stupid question, only arrogant silence”-Homer Floyd Starnes jr… PhD math, Masters in engineering. (My dad)……back to the hunt…..

Comment #60079

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 25, 2005 6:54 PM (e)

Mr. C. Stoner,

may I quote your very first post, sir?

Evolution/Creationism are both Theory and hypothesis…

This is a claim, not a question; it’s false, based on an equivocation between the scientific definition of a theory and the everyday usage of the word, and a standard creationist tool.

Don’t believe me, check for yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don’t have one shred of evidence FOR
Macro evolution

This is a claim, not a question; it’s false, in several different ways. First way: scientists do not claim they “know the truth”. This is the language of religion, not science; science is founded on the premise that our knowledge is limited and can be improved upon. Second way: evolution is an established fact, established through repeated observation, not to be confused with the Theory of Evolution, which is the best scientific consensus about the mechanism behind that established fact. Third way: Macro evolution is not a scientific term; if by that you mean speciation, there is way more than “a shred” of evidence. Read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

(otherwise they would win all the money that’s been offered by philanthropist to who could prove it once and for all)

This is a claim, not a question; it’s false, too. For instance, “Dr.” Hovind has simply set up a fake challenge, which cannot possibly be satisfied. Read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

Creationists argue that there is more than one model in science for the origins of all living things and that all paradigms should be explored…

This is a creationist claim, not a question. We are eagerly waiting for them to actually produce a scientific model for the origin of all living things. So far, they’ve failed to. Do you know what a “model” is? It’s not “Poof!”

When you look at all the arguments being debated (so called) and put all of the evidence on the table, the only conclusion I can come to so far is that Evolutionists are afraid of their PhD’s not being worth a damn if they are proved wrong (because of the childish comments on this site) and Creationist aren’t afraid of looking at all the evidence at their own peril (of whether God, Intelligent Designer, exist or not).

This is a claim, not a question. It’s also false; this site includes articles posted by many PhDs who aren’t afraid of being “proved wrong” (science is founded on the very concrete possibility that one’s pet theory is “proved wrong”), and creationists are very afraid to consider evidence, because they mistakenly bind together their rejection of the Theory of Evolution with their religious faith. The very fact that many contributors to this site are Christians is evidence for the fallacy of this connection. Also, whether the Theory of Evolution is correct or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God, the Intelligent Designer, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This has always concerned me about Scientist in all disciplines…..that most of them are less than [dis]honest when it comes to facts in evidence that go against their theories or hypothesis….

This is a claim, not a question; and it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Sure, many individuals have character flaws; science accounts for this and self-corrects, through the peer review process. Creationists do not accept to submit their claims to real peer review, which should tell you something about who’s less than honest.
Please check: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

true science dumps the bad and keeps the good no matter where it leads……even if it goes against their personal beliefs…

This is correct, that’s how science works.

…I have yet to see that from most evolutionists…..and some Creationists.

This is a claim, not a question; and it’s patently false. Remember, every single fraud in paleontology (for instance) has been uncovered, denounced and corrected by “evolutionists”; none by creationists.
E.g.: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

It amazes me that Scientists on both sides, trained in the same institutions with the same degrees can’t look at the evidence in an impartial way.

This is a claim, not a question; and it is a very generic one, too. What do you mean by “impartial”? At the end of the day, the evidence was considered and is being considered, and it points in one direction. Reality is most assuredly not impartial: the Earth is not flat, it is not the centre of the universe, and its continents aren’t immobile.

But, I’ve noticed that when an evolutionist is confronted by his counterpart in the other camp with opposing views and evidence, the evolutionist will inevitably start name calling and putting down the person instead of the evidence, and that the creationist will try to get his voice heard over the noise of babble that won’t let them speak——-are the evolutionists afraid of admitting they might be wrong?

Here we have the only thing approximating a question; however, it is a rhetorical question, prefaced with so much falsity that it does not count. How can you claim that, when debating a creationist, “an evolutionist” “inevitably start name calling”? Can you offer any reference for that? Are you aware that the technique of flooding the debater with claims that require ten times as long to be refuted is so common among creationists that it has been given a name, the infamous Gish Gallop? Have you ever seen busloads of parishioners being brought in to act as cheerleaders for the local creationist in one of these debates? In short, this, too, is standard creationist fare: projecting onto one’s counterpart behaviours that are one’s own.

True Creationists don’t seem to have that problem…

This is a claim, not a question, and see above. The opposite, in fact, is true.

So much for true science and looking for the truth!

This is neither a claim nor a question. I’ll respond as I already did: so much for honesty!

Comment #60080

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 7:10 PM (e)

Thanks Aureola Nominee,
I guess I hit a nerve….….so much for reverse questions and thought, by the way, the question is about truth and who has it and who doesn’t…..or is that too hard for you guys?

….back to the hunt

Comment #60081

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 25, 2005 7:14 PM (e)

Sal’s omega point discussed

Comment #60082

Posted by Registered User on November 25, 2005 7:29 PM (e)

Creationist Troll Stoner, regarding Lenny

What a pompous ass!

That’s funny.

I really am trying to find out stuff

I have all the answers you need, Stoner. Plus, as far as you know, I am a very devout Christian and therefore would never ever lie to you.

If you really want the answers you seek, you need only sign up for a PayPal account and let me know that you have sufficient funds to pay for the answers. Alternately, you may provide me with your checking information and/or a major credit card number. After I verify that you have sufficient funds to pay for the answers to the questions you have asked, I will provide you with the answers.

Of course, all this assumes that you really want the answers to your questions.

If that is the case, then provide me with the requested information, and I will get those answers sent to you immediately, in hard copy or, if you wish, on a computer-readable CD in a handsome keepcase.

You can trust me, C. Stoner. As a devout Christian, as far as you know, I would never mislead someone.

I have the answers you seek. If you really want those answers, you’ll be happy to pay for them. That is the way capitalism works according to the system that was set up by the founders of this country, some of whom were also devout Christians, as far as you know.

Comment #60083

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 7:35 PM (e)

And the only thing ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank’
can come up with is to treat me as a child with ridicule (boy I really hope he is not indicative of who is a teacher today)He says:

“Then go to a library (the big building with all the books in it) and ask the nice librarian to point you to all the “biology” books. Read them. All of them. Twice. Then have an educated person explain all the big words to you.”
What a pompous ass! I really am trying to find out stuff and most of you are only playing stupid schoolyard games!

Dude, if you really sincerely truly want to learn about science, then the advice I gave you is the very best advice you’ll get.

Fortunately for you, ignorance is a correctible condition. Un-fortunately,f or you, correcting it takes time and effort.

The library is your best friend. Use it. Stop getting your “science” information from creationist religious tracts.

Comment #60084

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 7:37 PM (e)

really hope he is not indicative of who is a teacher today

I’m not a teacher.

And it’s not my, or anyone else’s, job here to give you a basic science education.

Wanna learn biology? Then go to the library and read some biology books.

It’s really that simple.

Comment #60091

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 25, 2005 8:10 PM (e)

Mr. C. Stoner:

Thanks Aureola Nominee,
I guess I hit a nerve…

Yes, liars always get on my nerves.

…..so much for reverse questions and thought,

It was you who claimed not to be a creationist, and then regurgitated a long list of creationist crap. It was also you who claimed to have come with a question and been hit with a storm, when in reality - as I just showed everybody here - there was not a single honest question in your whole post.

by the way, the question is about truth and who has it and who doesn’t…..or is that too hard for you guys?

No, the question is not about who has the truth; it is about your coming here pretending to be what you weren’t, a behaviour that, unfortunately, is all too prevalent among creationists.

….back to the hunt

One does not go hunting for truth armed with lies, Mr. Stoner.

Comment #60099

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 8:59 PM (e)

Wow!
I am not a creationist, I have never claimed to be a christian, I have been looking where gracious people have been telling me where to go to find evidence.
(3 people who really want me to find what I am looking for)
I’ve been basically called a liar, incognito creationist, treated as a child, been given religious lessons, Freudian psycho-babble, given the opportunity to “pay” for information on what you people should be giving out for free if you truly want me to know……
Is everyone in this genre as egotistical and arrogant as your posts portray, or are there any among you who knows what it is like to want to know things?
I guess I will stick with the things the gracious people gave me to look at for now….(plenty of good stuff)……the rest of you can wallow in you delusional self aggrandizement…..
back to the hunt……

Comment #60100

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 25, 2005 9:18 PM (e)

Mr. C. Stoner:

One does not go hunting for the truth armed with lies.

Please, whenever you feel like saying something of substance in support of your claims, feel free to do so.

Whining like a 3rd grader, to use your powerful metaphor of a few posts back, will lead you nowhere.

Over and out.

Comment #60101

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 9:45 PM (e)

Wow again,
The arrogance of a few elites in this forum……I started out today with what I knew…..started asking for help on the issue….Got help from some genuine, thinking people, then am attacked by those who are threatened by little ole me trying to find sources for finding out what is true! These people must be very insecure with their knowledge and positions in this field otherwise they would be helping!
Reminds me of schoolyard bullies pushing people around because they have no substance…..
I’d like to thank CBBB, orrg1, and Ed for at least trying to help….…..
I will get to the bottom of this somehow, someway….…….on to http://www.darwinianmedicine.org/
Back to the all night hunt……thanks Ed!

Comment #60105

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 9:58 PM (e)

started asking for help on the issue

Go to a library.

If you know how to read and have a library card, you can learn anything you want to, and no power on this planet can stop you.

Except yourself.

Quit whining. Start reading.

Comment #60106

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 10:07 PM (e)

I did. Right now they are closed so I am looking things up….….stop being an elitist….

Comment #60107

Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠ&Gamma on November 25, 2005 10:11 PM (e)

Y’know, Stoner, (I used to know a family named Stoner), having read this site for the past year or so and also having read the last 3 days of this thread (I hesitate to call it a discussion) all at once, there’s one… no, two impressions stamped deeply upon my thoughts:

  1. All of the charges levelled at you appear to be 100% true (it’s hard to deny when they are documented in detail).
  2. Your denials are much, much less than honest.

If you can’t even be honest about your denials, it’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to believe that you’ve been honest about anything else.  And if you are indeed telling falsehoods for Christ, what does that say about the merits of Christianity?  Chew on that for a while.

Comment #60111

Posted by Jeffrey Worthington on November 25, 2005 11:10 PM (e)

CBBB
Not to be a word monger, but, I do not think that creationists or ID’rs are given to speculation. To speculate implies that you are open to the possibility that you are wrong, are open minded in your quest to find out if you are right, and that you are genuinely searching for answers. Creationists and ID’rs are quite certain that there pseudoscience is reality because some 2000 year old book says so. They are not interested in seeking information that may not agree with there world view. (I hope that I am making sense.)

Comment #60112

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 11:21 PM (e)

To:Engineer-Poet

You know, I enjoy reasonable debate or sincere help in the matter at hand…..I am not looking for Christianity here. When have I told falsehoods about Christ?
(what are you talking about….are you a complete idiot or what).
I am not for one side or the other, that is why I am looking up stuff on this debate! (with all of the schooling out there, you would think people could converse reasonably!)
I have not denied anything……I have asked for help in this matter and all you can do is accuse out of thin air…….if you put half your energy into helping me instead of using it to bolster your opinion of yourself then I might just get where I am trying to get in this hunt for info…..but alas, your to stuck on stupid to help….….and the hunt continues….….

Comment #60113

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 11:45 PM (e)

to:Stephen Elliott,
Thank you for the encouragement…I am not one of those ‘trolls’ as you call them….
I really want to know….….If I am misinformed, then I am as ready as the next person to accept it and move on to next level……but your colleagues for some reason are on a vendetta…..I guess they aren’t very good at helping anyone but themselves ‘survival of the fittest’ and all that!
Again thanks…….back to the hunt….

Comment #60116

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 12:19 AM (e)

Hey k.e.,
Something has been bugging me…….why do you use a TM trademark for your statement : The WordTM? And what is your obsession with Freud?…….
Just asking……I need real help here finding the truth!….
back to the hunt….

Comment #60119

Posted by Norman Doering on November 26, 2005 2:14 AM (e)

C. Stoner,

While I confess I have my doubts about your claims you are looking more and more like a seeker after what’s true here. However, you do seem to have been lied too in malicious ways by creationists.

There is more information just on the Internet relating to evolution than any one person can read in a life time. Add specialized libraries to that and the topic is overwhelming. The trick is getting at the information that answers your specific question.

If you want help from of us navigating that over abundant treasure trove of information you have to ask real questions and be as specific as possible.

Now what, specifically as possible, do you doubt about evolution.

Comment #60126

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 5:15 AM (e)

Thanks Norman Doering for understanding,
I am looking for specific information on macro evolution…..I have been seeing a lot of hopeful conjecture so far but nothing solid……can you help point me to something more substantial?…..
back to the hunt…….

Comment #60127

Posted by Mark on November 26, 2005 5:20 AM (e)

To C. Stoner.

Library books are a good resource. Why not take a course in biology at your local college (they have night classes in most colleges)? This way, you’ll be able to interact with other people who have a common interest. Reading by yourself is ok, but taking a course in a group with a professional instructor to help guide you is more appealling. Good luck.

Comment #60128

Posted by SEF on November 26, 2005 5:25 AM (e)

Arriving late and having read the first few pages of comments, I got a bit bored and jumped to the bottom - to find much the same thing but with a new member of the cast. Back-tracking to the middle where Philip Bruce Heywood disappeared (#59954) and C.Stoner appeared (#59970), I was struck by the similarity in their inability to format posts. Even if they aren’t the same person, general incompetence seems to be a characteristic feature of creationists, ie rather than merely specific (and wilful) incompetence at science. Of course there’s also their characteristic dishonesty …

Comment #60130

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 5:33 AM (e)

Thanks Mark,
I typically put in a 14 hour day at work.
The reason I am trying to find some more info online is that I have this weekend off and our library here in town is closed right now and I would like to get straight to the specific info on macro evolution that I can read and study while on my job starting Sun. night.
When I can get to a library I will start looking up stuff there……but for now I would like to cut through the maze out in cyberspace….….….thanks…….back to the hunt…..

Comment #60132

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 6:18 AM (e)

To:SEF,
If you can’t do anything but be an elitist in my hunt for more info on evolution, then please keep your faulty opinions to yourself…..pour yourself a glass of $100 crappy wine, look into the mirror and say your beautiful 400 times and then believe it…..other people have been really trying to help…..I figured that people on a forum like this would be better suited to give me info faster than bouncing all over the web……but your bb-ina-beer can brain hasn’t Figured that out yet……so if you can’t contribute to the hunt, get on someone else to bolster your lack of self esteem…….back to the hunt…..

Comment #60133

Posted by Mark on November 26, 2005 6:44 AM (e)

To C. Stoner,
Yeah, I’ve done the long work day thing, too, so I know how it is (I’ve worked at three jobs at one time on more than one occasion). Difficult to even find time to eat, sleep, buy groceries, etc. Somehow I managed to squeeze in a little time to study during work breaks, but that’s how I started. Then I began taking one course at a time during the day at my local high school and then college (with some difficult scheduling problems), but with a lot of hard work, I eventually achieved a degree in biology. Don’t know if this is your goal, but hopefully whatever your pursuit is, things will eventually turn out well.

Comment #60134

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 26, 2005 6:49 AM (e)

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 05:33 AM (e) (s)

Thanks Mark,
I typically put in a 14 hour day at work.
The reason I am trying to find some more info online is that I have this weekend off and our library here in town is closed right now and I would like to get straight to the specific info on macro evolution that I can read and study while on my job starting Sun. night.
When I can get to a library I will start looking up stuff there……but for now I would like to cut through the maze out in cyberspace…………thanks…….back to the hunt…..

What do you mean by macro evolution?
That is term invented by the ID movement.

You are aware that in any given species more members are born; than go on to breed.
In any given species no two are exactly alike.

OK; lets use an example. Wolves.
In a wolf pack the female gives birth to far more young than actually go on to become parents.
All the young have slight variations.
The most successful breed so their particular variations are more heavily “selected”.

Now imagine that some wolves (of a particular pack)are separated;
Half in an arctic environment’ the other half in a temperate one.
After several generations (assuming both packs thrive), you would not be surprised to find that the arctic pack favoured white coats and the temperate pack dark ones.

Only a small difference right? No Macro evolution there right?
Well the problem is that it is the small changes over time that lead to what you would refer to as macro evolution.

Be fair the TofE has been around for approx 150 years; it’s claims can take many millions of years.

Remember: Macro Evolution = Micro Evolution + More Time.

I am not a biologist so don’t take my word for it. Almost certainly I will have made some mistakes in my explanation. But I do think that is the gist of it.

Seriously though the library suggestion is a good one, and if you have time to take a course, even better.

Comment #60135

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 26, 2005 7:12 AM (e)

C. Stoner,

It’s still impossible to know where you’re coming from. You showed up with an attitude and a suitcase full of misinformation and baseless claims about Science, scientists and evolution. What was the basis for those claims?

My first suggestions to you would be an attitude adjustment and less complaining about the (deserved) responses your first post generated. There are many on this board who would be more than willing to point you in the right direction, but will not put up with your combative demeanor.

There’ve been too many creationist trolls who’ve shown up here armed with ignorance, arrogance, and closed minds - it tends to make some of us a bit testy. If you are truly here for answers, try backing up a step or two and starting over again.

Comment #60142

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 26, 2005 8:12 AM (e)

C.Stoner -If you are genuinely looking for an introduction to evolution you could do worse than to start here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

.. when you have worked through this perhaps you can come back and we’ll have an informed debate. This resource includes information on ‘macro-evolution’ in the sense that biologists use it: “Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.”
.. although not in the sense that creationists use it:
microevolution = good; macroevolution = bad

Comment #60147

Posted by PZ Myers on November 26, 2005 8:58 AM (e)

Mr Stoner: you are clearly an attention-seeking troll with a fondness for whining. You have 17 comments in this thread; your time would be better spent reading some of the links and books cited, rather than whimpering that you need to be spoon fed. Go away. If you can’t make substantive comments, I will rip them up. (Yes, I can do that.)

Everyone else: you can stop relying to this clueless gomer. Like, now. The comments that tried to give him some information are appreciated, but it is now painfully obvious that he is not going to attend to them, so let’s let him find some other place to wank, OK?

Comment #60150

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 10:41 AM (e)

Mark,
Thanks for understanding and congrats on hard work in school.

Stephen Elliott,
Thanks for your info….”Remember: Macro Evolution = Micro Evolution + More Time”
It will help in clearing all this up and and narrowing the search……(wolves are cool)

Bob Maurus,
My orig. comments are all most of us old timers know out here…..respect goes both ways……

Dean Morrison,
Thanks for the link…..I’ll check it out and thank you for being patient…..

PZ Myers,
You may ‘rip’ them up if you like…that is your prerogative…..but I have been looking into the links that have been given me by gracious people (5 so far with lots of tags to there suggestions)…….I have my computer set to refresh every 5min or so on 2 screens so I can browse while attending to this forum to get info….(have you ever typed in ‘evolution’ on Google? what a mess)

Like one of your gracious people said earlier…there is a lot of stuff out here on the net…..and I want to narrow my search as I said earlier…..Macro-Micro…how am I supposed to know when even Time magazine uses these terms as generalizations? I guess it is still survival of the fittest and I’m the weakest link…..trying to understand..
on to the hunt….(after some sac time)…

Comment #60170

Posted by Norman Doering on November 26, 2005 1:27 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott wrote:

What do you mean by macro evolution?
That is term invented by the ID movement.

Actually it was not invented by creationists. I used to think it was invented by creationists too since macroevolution would just be a lot of microevolution happening for a longer time.

If you check here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Someone proposed a theory of “orthogenetic evolution” and thought macroevolution was of a different calibre and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium, by Stephen Jay Gould, could make use of the term. There are critical genes (such as the homeobox) in all living organisms, and a small change in them could cause drastic changes in the morphology of an organism, resulting in a new species quite rapidly or a difference between a toy poddle and a Grey Hound (which are not different species but still pretty macro in difference).

However it’s basically an obsolete term used by creationists but not invented by them.

Remember: Macro Evolution = Micro Evolution + More Time.

At least most of the time it seems. But remember, genes are complicated and they don’t produce changes in form equal to the change in the genome. Things are never as simple as we can tell them in one sitting, and probably not in a book.

And Stoner, your question is still vague. Start narrowing it down to the problem YOU have with the concept.

Comment #60172

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 26, 2005 1:54 PM (e)

C. Stoner,

Old timers? What’s age got to do with it? I’m an old timer who’s made a concerted effort to keep up. The internet puts a world of knowledge at your fingertips. Take advantage of it.

Comment #60180

Posted by Norman Doering on November 26, 2005 2:30 PM (e)

Stoner,

Here’s a metaphor for thinking about how the terms macro versus micro evolution effect us:

It’s like arguing about macro numbers versus micro numbers and saying macro numbers can’t exist because no one can count to them. What’s a macro number? A number no human being can count to. How can we know they exist if we can’t count to them?

What about adding the two biggest micro numbers together? Isn’t that a macro number?

What about adding the effects of two non-interbreeding groups of creatures’ micro evolution? Wouldn’t micro evolution necessarily become macro evolution in time?

We see no problem with macroevolution. You have to explain the problem you see.

Comment #60208

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 4:49 PM (e)

Thanks Norman Doering for really good info and links…….the problem that I have with it is that it seems more complicated than what I thought it was….and when I started searching the web….it got more confusing….so I asked for help in finding good sites from people who do this stuff like you guys….
Again, thanks……I’ll use the links tonight….…….

Bob Maurus,
I am trying to take advantage of it…..thanks……
Back to the hunt….…..

Comment #60210

Posted by Registered User on November 26, 2005 5:00 PM (e)

problem that I have with it is that it seems more complicated than what I thought it was….and when I started searching the web….it got more confusing….

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Stoner, are you confused about whether HIV causes AIDS or whether Sasquatch are roaming the woods of Oregon?

Or is your confusion about the scientific consensus restricted to evolutionary biology?

I’m just curious. Call it an anthropological interest of mine.

Comment #60216

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 26, 2005 5:23 PM (e)

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Stoner, are you confused about whether HIV causes AIDS or whether Sasquatch are roaming the woods of Oregon?

Odd isn’t it? One never sees people charging into groups of geologists demanding to be shown, to their satisfaction, that the earth is round and revolves around the sun (all the while declaring their “open-mindedness” and “honest confusion” about “both sides”). Yet people apparently have no compunction at all about demanding that biologists show, to their satisfaction, that life evolves.

I see no reason to let the nutters make us jump through their hoops. It’s not our job to give every uninformed person a basic sciecne education, particularly when anyone who knows how to read and has a library card can learn anything they want, any time they want, and no power on earth can stop them.

If people are uninformed on a matter, it’s THEIR FAULT and no one else’s. Fortunately, the solution to being uninformed is pretty straightforward. UN-fortunately, most uninformed people don’t want to make the effort to do it. (shrug)

Comment #60218

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 5:40 PM (e)

To:Registered User,
Yes it is……I have been looking at Wikipedia and a couple of other sites to see what macro-micro is good for and I am finding that there are 2 different camps inside biology about what it means and its use….….that is what is confusing….which one is true? Gould or the other guys?……still searching…thanks for asking…..

To:’Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank:
I do have a library card, I do use it when I can, my library is closed this weekend so I can’t get there, plus I work 14 hours a day normally….I just happen to have the weekend off… so gracious people have been helping me to get info to take to work with me so I CAN study….but your too busy being elitist about it to try to help(what good is knowledge if you don’t share it?)
….….I bet kids asking questions drive you nuts:-)
….Back to the hunt…….

Comment #60226

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 26, 2005 6:23 PM (e)

I do have a library card, I do use it when I can, my library is closed this weekend so I can’t get there

And the reason you can’t go there Monday is … what.

Are you on some sort of time limit or something?

Comment #60235

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 26, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

The Wikipedia reference that C.Stoner was referring to:

Wikipedia wrote:

There are a number of views regarding macroevolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly Charles Darwin and those subscribing to the modern synthesis, see the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution as being one of scale. Other evolutionary biologists, including Gould, Schmalhausen, and Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different processes. Essentially the question is - how important are sudden developmental “spurts” to the overall process of evolution? Are they the driving force, or is gradual change the more important process?

Macroevolution is controversial only outside the scientific community, and aspects of it are disputed by many movements such as creationism and intelligent design. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an observable phenomena, but that the latter is not. They have proposed a number of limits beyond which they believe evolution cannot occur. Proponents of Intelligent design argue that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of giving rise to instances of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Proponents of creation biology assert that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete created kinds beyond which and between which no evolution can occur, and that the dominant source of biological change is population isolation and genetic drift, or the loss of the diversity of the original kinds, rather than an increase of genetic diversity through mutation.

-which seems fair enough, especially where it says ‘Macroevolution is controversial only outside the scientific community’

Comment #60236

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 7:21 PM (e)

To:Dean Morrison,
But it seems to contradict itself…..how can they both be right?

Comment #60237

Posted by k.e. on November 26, 2005 7:25 PM (e)

What is it with “fact” checking. Have people completely lost trust in everything?

Pure objectivism, not a creative or imaginative bone in their body that THEY can TRUST PLUS the complete inability to make a CORRECT logical deduction the sort of person who just scraped through or failed both English and Science. Zero knowledge of world History outside of GENESIS, no genuine ability to subjectively process information, totally and absolutely credulous because they are completely unable to make a VALID value judgment enter “The WordTM” and instant bot/unit. In the Year of our FORD 345 AR…….

They don’t trust anybody because they have been lied to by politicians (facts gone wrong) the soap salesmen (facts gone wrong) and the evening news is just shallow entertainment (facts gone wrong.)

No more TRUTH (Old Henry would be proud)

The sort of people that really P*ss me off.

Comment #60243

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 26, 2005 7:50 PM (e)

C. Stoner,

Sorry, you don’t add up. You’re a fount of creationist bullshit at the same time you’re pleading an honest need to know. Acknowledge the first or prove the second. At least until then, you’re a troll.

Comment #60244

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 8:01 PM (e)

Hey k.e.,
I just got off of the discussion side of this issue on Wikipedia and they are having the same problem and I am pretty sure they are not your church going type….
As the proverb goes…..”in the council of many is wisdom”……or do you know everything and don’t need anyone or anything to help you make an informed decision? You must be God…….
Thanks again Dean…..
and
‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank, Its not open when I go to work….and its not open when I get home….….so I am trying my best to get some really good resources for when I am at work…….unlike government employees, I don’t have access to computers or the time to use them when I am at work…….even to order library books…..

Comment #60245

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 8:03 PM (e)

Wow Bob,
That was really constructive….….back to the hunt…..

Comment #60256

Posted by k.e. on November 26, 2005 10:09 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #60261

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 10:47 PM (e)

Doing sac time now……eyes are dead, printer worn out, start again tomorrow before I go to work….….Thank you to all who have helped so far with your posts and links….….very helpful….

thank you also to those who didn’t help…..you reinforce my belief in why we need a military….….and why we use it……Good night……off the hunt for now….

Comment #60262

Posted by PZ Myers on November 26, 2005 11:04 PM (e)

Stop feeding the troll, or the comments will be closed.

Comment #60266

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 26, 2005 11:33 PM (e)

Hi Stoner,
You’ve been pointed to many resources. The best collection on the web, IMHO, is Talk Origins at
http://www.talkorigins.org/

you can search or browse the archive. Many a novice person have gone there with a small interest and got sucked into reading the whole archive over a period of time me included. I even revisit articles that I have read before.

There is a TON of material up there. I have a few suggestions to help with it.
1) Use the search to get at articles that address your questions first
2) Browse through the monthly feed-backs. While you’ll see people hostile here to certain questions you’ll find that on the feedback these questions often get answered very carefully. I’ve never seen a response that is hostile. Sometimes they don’t answer the posts but put them up to show how crazy some of the trolls can get
3) Get a text to speech program. There are some freely available ones out there. The free Microsoft voices can take getting used to but they help a lot once you get used to them. To start out read along with the program and you’ll not only get used to the voice faster but you’ll probably pick up more from the articles. If you want I can send you a program I wrote to do this which also lets you dump the article to a .WAV file. You could then use another program to convert it to MP3 or some other format that you could use in a portable media player and listen away from your computer. My email is wayneefrancis@gmail.com

to get you started go here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Good luck with your learning.

Comment #60276

Posted by k.e. on November 27, 2005 12:42 AM (e)

Stoner
I posted (my last post)before your last post- God no just a LOT of experience….your previouse question No not Freud…Post Jungian actually that observation makes more sense if you’ve had kids.

In your search of “facts” include the motives of the people producing facts and “facts” passing as “The Wordtm” (sacred text/stories) and look up “critical thinking” on Wiki.

If you have any young relatives you could do no better than buy them this book for Christmas. That will give you an excuse to read it aloud to them. It’s not just for Kids it is one of Mans’ timeless tales have a peek at the reviews

“Old Turtle and the broken Truth” Douglas Wood

If that wets your appetite try

“The Hero with a Thousand Faces” by J. Campbell. (should be in your Library)

Comment #60289

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 27, 2005 6:35 AM (e)

PZ Myers wrote:

Stop feeding the troll, or the comments will be closed.

..actually I have found this particular bout of troll-feeding to be much more constructive than say; waiting for Salvador to answer Lenny’s questions. It has encouraged me to investigate some new sources myself …the Berkeley resources are particularly good.. Berkley evolution resources.
Instead of closing threads wouldn’t it be possible for the University of Ediacara to build a menagerie for our trolls? We could then engage in proper studies of the taxonomy, ecology and origins of the beasts? The question of ‘intelligent designer’ versus evolution in their case might be an interesting one; but my feeling is their lack of complexity or information would mean they wouldn’t squeeze through Dembski’s filter…

Comment #60290

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 27, 2005 7:17 AM (e)

Dear Mr. Stoner,
Thanks for posting something intelligent and decent. As many contributors to these pages assert, the Bible makes seemingly differing statements about the same topic. For instance, one never knows whether to take PROVERBS 26:4 or PROVERBS 26:5 as the correct proceedure. In the case of T/O, there are a couple of ameliorating factors: 1), It is exceptional in allowing free speech; 2),If they have had as much trouble getting sense out of most of the Young Earth Creationist publishers over the past 30yrs, as I have, there conceivably might be a hint of an excuse.
I’ll try PROVERBS 26:5 again.

DOGS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS UNDER NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IF “DOG” IS YOUR BLOODLINE, “DOG” STAYS YOUR BLOODLINE. We have one fellow at least who is sitting on the fence about this, and another who doesn’t seem to know whether he wants dogs to give birth to cats or cats to give birth to dogs, provided he can overthrow the law of inherited characteristics to prove that dogs give birth to cats whilst not giving birth to cats. You get entertainment here, even if you don’t get much reliable biology.

Another contributor - or was it the same one? - seems to think statistical analyses of species populations is the sort of mathematically-based modelling that enables us to prove exactly what can or cannot happen in nature. That’s like getting the government statistician to build the Brooklyn Bridge. (Or the Sydney Harbour Bridge, if you want a decent bridge.)

Then there’s the idea that Mother Nature beat Bill Gates to it by 4thou. mill. yrs.. Whether that’s on the advice of the Commonwealth Statistician or a chap who actually designed and built a bridge, who knows? Lord Kelvin, who ACTUALLY DID THE MATHS-BASED PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY, made some comment about stamp-collecting, whilst figuratively casting a sceptical eye over certain branches of science. He was referring to people who think they know how stamps get manufactured, because they catalogue them and atatistically analyze the data. I doubt if a single Darwinist has ever been able to explain the basics of physical chemistry. Some can begin now, by using less than 1,000 words to adequately convey the meaning of Enthalpy and Entropy. You will need to show why Enthalpy is measured in J/kg, whilst Entropy is measured in J/deg.K. Do not regurgetate Paul Davies. It won’t stick.

Then we have the charming idea that time is a V-8 Buick with twin exhausts. Move over, Gyro Gearloose. Time has become a mechanism.

You come here for laughs, Mr. Stoner. Most of them can’t mean to be be taken seriously.

Yours COURTEOUSLY, Philip Heywood.

P.S. I would invite all you boys down to MacDonalds for a coffee or something, but the nearest to me is several hours away. In the interim, would anyone like a rug to gnaw on?

Comment #60291

Posted by k.e. on November 27, 2005 7:43 AM (e)

pbh
Thankyou for that illuminating post.
You will not co course listen to this so don’t.
You sir are certifiably insane find a nice couch lie down and smoke a bong the size of Sydney harbor bridge while reading “Through the looking glass” by l. Carroll listening to Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” and watching the “Matrix” in the company of 20 nubile virgins.
It works because I’ve done it …..you absolute tosser

Comment #60292

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 27, 2005 7:54 AM (e)

Heywood, you’re blithering again.

Comment #60293

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 27, 2005 9:13 AM (e)

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 27, 2005 07:17 AM (e) (s)
…..
DOGS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS ….

PBH,
You sure do have a thing with cats and dogs.
Well at least your last post was easier to read than your previous efforts (shame it made no more sense).
You are evolving;)

Comment #60304

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 27, 2005 11:14 AM (e)

find a nice couch lie down and smoke a bong the size of Sydney harbor bridge while reading “Through the looking glass” by l. Carroll listening to Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” and watching the “Matrix” in the company of 20 nubile virgins.
It works because I’ve done it

I’m jealous.

;>

Comment #60320

Posted by C. Stoner on November 27, 2005 1:13 PM (e)

Wayne Francis,
thanks, I’ve been using it….
k.e.,
I’ll try to get to it…:-)

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank,
Sounds like a plan….……::–))Everything is doubled—-wow the colors…….

Philip Bruce Heywood,
thanks for the bite….I think every thinking human knows you can’t get a cat from a dog….…….

PZ Myers,
I’m not a troll….….I’m a inexplicable piece of sputum pool that has acquired two legs a brain and a computer……I thought you liked evolution….[;-)

Comment #60323

Posted by k.e. on November 27, 2005 1:53 PM (e)

Lenny
Xcuse me while I reincarnate ))

Comment #60330

Posted by Norman Doering on November 27, 2005 3:41 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

DOGS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS UNDER NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES

However, about 50 to 60 million years ago there was the Miacis, a five clawed ancestor of all dogs, cats, bears, raccoons, fox, hyena and jackals. The miacis had a long body and tail, short legs and looked somewhat like a weasel.

Ancestors of the Miacis changed and branched gradually through time to become a large family of mammals. That’s how evolution works.

Comment #60332

Posted by Registered User on November 27, 2005 4:32 PM (e)

MIACIS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS UNDER NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Philip, you can thank me by donating $50 to your local human society. Thanks.

Comment #60355

Posted by C. Stoner on November 27, 2005 8:56 PM (e)

Hey,
thanks to all of you this weekend…..including the elitist{:-)…. for the info….I’m getting ready to go to work again (another 6 days of 14’s)…I’ll be looking at all the stuff you guys pointed me to…….just have one question(and I’ll get to it when I get back)….
Where does matter come from?….…..back to work, study the hunt…..

Comment #60358

Posted by Registered User on November 27, 2005 9:00 PM (e)

I beg PZ to do the right thing here.

Comment #60359

Posted by PZ Myers on November 27, 2005 9:05 PM (e)

I agree. Watching Mr Stoner babble has become too painful.