PZ Myers posted Entry 1958 on January 31, 2006 09:03 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1953

We're getting signs that the Discovery Institute is going to be shifting their strategy a little bit.

Thoughts from Kansas has an excellent discussion of the subject. Basically, they're going to embrace more of the actual science, and focus their dispute on finer and finer points. What does this mean? Common descent is now in.

DaveScot on Bill Dembski's blog (TfK has the link) has a bit of a rant on it—he's going to kick out anyone who questions the idea of common descent, and goes on and on about how denying common ancestry is a religious idea that goes against all of the scientific evidence, and therefore must be purged if ID is to achieve any status as an actual scientific idea.

As Josh documents, though, they've got a long list of ID advocates on the record at the Kansas hearings denying common descent: Angus Menuge, Nancy Bryson, Ed Peltzer, Russell Carlson, Warren Nord, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Charles Thaxton, and Stephen Meyer are all quoted as rejecting it to various degrees, and ironically, Dembski's blog is titled "Uncommon Descent". The commenters at that blog are also frantically tossing up quotes from their heroes, such as Dembski's own "Intelligent design therefore throws common descent itself into question…"—obviously, common descent has been an obstacle to them in the past.

If you're familiar with DaveScot, though, you're probably thinking, "DaveScot is a deranged lunatic—he shouldn't be regarded as a bellwether for the ID movement!" I agree, and given that so many notables in the movement have rejected common descent, he does seem to be an outlier.

Except…

Stephen Meyer has an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News today. This is the Stephen Meyer who claims to be one of the "architects of Intelligent Design", Stephen Meyer the Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, the Stephen Meyer who, when asked whether he accepted the principle of common descent, said:

I won't answer that question as a yes or no. I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak.

Today, though, Meyer declares that ID has no complaint with common ancestry.

The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

That does sound a little bit like we have a new party line emerging. They are going to accept all of the science except that they are going to insist that there is also an additional guiding force than selection. In order to do that, though, they're also going to have to find some evidence for this mysterious force, and since they're still calling it an intelligent directing force, they're going to have to try harder to back up this specific claim, if they actually plan to carry through and focus on this one point.

Meyer's op-ed, though, shows no sign of that. Instead, as usual, he falls back on the old argument from incredulity, making the same old analogies and comparing cells to cars and computer programs.

Over the last 25 years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells – complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

He repeatedly claims that ID is based on scientific evidence, but fails to provide any—saying it "looks like" something designed is not evidence, especially when the basis for that appearance is nothing but overwrought and fallacious metaphors. Sorry, Stephen, you are confusing the computer-generated illustrations of the flagellum, which are all shiny smooth flat and curved surfaces with pseudocolor and ray-traced reflections, with the reality, which consists of coarse-grained polymers and stochastic chemical processes. Mazda may use CAD, but cells do not.

My bold prediction: this strategy can only further marginalize ID. The grassroots that support ID now are largely the same people who supported old-school creationism, who don't like being told their ancestors were apes, and they're going to be explicitly cut off by this policy. Bye-bye, base. At the same time, they aren't going to acquire any new supporters among scientists: focusing on a narrower, more precise set of ideas is usually a good idea, but it will also focus attention on the dearth of evidence supporting it.

I suspect this is a poorly thought-out trial balloon that's going to thud right into the ground. Expect further backtracking and denials soon.

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 #76413

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 9:33 AM (e)

The Official Uncommon Pissant Discussion Thread over at AtBC is also on this topic. I’ll say here what I said there:

Man, DaveScot is wailing and gnashing his teeth. He’s demanding that people stop talking about religion, he’s disputing quotes people are posting from his ID ‘betters’ such as Jonathan Wells, banning people, etc.

He wants a totally secular ID theory and everyone on board.

Why do we always want, what we can’t have?

Oh, it is so delicious to watch an exasperated DaveScot try to argue against the common-descent-denying dolts.


Creation science already lost. Didn’t you get the memo?

and I love this quote from DaveScot about common descent, on the John Lynch thread:


It’s claims denying the virtually undeniable that gives ID a bad name.

Earlier I picked last week in January for the firing of DaveScot. there’s still 14 hrs to go….

Comment #76416

Posted by Charlie B on January 31, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

steve s wrote:

Oh, it is so delicious to watch an exasperated DaveScot try to argue against the common-descent-denying dolts.

Doesn’t Dembski deny common descent? ISTR him doing so recently (maybe that recent shindig at the CCC?).

This could be interesting…

Comment #76417

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 31, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

DaveScot is not an official spokesperson for the Disclaimery Institute. The bit from Meyer is more interesting, but you’ll notice that it is light and fluffy waffle. If they do go with such a strategy, it will be interesting to see the response from the Answers in Genesis wing of the lunatic party.

Up until now I think the DI strategy was not to take a position on common descent at all, so I guess Meyer is correct to say that ID does not “challenge” common descent. ID proponents who have taken a position on common descent were stating their own views, not speaking for the party.

Will the Big Tent shrink?

Comment #76418

Posted by ah_mini on January 31, 2006 10:01 AM (e)

This waffle seems to bring ID ever-closer to the well established Theistic Evolution camp. The only difference now being that ID claims that evidence of Go…, sorry “the designer”, guiding evolution is accessible to science and TE’s say the hand of God is beyond such investigation. Seeing as Dembski and others have been particularly scathing of the TE position (whilst all the while claiming that ID isn’t religious, haha), I find these recent statements by DaveScot more than a little odd. I will wait and see whether this is really any kind of strategy change, or the rantings of someone completely out of touch with his creationist ID colleagues!

Comment #76419

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on January 31, 2006 10:02 AM (e)

This is just wonderful comedy. You could honestly package up the drama that is happening over in the ID movement into a sitcom or something that would hit top ratings I’d say. It’s just fantastic watching them implode after the Dover decision.

Comment #76421

Posted by bjm on January 31, 2006 10:10 AM (e)

Is this the evolution of ID we are witnessing? As for Dave Scott getting the boot - I doubt it - Dembski, along with his other ID brethren, doesn’t seem able to see what is going on around him!

Comment #76424

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 10:18 AM (e)

great minds think alike / fools seldom differ.

Bayesian Bouffant, “will the big tent shrink?”

here’s an email I sent to PZ:

“good for a giggle.. contracting tent…

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive…

Rich”

What are the odds? (Don’t ask D*mbski)

Comment #76425

Posted by improvius on January 31, 2006 10:21 AM (e)

NEWS FLASH: Dembski is no longer listed as a senior fellow on the DI site.

Fascinating.

Comment #76426

Posted by Skip Evans on January 31, 2006 10:22 AM (e)

The guys at the DI do more backpedaling than a pack of clowns on unicycles.

They are truly becoming laughingstocks.

Comment #76427

Posted by improvius on January 31, 2006 10:23 AM (e)

DOH - scratch the above post. He’s still a CSC fellow. My bad.

Comment #76428

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 10:23 AM (e)

He’s still a fellow, though:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

been like that for a while I think.

Rats / ship / sinking, anyone?

Comment #76429

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

Sleeper agent Dave Scot has been activated.

Sit back and watch the carnage :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive…

*Mwuahahahahahahahaha*

Comment #76431

Posted by Doc Bill on January 31, 2006 10:29 AM (e)

Let me get this straight because I can never remember how it goes.

If Stephen Meyer walks out of his office on Thursday, February 2nd, and doesn’t see his shadow, then macroevolution is OK for the next 10 years.

Is that it?

Comment #76432

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on January 31, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

The guys at the DI do more backpedaling than a pack of clowns on unicycles.

Funny, I made a similar analogy over on my blog just earlier:

In a lot of respects the ID advocates remind me of a train of clowns headed towards disaster as soon as their ‘experts’ ended up deposed in court. Once that event happend at Dover, their train derailed you can’t help but watch the leading ID proponents as they continue to furiously pedal on their unicycles sailing through the air to their end. So tragic and yet so hillarious at the same time.

It’s so very tragic.

Comment #76434

Posted by Skip Evans on January 31, 2006 10:32 AM (e)

Dembski is a Senior Fellow with the C®SC. See the link below the list you were looking at.

You don’t honestly think they’d dump the Paris Hilton of Information Theory, do you?

Comment #76440

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 10:53 AM (e)

That might be the best so far, Skip. LOL.

Comment #76441

Posted by Greg H on January 31, 2006 10:54 AM (e)

Ok, I’m starting to understand why some at the Panda’s Thumb don’t take us too seriously. Yes, I’ve been there and seen that they don’t deserve the honor either.

Comment by Ben Z — January 31, 2006 @ 7:53 am

This one was my favorite.

Some of them are actually starting to understand.

Comment #76442

Posted by Adam on January 31, 2006 10:58 AM (e)

Funny. I saw articles in which Behe and dembski already conceded common descent years ago. From the quotes of him in the above article, it seems that they were flip-flopping on the subject. I guess now they’re going to be consistent, on this matter at least.

Comment #76443

Posted by Keanus on January 31, 2006 10:59 AM (e)

Does anyone see a resemblance between ID by the DI and Ptolemaic astronomy? Only Rube Goldberg could top them for convoluted constructions.

Comment #76445

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 11:06 AM (e)

I think this is actually a wise strategic move on their part, “wise” being subjective in this case.

By embracing common decent they can move away from false claims about evolution (which requires a great deal of effort and back peddling, and at least a fundamental understanding of evolution) and simplify the debate around “guided or unguided?”. In the arena of public debate, that is a very simple concept for the average Joe to grasp. Per the Disco IC is a fact and do you think it magically happened by Darwinism or do you think an intelligent agent is behind it. They just greatly simplified IDC.

And since it would seem they are cutting their ideological ties with creationism they probably see this as a move that will help shield them from the lemon test.

So now the ID follower does not have to grasp things like the cambrian climax, finer points of “Darwinism” or posess any biological understanding at all. All they have to understand is the concepts of IC and “was this (IC) planned or random?”

They may lose many creationists but they stand to gain as many (if not more) “mainstream” religionists or even non-religionists.

On the surface this latest “design theory” would seem to be a workable “alternative” to evolution, at least for those who want it taught in public schools. And instead of pretending any evolutionary controversies exist (and they will lose that debate), or instead of manufacturing a controversy (they will get caught doing that)they simply adopt core evolutionary concepts and focus only on the guided or unguided notion. Of course they have no evidence of a guided evolution but the average Joe won’t see that. And most folks don’t need scientific evidence to believe in a creator so this modified version of IDC makes it very easy to digest to the untrained listener.

I think what we may be seeing is a fine tuning of the wedge strategy. This may be delaying the part about “replacing scientific naturalism with theistic unhderstandings” in favor of establishing themselves, at least in their own eyes, with a legitimate, secular theory.

I hope they fall flat on their face but after the laughter dies down, it will be interesting to see how this strategy pans out in the public’s eyes over the next few months or year.

Oh, and finally, this also greatly simplifies the work science has to do. Refuting IC and planned or unplanned evolution will be low hanging fruit for the science crowd. Whether the general public (those who vote) gets it is the wild card.

Comment #76449

Posted by Flint on January 31, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

Mr. Christopher:

I sincerely doubt all this. Bear in mind that when the DI goes fishing for funding, they go to churches and their sales pitch is that they are seeking legally permitted ways to get the Christian God into public life in every was possible. Bear in mind also that the main resistance to the DI within the flock, consists of those who are (IMO understandably) uncomfortable with the charade of pretending they aren’t talking about God, in order to promote the universe acceptance of God.

The bottom line really has not changed in over a century. There is a large number of people who simply *will not accept* anything other than the bald statement that they were created, as is, in the image of the One Great God. The entire, rather hilarious confection-and-rejection of ‘macroevolution’ is an effort to deny the existence of any process that could conceivably have produced us any other way.

The DI’s funding is directly related to their coziness with the God of the Fundamentalists. They are tethered there by their purse strings.

Comment #76450

Posted by Moses on January 31, 2006 11:36 AM (e)

A few more policy twists and turns and they’ll be full-fledged “neo-Darwinists.”

Comment #76451

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 11:40 AM (e)

I encourage everyone to go to Uncommon Descent and read those comments. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the site, when you see boldface, it’s DaveScot. It is hilarious.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive…

Comment #76452

Posted by Tiax on January 31, 2006 11:46 AM (e)

By the sound of his reply to my post, DaveScot now supports John Davison’s PEH in which all evolutionary ‘information’ is there at the beginning:

[bold his, normal text mine]

“If humans and lobsters share a common ancestor in this sense, then there must be a reproductive process which can create from this ancestor the specific, complex, adaptive characteristics of modern humans and lobsters without an influx of information from the outside.” - Phillip Johnson

Yes, there must be. It’s intelligent agency. Next!

I’m somewhat confused by this reply. Does the work of an intelligent agency represent the influx of information from the outside? Not necessarily. The source of the intelligence has not been identified. The information could have been there all along, never needing to be added. If not, then intervention by an intelligent agency could not increase information (am I right on that?)There may have been no intervention. Evolution unfolding the way it did could have been predetermined at the instant the universe was created with no further intervention required. and then the arguments against NS + RM that take the position that this process cannot account for novel information would also be arguments against intelligent intervention (since it too does not represent an increase in information). Could you clear this up for me?All ID does is identy patterns in nature that are the result of design by intelligent agency. How and when the design was accomplished is outside the scope of ID.

His last sentence isn’t really an answer, but the rest of it sounds like he’s boxed himself down to a sort of deist Designer who winds up the clock and lets it go. Interesting.

Comment #76453

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 11:49 AM (e)

Flint, my comments are purely speculative. I am sitting in the stands watching a football game and trying to make sense of a what appears to be a radical change in the Disco’s game plan. I guess getting sacked on 4th and goal everytime is causing them enough grief to make significant changes.

And I agree, if they cut off the Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell crowd they stand to lose an enormous base of support, both voters and cash. It will be a laff riot to hear Dembski tell the Campus Crusaders for Christ that they are the descendants of chimps. A howler to be sure. But they could also convince the Pat/Jerry crowd that they are simply trying to be “clever as serpents” to get a foothold. I admit that is a stretch. My personal hope is this will bring about an IDC ideological implosion sooner than later.

But I am simply speculating on the reason and motives of this recent ideological shift as well as what benefits they may derive from it.

I guess my question is if this isn’t an attempt to further shield themselves from any lemon tests, and stop making themselves look so anti-scientific (creationist) by attacking proven and accepted core evolutionary theories, what the heck is it and why?

Comment #76454

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

Doesn’t Dembski deny common descent? ISTR him doing so recently (maybe that recent shindig at the CCC?).

They say different things to different audiences. Did you see the commenters freak out when DaveScot tried to make common descent the ID orthodoxy? My granpappy ain’t no monkey!!!!!!!!111

Comment #76456

Posted by Moses on January 31, 2006 11:55 AM (e)

From the laugh riot at UnCommon Descent:

Qualiatative is no longer with us. Who is next?

Where should we send flowers? And, FWIW, I’m beginning to think ID is more dangerous than Avian Flu in the way they drop like flies over there… Hardly a week goes by without someone dying… ;)

Comment #76457

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on January 31, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

Thoughts from Kansas (linked in top post) mentions the “deer in the headlights” story but not this part:

search on Buckingham + “I was like a deer in the headlights”

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/bas…

When testifying at the trial two weeks ago, Buckingham – a leading proponent of the intelligent-design policy and its implementation – said he was “ambushed” by a television reporter when he was interviewed on June 14, 2004. “I was like the deer in the headlight,” he testified.

Jennifer Sherlock, the Fox 43 reporter who interviewed Buckingham, was not called to the stand.

In an interview, Sherlock said Buckingham not only agreed hours in advance to be interviewed, but used the word “creationism” several times in the interview.

Sherlock said the interview lasted nearly 10 minutes, though only a few seconds of it were used in her report.

In the portion that aired, Buckingham – appearing calm, wearing sunglasses, and sporting a red-white-and-blue lapel pin in the shape of a cross – said, “It’s OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism.”

Sherlock said she called Buckingham hours before the meeting. “I told him we were doing a story on the issue and wanted his side,” she said.

Sherlock said she met with Buckingham in a Dover school parking lot prior to the board meeting.

“It wasn’t like he was trying to hide his stance,” she said. “It was a friendly conversation. He was calm. He was just fine. I got the impression he wanted his position out there.”

Comment #76458

Posted by Russell on January 31, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

The key thing is to be able to say, to any criticism applied to ID, that the critic just fails to “understand” ID. Criticize them for rejecting common descent? “Well, clearly you just don’t know the first thing about ID!” It’s difficult to prove “theory” A wrong if its whole content is “there’s something not quite complete about theory B”. It’s the same reason they remain “agnostic” on the age of the earth.

DaveScot’s blunder is in attempting to collapse the quantum cloud of uncertainty that is ID into a defined position - on anything!

Trying to compel acceptance of common descent on a blog entitled “Uncommon Descent”? It’s not going to work. I predict DaveScot will be “re-educated” or exiled in short order.

Comment #76459

Posted by David Margolies on January 31, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

To be fair, the two statements by Meyers that you quote (one from Kansas, one from the Dallas paper) are not contradictory: in one he says he believes the evidence for common descent is unpersuasive, in the other he says that common descent is not inconsistent with ID. The wording may seem stronger, but he is playing to different audiences.

I agree with the general tenor of your article however: if you are to pretend to be scientific, you eventually have to deal with sience issues. The same problem occurs with age of the earth: an important part of the base believes in a young earth, so it is best to avoid talking about the issue entirely, but you cannot always avoid it if you appear as a witness before some body with a science-friendly questioner.

Comment #76460

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 31, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

It’s going to be hard to sell ID as an evolutionary theory after Pandas and People, Meyer’s blatant YEC arguments, “cdesign proponentsists”, and Behe’s list of organs that “couldn’t have evolved”. Are we going to finally be rid of the Cambrian nonsense we get from the IDiots?

On the IDiots’ plus side, they haven’t imploded yet because of their contradictions, waffling, and two-faced comments and declarations. After all, what else do they have?

On the minus side, though, they have serious legal problems with being two-faced liars who preach creationism in the churches and a “secular design hypothesis” in the courts. They may not back down from the current strategy simply for the legal reasons, using the old wink wink strategy with the faithful. “Why of course we believe in descent via design, but we’re not going to really bother you if you’re a cdesign proponentsist who oddly enough still believes in creationism.” DaveScot might be trying to purge the official blog, but don’t look for anyone to purge the “movement” itself.

The big problem for the ID blogs is that there is no such thing as a secular design hypothesis. ARN and Uncommon Descent (well PZ, ID has no choice but to deny common descent to some extent, or the IDeity has no role) are full of anti-naturalist, anti-materialist, anti-atheist rants, and clearly there is little driving ID other than a desire to fight secular science (or in other words, science–there being no religious science). On the PR side, purging religion from the ranks can hardly be anything other than detrimental to the DI’s propagandizing. There will be virtually no posts from the IDiots on Uncommon Descent if DaveScot really does purge that blog of religion, since the only “substance” of ID is religion.

However, ARN can always take up the slack, along with other religious forums. The DI can set up its pretense of non-religion for the sake of legal appearances while not exactly troubling the frankly religious forums for “mistaking” ID as a religious idea. If the winks and mentions of “Dover” are played right, the little religionists will understand, and let the DI put up its front without too much fuss.

I’d think it all depends on funding. If the DI needs money from the grassroots for its CSC, it will have to again point out its own religious agenda to the faithful. If Ahmanson and other well-heeled Wedgies are funding the CSC adequately, they can continue to pretend that they are just “following the evidence” or some such nonsense.

Glen D.
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76461

Posted by Russell on January 31, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

Note, also, that one of the skeptics of common descent on that comment thread is the DI’s own Paul Nelson. Will DaveScot ban Nelson? Stay tuned…

Comment #76463

Posted by BWE on January 31, 2006 12:15 PM (e)

My Hypothesis:

The phrase “They have no shame” evidently doesn’t apply to them. They tried really really hard to make it look like science, they put out the best PR money could buy but in the end, they had to debate real scientists and do real science and they just plain got embarrassed and turned around. In the big revivalist tent, you can talk about sin until your audience can’t stand their sin anymore and then you give them a way out- Jesus. Makes the whole thing much more overwhelming. But there is no dissent. In the court of public opinion, the majority of Americans woke up and realized these guys were nuts! I must admit, my hopes were low. I figured our collective intelligence to be around 80 and our critical thinking skills to be utterly subsumable by a good pr campaign. But, they succumbed to the force that has taken so many before: Ridicule. I believe that ridicule has tremendous power for good. If ideas can’t stand up to ridicule, they probably aren’t good ideas and there is a lot of incentive to stop as is what is apparently happening with the notion that descent is from an uncommon ancestor. I started a thread at AtBC that I was going to steer that way a week ago or so but I got busy and never really followed up. Anyone who wants to talk about the power of ridicule (or its appropriateness) in dealing with religious wingnuts, here is the link to that thread.

Comment #76464

Posted by AD on January 31, 2006 12:15 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #76466

Posted by AD on January 31, 2006 12:17 PM (e)

Bah.

The quote was comparing the Ptolemaics and ID, and I was saying it was an unfair assertion. The Ptolemaics had a model and contributed quite a bit to scientific knowledge (Tycho Brahe comes to mind), even if they turned out to be wrong in the end.

But the scientists around that argued on scientific terms, and contributed quite a bit. It was the non-science forces (the church, for one) who were holding back scientific progress with nonsensical ideas. In this case, DI is more like the church - they have no ptolemaic astronmers, or the science community would be having an honest debate with them and evaluating the predictions of testable theories and models.

Comment #76468

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 31, 2006 12:35 PM (e)

The quote was comparing the Ptolemaics and ID, and I was saying it was an unfair assertion. The Ptolemaics had a model and contributed quite a bit to scientific knowledge (Tycho Brahe comes to mind), even if they turned out to be wrong in the end.

Ptolemy found the distance to the moon within 10% or so. It was in part the successes of the Ptolemaic system that cemented that viewpoint in the Western world. The increasing problems arising as observations improved made it less and less successful and its utility to science decreased while the Copernican model’s predictive abilities (not really all that good in Copernicus’s time) increased over time.

The Ptolemaic system was a worthy model in its time (people forget that there were powerful-seeming objections to the heliocentric model before physics was developed by Galileo and others). If ID ever had a time when it was of any worth, that was at least 150 years ago. But even then it was mere gap plugging, leading to no useful predictions that weren’t rivaled by, say, theories of forms, Greek myths, or “best of all possible worlds”. Ptolemy did science, while not even in Paley’s time was any real science done via ID. The current crop of IDiots is only trying to redefine science to fit their preconceptions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76471

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 31, 2006 12:51 PM (e)

No trolls commenting on this yet, I see – guess it’s just too embarrassing.

And I agree, if they cut off the Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell crowd they stand to lose an enormous base of support, both voters and cash. It will be a laff riot to hear Dembski tell the Campus Crusaders for Christ that they are the descendants of chimps. A howler to be sure. But they could also convince the Pat/Jerry crowd that they are simply trying to be “clever as serpents” to get a foothold. I admit that is a stretch. My personal hope is this will bring about an IDC ideological implosion sooner than later.

No, what I think will happen is that the DI will continue to say wildly contradictory things at all times, depending on the audience. If they’re standing up pretending to be scientists for some reason, they’ll cautiously admit some degree of ‘guided’ common descent. If they’re talking to some audience of Christian True Believers and potential donors, they’ll drag out the hoary old Creationist chestnuts. And all their followers will deny they ever admitted/denied common descent, until they’re shown the exact citations, at which point they’ll change the subject.

Basic rule of IDC advocates: they cannot stick to one story, they never all get the memo, and no IDC notion is ever thrown out. This is why IDC will always be such a rich source of hilarity.

Comment #76474

Posted by PvM on January 31, 2006 1:07 PM (e)

ID fully embraces science since its conclusion that a (supernatural) intelligence must have been responsible for life is totally separate from science.

Only through equivocation and conflation can ID activists make the ‘argument’ that ID is somehow scientifically relevant.

Seems that ID activists are realizing how scientifically vacuous their position really is and that it is time to embrace fully evolutionary science. It’s a good step when ID moves the designer outside the reach of science.

Comment #76482

Posted by Rick on January 31, 2006 1:23 PM (e)

Wow, this really is a big step for ID if they sign on to it as a policy. What they are basically saying is, “Okay,we admit that evolution is entirely correct pretty much entirely as described. But please let us at least claim that our god had some tiny place in it. Throw us a bone.”

Also, if they do accept common descent, then ID is really nothing more than positing a redundant and unecessary postulate and adding it to the theory of evolution. It would be like saying, “Evolution is correct. Oh, and we are all living in a collective illusion which can’t be tested and can never be broken, the knowledge of which will have no effect whatsoever on our lives or on science.”

Paging Mr. Ockham!

Comment #76489

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 31, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

It needs to be if it’s going to become part of science. There’s obvious, abundant evidence of descent with modification from a common ancestor. There’s no evidence that it was unguided. It’s the claim made by the Wiesel 38 that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process that is unsupportable. Logically, one cannot distinguish between common descent and common design but there’s no scientific evidence to support common design while there’s plenty to support common descent - every single living thing whose origin can be determined descended from another living thing. If you can provide any scientific evidence whatsover that living things don’t always descend from other living things I’d love to hear it.

I think DaveScot may not be allowed to continue with the above claims forever. The whole point of ID is false claim that there is not evidence of common descent, at least not in the “basic design” (and DaveScot has argued that cretinist position on PT a whole lot, arrogant, moronic, and wrong as usual), and that there is evidence of “common design”. Now he’s saying the exact opposite.

To be sure, he still doesn’t recognize a false premise when he sees it, and supposes that “no evidence evolution was unguided” (presumably we’d have to prove lack of guidance in every instance to satisfy the dolt) means that guidance is a live option, when in fact we are waiting for any sort of positive evidence that guidance in evolution exists, apart from genetic engineering by humans. Nevertheless, shoot down that particular bit of nonsense, and he’s saying in that paragraph just about what we say.

Does anyone know anything about DaveScot, btw? Is he learned and intelligent in any sphere, or is he just a glib moron altogether? He claims to be agnostic, but of course his “intelligence guiding evolution” sounds like nothing other than God.

Btw, he does change, if not exactly learn anything. Now on Uncommon Descent he is claiming that the only natural law that exists is in fact common descent. He used to write bullshit like this:

Funny, the most natural thing in the world is for organized systems to become less organized over time. It’s called the second law of thermodynamics. Dr. Behe’s theory follows this law. And by the way, for you anti-sticker apologists, a law is more of a fact than a theory. You’d think materialists would be more open to Behe’s theory since it doesn’t violate the laws of nature, unlike some other theories. Go figure.

[found here]

http://tinyurl.com/7mp23

Being the ignoramus that he is, he didn’t realize that Behe’s scheme violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and that “law” is more of a historic appellation than anything else. Now he’s abandoning even the usefulness of considering the laws of thermodynamics to be “laws”, and calling something that isn’t a law, common descent, the only natural law:

Do you have any evidence of these natural laws that you speak of? The only natural law we have is that daughter cells come from mother cells.

Well, with friends like these, I expect that “friend DaveScot” will end up being purged from the Uncommon Descent at some point, unless he changes his tune. All I can add is that the stupidity goes on.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76491

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

From the (un)common descent thread:

“The ID movement is’t going to get anywhere with “scientific” arguments. You need to focus on the religious issues. That is the only way to get public and political support so you can teach this to children.

[DaveScot] You can already muster a simple majority that favors teaching religious alternatives to Darwinian evolution. A simple majority isnt’ enough. To teach religion requires a constitutional amendment and that requires a supermajority. There is nowhere near enough public and political support to form such a supermajority.”

Notice the rejection of the religious viewpoint isn’t “because its crap science” but because its unlikely to succeed..

ID- Internally Dishonest.

Comment #76492

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on January 31, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

A couple of thoughts about the DI and Davescott, as I read the Uncommon Dissent web page:

First, notice how DS emphatically said “I do not like losing”? It really sounds like (and I get this impression from others on the site as well) it’s really personal to them - that winning is more important than being right. As I scientist, I’d rather be right.

Second, did anyone notice (on a website devoted to a ‘non-religious’ alternative scientific theory) the questioner who said,

“The ID movement is’t going to get anywhere with “scientific” arguments. You need to focus on the religious issues. That is the only way to get public and political support so you can teach this to children.”

Then the reply from DS:

“You can already muster a simple majority that favors teaching religious alternatives to Darwinian evolution. A simple majority isnt’ enough. To teach religion requires a constitutional amendment and that requires a supermajority. There is nowhere near enough public and political support to form such a supermajority.”

Strange. No denial that ID is at its roots religious in character. Scary too, that they are this upfront about it. Is there an implication that DS would like to see that constitutional amendment? Not that this is any surprise; just another arrow in our quiver showing how dangereous and decieful these people are.

Comment #76494

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on January 31, 2006 1:52 PM (e)

Rich:
Hmmm. Great minds think alike?

Comment #76496

Posted by Richiyaado on January 31, 2006 1:57 PM (e)

So… common descent IN… big tent OUT… those scamps!

As for mousetraps to Mazda, maybe they oughtta rename the “Wedge” strategy the “Wankel” strategy.

Comment #76498

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 2:02 PM (e)

maybe they oughtta rename the “Wedge” strategy the “Wankel” strategy.

Must…resist…such…low hanging…fruit….

Comment #76501

Posted by lamuella on January 31, 2006 2:11 PM (e)

“The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry”

Of course it doesn’t. The theory doesn’t do anything, in the same way that flying invisible purple giraffes don’t do anything. This is because there is no theory. There’s a lot of grumbling, but nothing to back it up.

Comment #76503

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 31, 2006 2:16 PM (e)

First, notice how DS emphatically said “I do not like losing”? It really sounds like (and I get this impression from others on the site as well) it’s really personal to them - that winning is more important than being right. As I scientist, I’d rather be right.

That’s fine for us, but we haven’t staked our reputations, beliefs, and worldviews on an inadequate religious notion, or in Dave’s case, a stupid mistake like thinking that some similarity in function between organs and organelles with the function of designed machines means that organs and organelles were designed.

DaveScot wants to right, too, but he doesn’t know how to go about formulating a worldview which agrees with observation. So like many IDists/creationists, he wants his own inadequacies to be recognized as strengths and correctness, thus he rams his arrogance and ignorance into internet forums and vile little email attacks on forum members. His ego is at stake, and it has really taken quite a beating. I’m sure that his arrogance and belief in his superiority insulates him against some of the onslaught against his IDiocy, but it can’t shield him entirely.

He is shifting somewhat, no question. He used to revile posters on PT for saying some of what he’s written on Uncommon Descent today. But the people he mistreated in the past are still his enemies, still those who prevent him from being recognized for the “genius” that he is, so it is unlikely that he will act differently than he has. And he can be expected to continue to attack those who he needs to learn from as the sorts who are beneath his “superior intellect”.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76504

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 31, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

Someone needs to organize a debate between the DI’s Casey “no new information” Luskin and Dembski’s Dave “I ban you all” Scot.

It would be a hoot.

Comment #76506

Posted by The Sanity Inspector on January 31, 2006 2:32 PM (e)

South Carolina’s governor is climbing aboard the ID bandwagon:

The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics.”

Comment #76507

Posted by k.e. on January 31, 2006 2:44 PM (e)

Someone should tell DS I’d love to see him ban a WHOLE STATE
BWWWHHhahahhahahahaha

Comment #76508

Posted by so on January 31, 2006 2:46 PM (e)

So, should we stop calling the Dembski crowd anti-evolutionists?

Comment #76510

Posted by BWE on January 31, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

I’ve always advocated for much choicer words than “anti-evolutionists”. My personal preferences are “christian wingnuts” or “religious nutjobs”. But maybe that’s not nice.

Comment #76511

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 2:54 PM (e)

Lol. From Sanity’s UPI story:

But College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr. criticized the governor for his statements. They told the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier there aren’t “chinks in the armor of evolution,” and Sanford’s citation of the second law of thermodynamics was also incorrect.

Comment #76515

Posted by BWE on January 31, 2006 3:35 PM (e)

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 31, 2006 02:29 PM (e)

Someone needs to organize a debate between the DI’s Casey “no new information” Luskin and Dembski’s Dave “I ban you all” Scot.

It would be a hoot.

at which they debate this question: does god wear shoes?

Comment #76516

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on January 31, 2006 3:41 PM (e)

I own a Mazda RX-8 and I really don’t appreciate that Wankel comment earlier. Please leave my precious automobile out of this.

Comment #76518

Posted by Julie Stahlhut on January 31, 2006 3:45 PM (e)

The Sanity Inspector wrote:

South Carolina’s governor is climbing aboard the ID bandwagon:

“The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics.”

Part of me wants to write to this guy and say something like, “Maybe YOU’RE directly descended from mosquitoes, but I’M not!”

The other part of me likes most insects a lot better than it likes most primates, and probably wouldn’t bother.

Comment #76520

Posted by AC on January 31, 2006 4:03 PM (e)

Phillip Johnson: “If humans and lobsters share a common ancestor in this sense, then there must be a reproductive process which can create from this ancestor the specific, complex, adaptive characteristics of modern humans and lobsters without an influx of information from the outside.”

DaveScot: “Yes, there must be. It’s intelligent agency. Next!”

What a strange, confused statement. Of course there is a process that can create either a human or a lobster from this ancestor: it’s called evolution. And there is an influx of “information” from the outside (it’s called the environment) - just not information in the sense of literal DNA encoding.

The fact that such strawman bashing carries any weight with anyone but fundies proves that something has gone haywire. Either evolution education in America needs serious reinforcement, or skepticism needs to be remarried with empiricism in the public consciousness - or both. Many people are being skeptical of things they don’t even understand, just to be skeptical (for various reasons).

Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina: “The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics.”

Is he a fundie, or just a faux-skeptical political weasel?

Comment #76521

Posted by Norman Doering on January 31, 2006 4:07 PM (e)

Mr Christopher wrote:
“… and simplify the debate around ‘guided or unguided?’.”

It occurs to me that this isn’t exactly simple. There are great ambiguities in the concept of “guiding.” When Dawkins talks about evolution being unguided - a “blind watchmaker” - he’s talking about the random mutations part and no need for foresight in the process.

But we do “guide” evolution exactly where we want it when we breed dogs, set up genetic algorithms that evolve what we want and things like that.

Hill climbing algorithms need us to provide a hill.. or two.

Comment #76523

Posted by H. Humbert on January 31, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

Rich said:

Sleeper agent Dave Scot has been activated.

Damn that made me laugh.

Comment #76524

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina: “The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics.”

Is he a fundie, or just a faux-skeptical political weasel?

Sounds like he is a budding Discovery Institute “design theorist” to me. I wish him lots of media coverage.

Comment #76525

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

I’m controlling Davescot’s hysterical boldface typed curmudgeoning via my ‘Remote Methodologicalnaturalisamator’*

*Etch-a-sketch

Comment #76526

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 31, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina: “The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics.”

But if humans came from mosquitoes, why are there still mosquitoes?

Comment #76527

Posted by limpidense on January 31, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

You know how we can express the limit of our dislike of people? Wishing DaveScott as a curse on IDiots/creationists is a fine example of exactly that limit; the very definition of these (mostly) awful people receiving their “just desserts.”

Comment #76528

Posted by Doc Bill on January 31, 2006 4:30 PM (e)

Mosquitoes! That explains my brother-in-law.

ID is definitely imploding. John Davison has become Chief Scientist and he’s being feted to by DaveScot the Li’l Kim of ID.

It’s all so strange that at any moment I expect Dembski-in-a-Box to pop up and scream “Ha! Ha! Street theatre! Gotcha!”

Comment #76529

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

I think it’s all easily explained by a simple typo.

“Framing The ID Debate Around Science”

that ‘r’ should be an ‘l’.

I suspect Davescot’s moderating privelages will be taken and he will either:
(1) Become a pillar of salt
(2) Start the ‘Real ID movement’
(3) Walk the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights
(4) Someone funnier than me should have done this post.

Comment #76530

Posted by Henry J on January 31, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

Re “But if humans came from mosquitoes, why are there still mosquitoes?”

Obviously, because Noah didn’t have sense enough to swat them.

—-

Re “The other part of me likes most insects a lot better than it likes most primates, “

I wonder if I should resemble that remark? :)

—-

Comment #76532

Posted by J-Dog on January 31, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

Rich - Funny? Funny how? Funny like a clown?

Seriously, I thought it was good, and much funnier than the usual ID stuff, which is scarry, not funny.

Comment #76538

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 31, 2006 5:11 PM (e)

The True Origin of Mosquitoes:

The Wakashan-speaking peoples of northern Vancouver Island and the northern B.C. mainland knew of a great Cannibal Monster who lived at the “North End of the World” (try this one on when the kiddies have figured out that Santa Claus probably does NOT live at the North Pole). The C.M. lived in a monstrously-sized longhouse, where he stashed many beautiful and powerful things. The cannibal monster had a ton of supernatural power (“mojo”), in addition to his physical prowess and his ferocious taste for human cuisine. He also had four powerful bird-monster subordinates with long skull-cracking beaks and hideous claws.

With all this going for him, Bakhbakhwalanooksiwe (the C.M. at the N.E. of the W.) was just generally one tough hombre, and a major nuisance whenever he decided to visit your neighborhood (or if you should be so foolish as to book your annual vacation to one of those exotic “North End of the World” resorts). Finally, however, and after many adventures too detailed to go into in this little Comment Box, Our Hero managed to defeat the Cannibal Monster by tipping him into his own huge and hot house-fire, and burning him up.

Well, almost burning him up. Entities with large reservoirs of supernatural power are evidently difficult to eliminate entirely. Instead of being utterly eradicated, the C.M. was transformed into a cloud of red-hot embers, which flew up out of the house-fire and escaped out the smoke-hole into the air.

The escaping embers turned into, you guessed it, Mosquitoes. Who, of course, betray their mythic origin down to this day, since they still exhibit “cannabalistic” tendencies with every bite they take.

So, Governor Sanford, go ahead and teach the “True” origin of men and mosquitoes if you must, but please, conduct a little ethnographic research so that you get the details right. Mosquitoes did not turn into humans; the Great Cannibal Monster at the North End of the World was turned into mosquitoes by humans.

Sheesh! Didn’t they teach you Carolineans anything in Sunday School?

Now, go forth my son, and Teach the Controversy!

Comment #76540

Posted by m. child on January 31, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

unfortunately, the real news of the day is a sad one for the future of evolution jurisprudence: the confirmation of the new Justice Alito.

let’s watch as the next few years unfold and the “science” starts to take a back seat to the ability of local school districts to choose textbooks, insert stickers, teach “arguments against” or supposed “gaps” in the theory of evolution, etc. until one day we wake up to the realization that Edwards v. Aguillard has been effectively overruled, and creation science itself will be back in the classroom (and Darwin gone).

the real battle here was never a scientific one, but political/legal in its nature. and the pro-science side just lost a round in that arena.

wish I could end with a witty comment, but it is just too depressing. let’s just hope it will be a long long time before any evolution cases wind there way up to this Supreme Court….

Comment #76544

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 31, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

I’m not here to say you’re wrong about Alito–and your politico-social point is an important one–but we also don’t yet know that you’re right about Alito either. At least on this evolution v. IDiocy issue.

Let’s not forget that Judge Jones was described–before his decision in Kitzmiller came down!–in very similar terms as Alito is being described now. And yet Judge Jones had the intelligence, independence, and courage to reach the right result.

Since we can no longer do anything about Alito’s appointment, it’s now time to hope: that he will also prove to be independent and intelligent on top of the “right-wing conservative” gloss.

It’s happened before–let’s not forget that O’Connor was a Reagan appointee, and that the overall “tendency” has been for “conservative” judges to evolve toward moderation and independence once appointed (obviously there are exceptions).

If someone like Alito had a realistic ambition to become a federal judge–and perhaps eventually a Supreme Court justice–then he has played his cards exactly right, given the predominant politics of his time. Now that he’s finally reached the pinnacle of his profession, and realized that lifelong ambition, he’s no longer beholden to anyone. Not Bush, not the Republican senators, and not the right-wing conservatives who whisper in their ears.

Of course, that’s the scary part–he’s now pretty much immune to influence of any kind, whether moderate or radical. But it’s not necessarily a hopeless scenario. Yet.

And none of the above “silver-lining” reasoning affords us any basis for lessening our resolve to oppose IDiocy (and its ideologican running dogs) on every meaningful front. So let’s take a deep breath and gird up for the next fight, without descending too deeply into gloom about the one who may have gotten past our guard.

Comment #76545

Posted by Steve Reuland on January 31, 2006 5:44 PM (e)

This isn’t the first time Stephen Meyer couldn’t make up his mind about common descent:

Meyer vs. Meyer

Comment #76547

Posted by Roadtripper on January 31, 2006 5:51 PM (e)

I followed the link to Uncommon Descent, and saw something rather ironic–an add for the AAAS that says “Teach Only Science in Science Class.” Of course the IDists insist that ID is science, so the irony is probably wasted on them.

Comment #76548

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

They’re revolting……

“Let me get this straight. You do not admit that there may be data inconsistent with the common ancestry hypothesis? We need DS to be demodded. “

Comment #76549

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 6:00 PM (e)

thanks for that link, Steve R. Meyer told Newsweek common descent was an open question, and told another creationist it’s unquestionably wrong.

I’m ashamed Meyer the Liar is a Steve.

Comment #76551

Posted by Beer on January 31, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

That does sound a little bit like we have a new party line emerging. They are going to accept all of the science except that they are going to insist that there is also an additional guiding force than selection. In order to do that, though, they’re also going to have to find some evidence for this mysterious force, and since they’re still calling it an intelligent directing force, they’re going to have to try harder to back up this specific claim, if they actually plan to carry through and focus on this one point.

Um, are you in some way suggesting that ID can be scientific?

HMMM…..

Not saying they have any evidence, but you are suggesting that evidence could possibly be found that would confirm or refute a hypothesis, and that makes it scientific.

Comment #76552

Posted by Frank J on January 31, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

so wrote:

So, should we stop calling the Dembski crowd anti-evolutionists?

Absolutely not. They still misrepresent evolution and do what it takes to get the audience to deny it. So they are as “anti” evolution as one can get.

That said, I wish that we would give them the slack (as in rope to hang themselves) of not calling them “creationists.” Most people hear “creationist” and think YEC, so we look ignorant and/or closed-minded for not admitting that ID and YEC are very different strategies, even though they share many anti-science tactics.

While Paul Nelson may be suffering from Morton’s Demon, I’m convinced that most of the DI folks privately accept evolution, but pretend otherwise (mostly via “don’t ask, don’t tell”) for the sake of the big tent. Behe almost spilled the beans 10 years ago, and now it seems that they are resurrecting his position in a desperate move to get past Dover. It may be just a set-up for another round of backpedaling, of course, but it’s all spin. They know that YEC and OEC-without common descent are nonsense.

Comment #76555

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

That said, I wish that we would give them the slack (as in rope to hang themselves) of not calling them “creationists.” Most people hear “creationist” and think YEC, so we look ignorant and/or closed-minded for not admitting that ID and YEC are very different strategies, even though they share many anti-science tactics.

When the Disco and their army of true belivers stop theorizing a creator is responsible for “patterns” and “complexity” we’ll probably stop calling them creationists.

When they stop promoting creationism and imaginary “intelligent designers” (aka God) it is likely they will no longer be called creationists. Simple solution.

A designer of something existing implies a creator. The fact that dembski, Behe, Meyers, et al have admitted THEY believe the designer is God sort of puts them in the creationist category.

One need not believe the world is 6,000 years old to proudly wear the creationist title. And if they do not like the creationist title they are welcome to drop kick their IDiotic creationist theories.

Until then I think the term “creationist” is a good description.

Comment #76557

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 31, 2006 6:58 PM (e)

We’re getting signs that the Discovery Institute is going to be shifting their strategy a little bit.

Thoughts from Kansas has an excellent discussion of the subject. Basically, they’re going to embrace more of the actual science, and focus their dispute on finer and finer points. What does this mean? Common descent is now in.

Alas for them, “evolution plus a designer” is just as illegal to teach in science classrooms as is “no evolution plus a designer”.

Comment #76564

Posted by Frank J on January 31, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

Mr Christopher wrote:

One need not believe the world is 6,000 years old to proudly wear the creationist title. And if they do not like the creationist title they are welcome to drop kick their IDiotic creationist theories.

We know that, but their target audience mostly does not. So it becomes a “yes, you are” “no, I’m not” thing at best, a win for them at worst. The minute they say “I’m not” we need to respond with “OK, then please tell us all the weaknesses you find in the mutually contradictory creationist positions, and exactly what you propose as an alternative. Tell us ‘what happened and when’ in biological history. And do without reference to evolution, or using weasel words like ‘common design’”

Comment #76566

Posted by Tiax on January 31, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

I’m ashamed Meyer the Liar is a Steve.

Get together with the other Steves and vote him out of the club.

Comment #76567

Posted by Mike on January 31, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

Orwellian

Comment #76568

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 8:04 PM (e)

*** (un)common descent update ***

The whole thread just got nuked…

Comment #76569

Posted by H. Humbert on January 31, 2006 8:14 PM (e)

I went to look at the original thread on “Uncommon Descent” and it’s not there anymore. I think DaveScott may currently be getting a spanking behind the woodshed.

Comment #76574

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on January 31, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

All the hillarity has gone down the gurgler now. What a dear shame, I was almost beginning to enjoy watching Davescot throw feces at anyone who disagreed with him.

Comment #76577

Posted by MaxOblivion on January 31, 2006 9:04 PM (e)

Looks like Dembski is putting the smackdown on DaveScot. Either that or someone at the ID club’s gone Postal.

Comment #76579

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

Can anyone get the thread back via google cache or something? That thread was worth preserving….

Comment #76580

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 31, 2006 9:12 PM (e)

If anyone has the thread saved in their browser cache, please send it to [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

Comment #76581

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 31, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

Can anyone get the thread back via google cache or something? That thread was worth preserving….

I second it.

Isn’t it fascinating how the evidences of ID discussion are only safe on websites like PT, or other anti-ID forums (at least we have several choice bits preserved here)? You’d think that they didn’t value evidence for its own sake if one didn’t know better….

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76582

Posted by Henry J on January 31, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

Rich,

Re “They’re revolting……”

That comment has an interesting double meaning… ;)

Henry

Comment #76586

Posted by MaxOblivion on January 31, 2006 9:40 PM (e)

Cache of the whole sorry thing ….

http://fortress-forever.com/upload/dumbski/cache…

Comment #76587

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 9:41 PM (e)

I only have this from when there were only 16 comments

January 30, 2006
Framing The ID Debate Around Science
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I’d ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don’t have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I’m going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It’s simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we’re are going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There’s only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that’s the bit about it being unplanned.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:43 pm
Comments (16)

Comment #76588

Posted by Necro on January 31, 2006 9:44 PM (e)

Maybe PT should run a sister thread:

Framing the Evolution debate around the Supernatural

Use supernatural intervention to fill in the ‘gaps’, and your fanbase instantaneously increases by an order of magnitude.

So tempting.

Comment #76589

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 9:50 PM (e)

Comment #76580

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 31, 2006 09:12 PM (e)

If anyone has the thread saved in their browser cache, please send it to [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

Ask and ye shall receive, my son.

Comment #76590

Posted by JT on January 31, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

The deleted thread was saved and has been posted here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3115741…

Comment #76592

Posted by MaxOblivion on January 31, 2006 9:54 PM (e)

Bah just realised my cache didnt save all 66 comments, the full thing is at::

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3115741…

Comment #76594

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 9:55 PM (e)

Anyone else wants my copy, 66 comments in the original HTML formatting, email [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

Comment #76596

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 10:02 PM (e)

You need the original formatting because Dave Springer will write comments within another person’s comment, with his (Dave’s) inclusion being distinguishable only by virtue of being in Bold.

Comment #76599

Posted by Tiax on January 31, 2006 10:10 PM (e)

Just waiting for someone to put up on UncommonDescent “DaveScot is no longer with us. Who’s Next?”

Comment #76600

Posted by steve s on January 31, 2006 10:14 PM (e)

I predicted Dave would be yanked last week of January. The yanked thread is a semi-victory. If Dave himself is yanked, I doubt there’ll be a public announcement. It would be an admission of error on Dembski’s part, and I doubt he’s capable of that.

Comment #76601

Posted by PaulC on January 31, 2006 10:16 PM (e)

Thank goodness someone saved a copy. I was afraid gems like this (comment 22) would be lost forever:

Well I agree with this. Science is not my vocation or avocation, but I’ve been following the ID movement for a long time. To suddenly discover last night that ID says I’m almost certainly descended from an ape-like creature, and a bacteria or something a few million generations prior that is somewhat of a surprise. If this is what ID really says, then the PR problem caused when ID presenters give talks in churches and other houses of worship is solved. Those venues should dry up pretty quickly.

I guess you can give him some credit for admitting he doesn’t know any science and doesn’t even like it very much (“not my vocation or avocation”). But it’s staggering to me to see somebody literally shopping around for a scientific veneer to put over his religious dogma. Fundamentalism is one thing, but then why bother following a supposedly scientific “movement” at all?

Comment #76602

Posted by Spore on January 31, 2006 10:21 PM (e)

If DaveScot gets thrown under the bus, we need to start a Free DaveScot campaign. If nothing else, he’s been entertaining…

Comment #76605

Posted by Doc Bill on January 31, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

Dembski has pulled the “street theater” stunt before, as a cover for a thread gone bad. DaveScot in one swell foop trivialized (if that’s even possible) ID from within.

DaveScot made a fool out of Dembski, no two ways about that, and I’m sure that the Alfred E. Newman of Information Theoreticalism won’t take too kindly to that.

Know what I mean, Vern?

Comment #76606

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 31, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

I only have the following…

January 30, 2006
Framing The ID Debate Around Science
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I’d ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don’t have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I’m going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It’s simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we’re are going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There’s only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that’s the bit about it being unplanned.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:43 pm
Comments (16)

Comment #76610

Posted by Jack Krebs on January 31, 2006 11:00 PM (e)

I saved the entire thread in html format, and have passed it on to the Panda’s Thumb crew for analysis.

I’d also like to emphasize a point made by Josh Rosenau in his post on Thoughts from Kansas: that the entire anti-evolution group in Kansas does not accept common descent, and the reason for that is that they are really believe in special creationist. It was interesting to see DaveScot’s admission that this is a religous view without scientific support. It’s no wonder Dembski dumped the thread.

Comment #76612

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 11:22 PM (e)

I find it an interesting microcosm of “the big tent”

The somewhat aptly named fundamentalists, who fund the whole thing and are, er, mentalists can’t be cut out or have their view opposed. It’s self defeating irony. To sneak religion in, you need to deny religion.

Comment #76616

Posted by PvM on January 31, 2006 11:53 PM (e)

I went to look at the original thread on “Uncommon Descent” and it’s not there anymore. I think DaveScott may currently be getting a spanking behind the woodshed.

Funny how ID has to censor even its own censors. Too bad there were some good examples of Paul Nelson missing the point about common descent when pointing to Woese. No wonder his ‘opus’ on common descent is now a decade late.

Comment #76617

Posted by Rich on January 31, 2006 11:58 PM (e)

**UPDATE - NEW DEMBSKI POST **

(Group hug in the big tent)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive…

Comment #76619

Posted by Mr Christopher on February 1, 2006 12:00 AM (e)

Deleting the entire thread with no mention of why has an Orwellian hint to it, no? Kinda creepy.

I hope PT does a full article on that thread tomorrow. That baby deserves its own space.

Comment #76620

Posted by Tiax on February 1, 2006 12:03 AM (e)

Sometimes it’s fun to watch them scatter before real science like cockroaches before the kitchen light.

Comment #76621

Posted by k.e. on February 1, 2006 12:11 AM (e)

Talk about comic inspiration, I haven’t laughed this hard since the old Monty Python days although the Brits still keep them coming with such gems as Bromwell High

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Dave Johnson called wild Bill Humbert H. Dembski and told him to shove Dave Scott under a bus….. another “structural death”

ring ring

DJ: Bill have you seen what’s happening over at Unconstitutional Defense ?
HH: I’m busy right now D. what is it?
DJ: That little pecker DS is flaming my book sales.
HH: WHAT !!
DJ: Yeah, if this keeps going were going to have to get real work !
HH: Why that little !
DJ: By the way what ARE you doing ?
HH: Oh just doing my budget forecast.
DJ: What ? The kiddies waking up to your shenanigans ?
HH: Who are you to talk ?

ring ring
DS:’lo
HH: D….ah, I think we should talk.
DS: Sure, what’s up.
HH: You know how I said we HAVE to stick to science ?
DS: Yeah.
HH: WELL I DIDN’T MEAN TELL EVERYBODY!!!
DS: …ur….ah….I don’t get it Bill.
HH: Book Sales you twit!
DS: I don’t know about that, I thought Freud’s stuff was all out of copyright.
HH: MY BOOK sales !
DS: Oh yeah… I was going to ask you about that. I’ve got a few ideas of my own.
click

Comment #76623

Posted by PvM on February 1, 2006 12:12 AM (e)

Dembski “responds” and equivocates on the issue of common descent.
Yes, Doolittle and Woese have argued that there may have been one or more common ancestors, possibly from a large ‘gene pool’ but of course, even Darwin accepted the possibility of one or more common ancestors.

What of course the real issue is that none of these scientists doubt common ancestry, merely particular aspects of the early stages.
Unlike creationists and ID apologists who seem to reject common descent based on religious arguments.

It’s interesting to see how ID handles ‘teaching the controversy’ in its own back yard.
So far I have found the hypocrisy to be overwhelming.
Has Dembski not learned from his 2002 arguments

Dembski argued that Woese rejected common descent which he did not really.

Woese wrote:

[P]robably all of the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form … .

How embarassing… Woese indeed argues that there was a pre-Darwinian “universal ancestor [which] is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit.”

Comment #76627

Posted by so on February 1, 2006 12:21 AM (e)

Do I understand correctly that according to Woese severak protoorganisms basically joined together to from a universal common ancestor? Well, that’s still common descent.

Comment #76628

Posted by PvM on February 1, 2006 12:23 AM (e)

Oops Darwin wrote… Not Woese. How embarassing.

Where did this doctrine come from? Why, Darwin, of course: didn’t he say that all life stems from a single primordial form? Indeed he did. But look at the context and way in which Darwin addresses the issue in Origin of Species. Herein we read (12): “… [we may infer] that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form. But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted. No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants.”

(C. R. Woese A New Biology for a New Century Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., June 1, 2004; 68(2): 173 - 186. )

Comment #76633

Posted by Hehe on February 1, 2006 12:42 AM (e)

I wonder how the conversation between DaveScot and Dembski went.

Dembski (in sinister voice): Dave, I doubt the common ancestry. Are you gonna ban me too?

DS: B-b-b-but… Mein Fuehrer, how can that be? All the evidence points…

Dembski (shouts): CUT IT DAVE! You stupid piglet, you set me up, do you understand it? Do you? DO YOU?!

DS: I… I… I DON’T LUV YA NO MORE!!! (Cries and runs away.)

Comment #76636

Posted by PvM on February 1, 2006 12:43 AM (e)

Do I understand correctly that according to Woese severak protoorganisms basically joined together to from a universal common ancestor? Well, that’s still common descent.

Of course it is and you have made an effort to actually comprehend what Woese is trying to say. Much of which is lost on Dembski and other IDologists.

Such reckless disregard for science would have been shocking to me in the days before I realized how scientifically vacuous ID really is.

Comment #76637

Posted by Hehe on February 1, 2006 12:45 AM (e)

Will the re-education of Davey be succesful? I mean, he called everybody who doubted common descent religiously motivated.

So either he must give up his claim and toe to the Party line, or become a heretic - after all, he exposed Dembski himself as a religiously motivated IDist.

Comment #76648

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 1, 2006 1:13 AM (e)

Let’s not beat around the bush. Whether they call themselves “creationists” or “intelligent design proponents”, anti-evolutionists’ main problem with modern biology is common descent of man and chimp. No appeals to horizonatal transfer in the microbial world is going to change that.

Comment #76658

Posted by BWE on February 1, 2006 1:57 AM (e)

It’s funny if you think about it. The party line here is adherence to testable information and employing good logic while the party line over at UD is, well, the party line. Could you imagine if politics in general were subject to the same sort of scrutiny as a commentator at PT? Hmmm. British house of commons maybe but there is still a sort of underlying criminal or corrupt edge.

Comment #76663

Posted by BWE on February 1, 2006 2:13 AM (e)

It looks like there might be more truth to k.e.’s script than a simple joke should warrant.

These posts are coming in rapid fire. 4 posts in 3 minutes. All just quick grabs from google news. I know, my google news is customized with a section searching for intelligent design and these were on it. Does it look like a hasty attempt to put some ground between him and the DS thread? I mean, does anyone here think dembski really thinks the swami is notable? Panic. Book Sales. Plummet. Free Fall. Dave Scott. F()@%!^G Dave Scott. DIscovery Institute. Money. All GOne. Mommy. Make the bad man go away.

I am listing these with Title, Quotable, poster and time”

Surprisingly high degree of organization of prokaryotic genomes
“Ask yourself why, if evolution is all it’s cracked up to be, biology keeps encountering “complete surprises” like this.”
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:28 am

ID documentary premiers in Kansas
(quoted from the article)”The film gives both sides their say; eventually Olson concludes that while evolution is right, intelligent design is winning.”
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:28 am

GWU Prof weighs in on ID
As one such critic put it, “Really, where is the intelligence there? Even if you can make the case that God ‘predesigned’ everything, I doubt you can make the case for intelligence in the design.”
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:26 am

ID in India
“My discord is that man’s ancestor could not be gorilla, ape or chimp, even though they hold resemblance with man. In fact, all mammals resemble the human face to some extent or the other. So, all cannot be taken as man’s collective ancestors.The actual ancestor could be some one else, which might have either been extinct or disappeared, or there is no trace available, or there is something else which the scientists do not know. In absence of any concrete proof, I refused to approve Darwin’s theory of evolution as a factual hypothesis having great many missing links.”
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:25 am

Common Descent at Uncommon Descent
“To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community’s diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single “Tree of Life” and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms. In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor. “
Filed under: Evolution — William Dembski @ 10:52 pm

Comment #76668

Posted by Rich on February 1, 2006 2:35 AM (e)

D*mbski has no time to run uncommon descent anymore…. untill Davescot f*3ks it up. Then its content, content, content, baby!

Comment #76712

Posted by steve s on February 1, 2006 8:02 AM (e)

February 1, 2006
Protected: After The Bar Closes

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 6:48 am

Comment #76713

Posted by Jack Krebs on February 1, 2006 8:09 AM (e)

Reed is right - all this talk about Woese and gene transfer, etc., is totally irrelevant to the real issue: are human beings related by common descent to earlier creatures, or were we specially created (aka designed.)? That is the issue.

As I’ve said, but need to continue to repeat, here in Kansas all the main players are common descent doubters - special creationists of either the young or old earth variety.

Comment #76727

Posted by Ian Stocks on February 1, 2006 9:27 AM (e)

The strategy shift may preview the rolling out of the CRS’s latest brainchild- baraminology. CRSQ 37, 2: 88-91 (W. Fair, PhD, September 2000- sounds legitimate, doesn’t it. www.creationresearch.org). ‘Original kinds’ reworked, with ‘limited’ variation within ‘kinds’, complete with terminology pilfered straight from the phylogenetic systematics literature.

Comment #76737

Posted by Rich on February 1, 2006 10:13 AM (e)

Davesost post ‘Protected: After The Bar Closes’

is now gone. We must assume sleeper agent Davescot has been detected, perhaps by some sort of explanitory filter…

Comment #76760

Posted by k.e. on February 1, 2006 11:48 AM (e)

The Mirth continues
After a visit by the party commissar, pod UD ‘unit one’ ‘recants’ and posts a ‘clarification’…… hehehehe(giggle)
‘at no one’s(sic) urging’….. and he is
‘moderating his joint’ blah blah blah.

To the Peanut Gallery at “After The Bar Closes”

I know you clowns are reading this and just wanted to let you know that I deleted my own article at no one’s urging, I’m still moderating the joint like before, and we’re all still friends here united against bozos clinging to the discredited Darwinian dogma of natural selection.

So there.
Comment by DaveScot — February 1, 2006 @ 5:33 am

Quiche eater.
Some here will remember his favorite insult.
Altogether now Dave Scott is a …..

Pity I was thinking Rich was on the money.

I suspect Davescot’s moderating privileges will be taken and he will either:
(1) Become a pillar of salt
(2) Start the ‘Real ID movement’
(3) Walk the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights

Hmmm at least Sal knew when the show was over.
Has DS jumped the shark ?

Comment #76761

Posted by BWE on February 1, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent, just as certain as there is absolutely no evidence to support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, Darwinian evolution.

We still do not know how many times, where, when or especially how life was created and subsequently evolved. How can anyone, armed with all that wonderful information, refute anything? We have yet to scratch the surface of the secrets of ontogeny and phylogeny. Refutation is for philosophers and logicians. Demonstration is for scientists.
Comment by John Davison — February 1, 2006 @ 4:34 am

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive…

All I did was ask for clarification.

Comment #76767

Posted by Unsympathetic reader on February 1, 2006 12:22 PM (e)

Note how many of the comments in the blogs used the phrase “universal common descent”, as in, “I’m am uncertain about acounts of *universal* common descent”. The problem is that they don’t specify what they mean by that phrase. For example, Paul Nelson referenced work by Michael Syvanen to suggest that many biologists suspect that a LUCA may either not exist or be determinable. But the reason for that it not because ancestors didn’t exist or acts of special creation were necessary but because of extensive horizontal transfer in the earlier stages of life.

So really, to hide behind the uncertainty of “universal common descent” simply dodges the *real* question: “Do you think organisms are related via actual, viable intermediates?” Or more to the point: “Do you think mammals, such as humans and chimps, are related by shared ancestry?” “Do you think organisms are related by evolutionary steps?”, is another.

Can we ask IDer’s to look at Dr. Syvanen’s previous post to Panda’s thumb (here) and ask whether they think much of life is related by common descent and shared ancestral sequences?

Comment #76778

Posted by Raging Bee on February 1, 2006 1:01 PM (e)

Pee Wee Herman: “I meant to do that.”

IDiots after the Dover verdict: “We weren’t proven wrong, that was just street theater.”

A certain “cdesign proponentsist” troll: “ID is valid because look at all the controversy we’ve manufactured! You had to work really hard to prove we’re all clueless.”

DaveScot: “I deleted my own article at no one’s urging…and we’re all still friends here united against bozos clinging to the discredited Darwinian dogma of natural selection. So there.”

I’m surprised he didn’t finish with “NYAAH NYAAH!” It would have fit so well…

Comment #76788

Posted by hehe on February 1, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

DaveScot has shown that he doesn’t have a yota of intellectual honesty. He declared that those doubting CD are religiously motivated. He went so far as to ban some of them.

After what he has said and done, and after Dembski’s declaration, he should have quit Dembski’s blog, because its agenda is now anithetical to his. He should have said “go …. yourself” to Dembski.

But we see that he still licks his .ss. Pitiful creature.

Comment #76799

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 1, 2006 1:57 PM (e)

What’s weird about this whole debacle is that I’m-smarter-than-everybody-else DaveScot evidently actually believed that ID isn’t a religiously motivated concept. How stupid, yes, but it’s kind of stunning to observe Dave’s ability to maintain a sort of innocence among the overwhelming duplicity of ID and of the DI. Hell, he was just going to save the “theory” from all of the bleating religionists who apparently are the reason why ID still isn’t science (please David, learn something about science and what constitutes science before you die).

I still think that it could happen that the DI will purge itself of overt religion for the sake of legality, but it’s more than a little obvious that the blog would in that case have to go, or be drastically muted. You can’t tell people to give up the only motivations the sane (leaving DaveScot out, of course) have for embracing ID. Yet if that were all that DaveScot had attempted to effect on that blog he might not have been shut down. Couple your purging of religion (or “religion”–if he’d succeeded the undercurrent of religion would only have been muffled) with commonsense statements like “there’s no scientific evidence to support common design while there’s plenty to support common descent”, and ID no longer has any basis for existence.

It’s his remarkable ability to ignore the censorship that he himself was implementing that is responsible for his thinking that the DI would put up with honest expressions of scientific fact. Apparently, no matter how dishonest he has been with people, this has stemmed at least in part from his pig-ignorant belief in the scientific merit of the claims and methods of “Intelligent Design”. He may be the only person likely to learn anything about this episode, but I do hope that he might over some time reassess his misplaced trust in the pronouncements of Grand Inquisitor Bill Dembski. Then again, I’m not holding my breath–mainly because I need to breathe in order to keep on laughing.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76802

Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 1, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 1, 2006 01:57 PM (e)

What’s weird about this whole debacle is that I’m-smarter-than-everybody-else DaveScot evidently actually believed that ID isn’t a religiously motivated concept. How stupid, yes, but it’s kind of stunning to observe Dave’s ability to maintain a sort of innocence among the overwhelming duplicity of ID and of the DI. Hell, he was just going to save the “theory” from all of the bleating religionists who apparently are the reason why ID still isn’t science (please David, learn something about science and what constitutes science before you die)…

TBH. I don’t think Dave Scot gives a fig about whether ID is scientific or not. He appears to have chosen his side and believes winning is all that matters and truth be damned.

Comment #76807

Posted by bjm on February 1, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

Glen

Sadly the ID, the IDots and the DI never will need a ‘basis’ for their existence. They have self-righteousness as a cause and persecution as a defence. How can you battle against that with logic and reason - it’s a language they refuse to understand as it goes against the version of the ‘truth’ they choose to subscribe to! It is amusing to follow though, if somewhat tiresome at times.

Comment #76827

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 1, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

Tiax wrote in Comment #76620 on February 1, 2006 12:03 AM

Sometimes it’s fun to watch them scatter before real science like cockroaches before the kitchen light.

This is completely evident in the Fred Flintstone Fossils thread. Comment #25 from someone listed simply as M J.

Davscot said:

“Observation: Irreducibly complex machinery, where the origin can be determined, is only the result of intelligent agency.

Hypothesis: The irreducibly complex (IC) machinery in every living cell is the result of intelligent design.

Prediction: No amount of experimentation will ever demonstrate a method of origination for the IC machinery in the living cell that is independent of intelligent agency.

Test: Experiment, experiment, experiment”

Precisely Dave. This is the perfect scientific method. But I ask: What experiments did Behe do to confirm his hypothesis of IC?

Comment by M J — January 30, 2006 @ 3:16 pm

It has been two days since ‘M J’ wrote that and everyone has ignored her(?) since; despite continuous postings from the peanut gallery and bold intrusions from DaveScot.
Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #76844

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 1, 2006 4:48 PM (e)

This is a quote from DaveScot, thank you Tiax, but it is pretty much verbatim from any of the IDiot proponents of the DI and could have been said by any of them.

All ID does is identy(sic) patterns in nature that are the result of design by intelligent agency. How and when the design was accomplished is outside the scope of ID.

The IDiots of the DI ostensibly want(nudge,nudge,wink,wink) ID to be taken seriously as science. But they seem to forget that science exists to ask and answer questions for mankind, and the ‘How and when the design was accomplished’ is just the sort of question that scientists would ask if design was truly established. Well, since science is all about asking questions, and asking questions is outside the scope of ID, then ID isn’t science. Which is, of course, exactly what scientists have been telling them all along. Why do they admit that certain questions are not allowed and then still expect to be taken seriously as scientists?

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #76851

Posted by Roger Downey on February 1, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

Did anybody copy DaveScot’s comments on the Dembski blog before DaveScot withdrew them? I crave to read them.

Comment #76871

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 1, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

Roger Downey,
If you scroll up you will find a link to the thread you are looking for, or use this one.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3115741…

Comment #76875

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 1, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

I don’t know how long any of these copies of DaveScot’s meltdown of IDiocy’s lies will last (copyright issues), but this one works at the time I am posting this:

http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/1-31-06%20Com%2…

Another complete copy with formatting was linked on this thread, but it has some problems that I don’t see in the above link. I’d suggest to everyone who cares that they create copies now, before Commissar Dembski airbrushes out this inconvenient bit of history using copyright laws.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #76878

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 1, 2006 6:56 PM (e)

that the entire anti-evolution group in Kansas does not accept common descent

Indeed, some of them asserted a young earth, and the rest fell all over themselves to accomodate a young earth view. Check out:

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

Comment #76879

Posted by steve s on February 1, 2006 6:59 PM (e)

Roger Downey: I’ve got a correctly formatted version. Be the dozenth person to email me for it at [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

Comment #76883

Posted by steve s on February 1, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

Just have to comment on something here. When I saved the Big DaveScot Disaster yesterday, and mentioned on this thread that I had a formatted copy available, I couldn’t imagine the response. Over two dozen people have emailed asking for the file. Dave Springer, you really outdid yourself this time.

I encourage people to visit the After the Bar Closes thread where we’ve been discussing Uncommon Pissant for a few weeks.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/i…

Comment #76899

Posted by Ron Okimoto on February 1, 2006 9:02 PM (e)

Remember a few months ago when Dembski was waxing away at what the next scam should be if intelligent design bit the big one? Wasn’t one of his notions calling the next scam evolutionary design (EF) or something like that? Just think what these guys talk about when they get together. What is the next scam we can get the suckers to swallow?

My guess is that they already know that “teach the controversy” is heading for the toilet because it has been perpetrated by the same scammers that perpetrated or wanted to perpetrate the ID scam. Just like the link of scientific creationism with the bogus Panda’s textbook, it is a no brainer that teach the controversy is just the replacement scam for ID. Not only that, but the ID scam artists dropped ID as the Wedge before Ohio and Dover made them publically admit it. The Ohio rubes looked pretty ridiculous claiming that they were going to teach the scientific theory of ID and all they ended up with was an obfuscation scam that couldn’t even mention that ID ever existed.

How are they going to sell this one? We should start calling it evolutionary design because the scam artists aren’t going to put evolution in anything that they want to hock because they’ve made it such a bad word among their supporters.

Comment #76908

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 1, 2006 9:58 PM (e)

Remember a few months ago when Dembski was waxing away at what the next scam should be if intelligent design bit the big one? Wasn’t one of his notions calling the next scam evolutionary design (EF) or something like that?

IIRC, it was “intelligent evolution”.

And as you point out, it will never fly. The fundies hate the WORD “evolution” even more than they hate the CONCEPT of it.

Comment #77001

Posted by Ron Okimoto on February 2, 2006 7:57 AM (e)

I’ve got a new catch phrase “Intelligent Descent.” Can I copyright it or trademark it so they have to get my permission to use it? It is still ID, but accounts for their limited notions of descent with modification and their ID stupidity. It is also a play on the word descent. It should be the catch phrase of the ID incompetents that are trying to push the common descent notion. I doubt that they will get anywhere because their biggest support base has to remain ignorant of common descent or they won’t have a support base.

Comment #77002

Posted by Andy H. on February 2, 2006 8:10 AM (e)

I feel that ID and irreducible complexity should just be considered to be criticisms of evolution theory and should not be associated with other ideas such as young-earth creationism, guided evolution, and common descent. ID/IC proponents are free to believe in any or none of these other ideas. If the leading proponents of ID/IC try to please everyone, they will end up pleasing no one. It is like the parable of the man, the boy and the donkey who were going down the road. They started out with the boy riding the donkey and kept changing their arrangement in response to critics, finally ending up with the man and the boy carrying the donkey, and then the donkey fell into a river as they were crossing it. And it is obvious that the attempt to accept common descent was a wasted effort.

Comment #77003

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 2, 2006 8:17 AM (e)

It’s not my job to give you a basic science education, Carol.

And I’m STILL waiting for you to explain why science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions — or why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than mine or my next door neighbor’s or my car emchanic’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas. Other than your say-so.

Comment #77019

Posted by KL on February 2, 2006 10:02 AM (e)

Andy H writes:

“I feel that ID and irreducible complexity should just be considered to be criticisms of evolution theory and should not be associated with other ideas such as young-earth creationism, guided evolution, and common descent.”

ID and IC have no scientific merit. Does it make sense to use non-science ideas as “criticism” of a scientific theory? As a philosophical or religious argument, ID and/or IC must first be accepted by those whose background and education in philosophy or religion puts them in a position to pass judgement. But as a scientific argument, ID and IC have been shown to be empty of content (ID) or not scientific. No scientific theory is ever “complete” but challenges to any theory must be made in the realm of science.

Comment #77020

Posted by improvius on February 2, 2006 10:03 AM (e)

If the leading proponents of ID/IC try to please everyone, they will end up pleasing no one.

But that’s exactly the opposite of the big marke- er, I mean big tent strategy.

Comment #77055

Posted by BWE on February 2, 2006 1:07 PM (e)

Here’s my take on the situation, ID lost in Dover, California became a joke, Kansas, well, it’s full of Kansans, (No offense) and ID is pushing common descent. That means this whole3 forum is just a place for funny antectodes and anteaters until ID or the whackos throw up some more idiocy that needs to be put down like a game of whack a mole using an 8 pound sledge. We’re in a holding pattern. Like a cat waiting outside a mouse hole. So go ahead Carol, delight us with your comedic genius. We need entertainment while we wait.

I am very much taking you seriously by the way and that is in no way intended to be an insult. I really love the SLoT. I mean, it isn’t relevant but I do love it. I think alot about how energy is added to systems to keep them from falling apart. Have you seen a tidepool in the pacific Northwest? Entropy is often 1 degree away from winning. I like to look at it as a war between the biotic and the abiotic, with energy being the weapon of the biotic and entropy being the weapon of the abiotic. Like a chinese soldier with a halberd fighting a mongol with a broadsword. (I just like chinese soldiers and Mongol warriors, who knows? )

Comment #77056

Posted by BWE on February 2, 2006 1:10 PM (e)

Aaarrgghh! I posted in the wrong thread again.
I will pray on my rosary 4,209,103 times.

Comment #77058

Posted by steve s on February 2, 2006 1:14 PM (e)

But that’s exactly the opposite of the big marke- er, I mean big tent strategy.

The big Revival tent.

Comment #77065

Posted by Andy H. on February 2, 2006 1:55 PM (e)

Comment #77019 posted by KL on February 2, 2006 10:02 AM

Andy H writes:
“I feel that ID and irreducible complexity should just be considered to be criticisms of evolution theory and should not be associated with other ideas such as young-earth creationism, guided evolution, and common descent.”

ID and IC have no scientific merit. Does it make sense to use non-science ideas as “criticism” of a scientific theory?

My post has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID and IC, nor does my post have anything to do with the question of whether it makes sense to use non-science ideas to criticize a scientific theory. All that I said is summarized by your above quote of my post.

Comment #77069

Posted by KL on February 2, 2006 2:09 PM (e)

Andy H. wrote in Comment #77065:

“My post has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID and IC, nor does my post have anything to do with the question of whether it makes sense to use non-science ideas to criticize a scientific theory. All that I said is summarized by your above quote of my post.”

How else do I read this phrase?
“I feel that ID and irreducible complexity should just be considered to be criticisms of evolution theory…”. Have I taken that out of context? If so, then I apologize. If not, then I think it may be a fair question.

Comment #77072

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 2, 2006 2:16 PM (e)

“I feel that ID and irreducible complexity should just be considered to be criticisms of evolution theory…”.

and yet…

“My post has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID and IC, nor does my post have anything to do with the question of whether it makes sense to use non-science ideas to criticize a scientific theory. All that I said is summarized by your above quote of my post.”

So maybe he’s dropping a hint that a ‘criticism of evolution theory’ need not be scientific in any way to be valid?

Comment #77133

Posted by AD on February 2, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

Conversely, it’s going to be very hard to gain any traction with that approach.

“In this discipline, with established solid rules of practice, I can question the results of this discipline without bothering to adhere to the established solid rules, then expect that to be considered valid within that rule structure.”

That’s not going to fly in a science classroom or in court. If you want a valid criticism of the correctness of the theory, you absolutely MUST do so on scientific grounds (because you disprove a theory with scientific methods).

If you want to argue about the subsequent policy choices, utilization, etc, that’s a non-scientific debate. But it’s a huge difference between claiming, for instance, internal combustion is FALSE and we should not build internal combustion engines.

Comment #77140

Posted by jeanstaune on February 2, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Hello from France
my name is Jean Staune I am 101% evolutionnist AND I am a critics of darwinism (as all serious non-darwinian biologists)
I wrote un article you can find on
www.metanexus.net/conference2005/pdf/staune.pdf (it will inform you about what is REALLY non-darwinian biology, ID is only a very very TINY part of it)
In the article I was saying
“It seems that the majority of Intelligent Design theorists do not believe in the idea of a common ancestry (fortunately this is not the case of Michael Behe, the historical stronghold of the Intelligent Design movement). It is a very disturbing situation. This is why, if the keepers of Intelligent Design are (like myself) persuaded that Darwinism is false, not for religious and political reasons but scientific, and if, as Christians (like myself) they are committed to the search for the truth; I suggest that they climb onto the nearest tabletop straightaway and yell at the top of their lungs:
“ Yes! Evolution is a fact! ”
When young Earth creationists say that the Earth is not older than 10,000 and that mankind existed during the time of dinosaurs, I tell them that if they really want to do something against Darwinism, that they should commit suicide as soon as possible!
In fact, the conversion of Intelligent Design theorists to the idea of evolution and the disappearance of young Earth creationists would be dramatic for Darwinians as this would finally free up a space in which the development of a non-Darwinians school of thought (evolutionist of course, and therefore credible) based on the different theories and ideas present in this article.”

And 2 weeks ago Dembski advise the readers of his blog to read my article!!!

www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/682

From all the history of the post 744 and it removal deduce that I had an influence on dave scot but not enough inluence on dembski!
it is a pitty because whiout accepting common ancestror (at least for all vertabrates) there is no future for critics of darwinism; It Is clear that ID pepole like dembski have to…evolve!!

Comment #77146

Posted by Steviepinhead on February 2, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

Uh…

I guess we’re glad that we could free up a space in which non-Darwinian wingnut pixies could flourish without fear of censorship.

Or sense.

I guess.

(But, hey, nice job on getting the accent across despite the lack of sound.)

Comment #77149

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 2, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Here’s my take on the situation, ID lost in Dover, California became a joke, Kansas, well, it’s full of Kansans, (No offense)

I think it should be pointed out that the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt was really the beginning of the end for ID. Not only did nearly every single witness declare that they rejected common descent and asserted – or at least accomodated – a young earth (and that will be solid gold in court), but it was only AFTER the Kangaroo Kourt that the *press* finally ended its bending over backwards to be “fair” and “present both sides”, and finally flat-out said of IDers, “these guys are nuts”.

Comment #77184

Posted by Henry J on February 2, 2006 10:52 PM (e)

Is there a big tent repairman in the house?

Henry

Comment #77216

Posted by Andy H. on February 3, 2006 2:07 AM (e)

Comment #77072 posted by Arden Chatfield on February 2, 2006 02:16 PM

So maybe he’s dropping a hint that a ‘criticism of evolution theory’ need not be scientific in any way to be valid?

I don’t “drop hints.” I say exactly what I mean.

Comment #77255

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 3, 2006 7:42 AM (e)

Comment #76899 Posted by Ron Okimoto on February 1, 2006 09:02 PM

Remember a few months ago when Dembski was waxing away at what the next scam should be if intelligent design bit the big one? Wasn’t one of his notions calling the next scam evolutionary design (EF) or something like that? Just think what these guys talk about when they get together. What is the next scam we can get the suckers to swallow?

Ron Okimoto,
The link to that thread is here. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive…
I particularly like ‘Intentional Evolution’. But like Lenny said the word evolution is a non-starter as far as fundies are concerned.

Comment #77264

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 3, 2006 8:05 AM (e)

Andy H,
The first time I read your post I took it the same way the others did, as if you were one of the anti-biology nuts. On second reading I realized that you simply rammed two ideas too closely together without the appropriate conjunctions. If you were one of Dembski’s acolytes(Dembski-ytes?) posting that same comment word-for-word at uncommon descent it would have made perfect sense.

“I feel that if the proponents of ID and irreducible complexity want to maintain the big tent they should just be considered to be criticisms of evolution theory and should not be associated with other ideas such as young-earth creationism, guided evolution, and common descent.”

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #77276

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on February 3, 2006 9:56 AM (e)

I think theistic evolution is as flimsy as creationsim.Causality contradicts teleology.What about some one showing that?Causality is sequential; teleology is foreordained. MORGAN-LYNN LAMBERTH

Comment #77279

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on February 3, 2006 10:01 AM (e)

I think theistic evolution is as flimsy as creationsim.Causality contradicts teleology.What about some one showing that?Causality is sequential; teleology i s foreordained. MORGAN-LYNN LAMBERTH

Comment #77282

Posted by steve s on February 3, 2006 10:12 AM (e)

BEEFCAKE. BEEFCAAAAAAAKE!!!

Comment #77288

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on February 3, 2006 10:56 AM (e)

I think theistic evolution is as flimsy as creationsim.Causality contradicts teleology.What about some one showing that?Causality is sequential; teleology i s foreordained. MORGAN-LYNN LAMBERTH

Comment #77289

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 3, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

NUTCASE. NUTCAAAAAAAAASE.

Comment #77290

Posted by ben on February 3, 2006 11:18 AM (e)

If I’m hearing you correctly, I think you’re saying “I think theistic evolution is as flimsy as creationsim.Causality contradicts teleology.What about some one showing that?Causality is sequential; teleology is foreordained.”

Is that an accurate representation of your views? Maybe you should repeat for clarity.

Comment #77291

Posted by steve s on February 3, 2006 11:20 AM (e)

You think that’ll improve clarity?

Comment #77294

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 3, 2006 11:40 AM (e)

this would finally free up a space in which the development of a non-Darwinians school of thought (evolutionist of course, and therefore credible) based on the different theories and ideas present in this article.”

I’ll grant that there were ideas presented in your article. I just wonder why they aren’t related to facts and evidence. You know, like a scientific idea has to be.

But anyway, the evidence suggests that DaveScot is more influenced by John Davison, even if it may be that your article perhaps influenced the tipping point. What difference does it make, though? Your article doesn’t begin to reach the level of science (no doubt why Dembski recommended it), and Davison’s “work” depends on not even questioning if there was a designer in the first place. It’s all pseudoscience, or perhaps simple theology.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #77295

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on February 3, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

For you nutcakes and others;To quote Paul B. Weisz inTHE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY,’[T]eleology ‘explain ‘an end stateby simply asserting it given at the beginning.And in thereby putting the future into the past, the effect before the caise,teleology negates time.” Even Kenneth R. Miller can fathom that! Richard Dawkins knows causality; Miller asserts his stupid faith. cause M.-L. lAMBERTH

Comment #77296

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on February 3, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

For you nutcakes and others;To quote Paul B. Weisz inTHE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY,’[T]eleology ‘explain ‘an end stateby simply asserting it given at the beginning.And in thereby putting the future into the past, the effect before the caise,teleology negates time.” Even Kenneth R. Miller can fathom that! Richard Dawkins knows causality; Miller asserts his stupid faith. cause M.-L. lAMBERTH

Comment #77297

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on February 3, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

For you nutcakes and others;To quote Paul B. Weisz inTHE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY,’[T]eleology ‘explain ‘an end stateby simply asserting it given at the beginning.And in thereby putting the future into the past, the effect before the caise,teleology negates time.” Even Kenneth R. Miller can fathom that! Richard Dawkins knows causality; Miller asserts his stupid faith. cause M.-L. lAMBERTH

Comment #77298

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 3, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

Oh sure, Ken Miller doesn’t bother with cause. Great to have such a fine reader on our side.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #77299

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 3, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

So maybe he’s dropping a hint that a ‘criticism of evolution theory’ need not be scientific in any way to be valid?

I don’t “drop hints.” I say exactly what I mean.

No, that was a rather evasive response. Trust me.

So, IS that what you mean? Can criticisms of evolution theory be fundamentally unscientific and still be valid?

Comment #77300

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 3, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

For you nutcakes and others;To quote Paul B. Weisz inTHE SCIENCE of BIOLOGY,’[T]eleology ‘explain ‘an end stateby simply asserting it given at the beginning.And in thereby putting the future into the past, the effect before the caise,teleology negates time.” Even Kenneth R. Miller can fathom that! Richard Dawkins knows causality; Miller asserts his stupid faith. cause M.-L. lAMBERTH

I have to admit, posted just once, this would be an unconvincing argument. Posted THREE times in a row, it’s far more compelling.

Oh, and, the random caps help a lot too. I’d emphasize that more in the future.

Comment #77306

Posted by k.e. on February 3, 2006 1:04 PM (e)

Ahh…MLL
Great point just firebomb the Biologist and run rings around the theists with logic…. hilarious.
How’s this ?
Sober up …go to uncomondescent and give ‘em the old one two. Just a thought tho’ try a little subtlety.
Like ‘Hey #ar*h&l#s u is putting de future de past and running de Paley’s clock backwards’

See I used spaces for sublety I find it always works.

BTW they already ignore that arguement and any other that effect book sales they do that for affect.

Comment #77396

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 3, 2006 6:56 PM (e)

Andy H,
The first time I read your post I took it the same way the others did, as if you were one of the anti-biology nuts.

Larry is not an IDer. No IDer could go as long as Larry has (in all his different avatars) without shouting JESUS SAVES !! at least once.

Larry is just a crank.

Comment #77413

Posted by steve s on February 3, 2006 8:15 PM (e)

Morgan-LynnLamberth is even harder to read than k.e.’s posts, which are so poorly written I can’t read them without getting a headache.

Comment #77419

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 3, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

Lenny, I hadn’t yet seen a connection between LaLaLarry and AndyH. Thanks for the warning.

Comment #77448

Posted by k.e. on February 4, 2006 2:55 AM (e)

steve s
oooohhhh
I’ll take that as a compliment.
I must confess I understood MLL’s point without a second thought, even though he mangled the writing of it.
And I’ve missed some glaring spelling errors which kill the flow, sorry about that.
Tell me what sound comes into your mind when you read the word
part
?

Comment #77449

Posted by k.e. on February 4, 2006 3:03 AM (e)

Steve S
Bah.
Write down the word “part” as you read it, backwards.

Comment #77536

Posted by carol clouser on February 4, 2006 11:59 PM (e)

Looks like I get to be attacked even if I don’t say anything.

Comment #77538

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 5, 2006 12:30 AM (e)

Looks like I get to be attacked even if I don’t say anything.

Sure sucks to be you, doesn’t it.

Comment #77619

Posted by Lou FCD on February 5, 2006 9:54 AM (e)

Carol said:

Looks like I get to be attacked even if I don’t say anything.

You’ve said plenty.

I just came across this IDCH FAQ through Evolving Thoughts. I found it rather accurate, and humorous.

I’m not a scientist, philosopher, or historian, that’s just the view from a Carpenter’s son.

Comment #77633

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 5, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

I just came across this IDCH FAQ through Evolving Thoughts. I found it rather accurate, and humorous.

Possibly my favorite line:

How old is the earth?

Somewhere between six thousand and 5 billion years.

Except, of course, it’s not really parody, strictly speaking…

Comment #77635

Posted by BWE on February 5, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

I agree with Carol.

Comment #77640

Posted by steve s on February 5, 2006 12:38 PM (e)

LOL that page is so great.

I’m confused about Intelligent Design’s stance on the theory of evolution, can you summarize it?

* Of course. The evidence gathered by Intelligent Design proponents clearly shows that:
1. Evolution does not happen.
2. Evolution happens in some cases.
3. Some evolution is directed evolution.
4. Natural selection does not work.
5. Natural selection works in many cases, but not all.
6. Microevolution does not happen.
7. Microevolution is evidence of directed evolution.
8. Macroevolution does not happen.
9. Macroevolution is evidence of directed evolution.
10. Life was created 6000 years ago.
11. Life was formed over millions or billions of years through design and the processes of directed evolution.
12. Life was formed over millions or billions of years through design, and the processes of directed and undirected evolution.

Basically, we think something is wrong with the theory of evolution, we’re just not sure what.

Comment #77641

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 5, 2006 12:41 PM (e)

I agree with Carol.

Um, about what, precisely? That no one can understand the Old Testament unless they read it in the original Hebrew?

Comment #77642

Posted by BWE on February 5, 2006 12:47 PM (e)

No, “Looks like I get to be attacked even if I don’t say anything.”

It does appear to be the case. Although I might ammend the statement by adding the word “new” to the end.

Comment #77649

Posted by k.e. on February 5, 2006 12:59 PM (e)

Now I know where Carol got her script.

How to be a Bible Apologist.

Comment #77659

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 5, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

Now I know where Carol got her script.

How to be a Bible Apologist.

Also dangerously close to non-parody…

Heddle must have that one bookmarked, too. :-)

Comment #77693

Posted by BWE on February 5, 2006 4:34 PM (e)

By the way Carol, I do not attack you for things you have said in the past but it just occurred to me, What are you trying to say? Do you understand evolution theory and agree with it but just think that the bible is also in agreement or do you think that that the Intelligent design sciences offer a more imposing set of data? Just curious.

Comment #77730

Posted by Carol Clouser on February 5, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

BWE,

So after attacking me many times in the past, you finally get around to asking me what I am “trying” to say?

K.E.,

I have never seen that site before. Having looked at it just now after you mentioned it, I can tell you that its authors are as ignorant of what the original Bible says or means as you are.

Comment #77733

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 5, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

So after attacking me many times in the past, you finally get around to asking me what I am “trying” to say?

And you don’t answer.

Do you have some sort of lethal allergy to answering questions, Carol? Or are you just too brilliantly superior to bother with us poor unwashed peons?

I have never seen that site before. Having looked at it just now after you mentioned it, I can tell you that its authors are as ignorant of what the original Bible says or means as you are.

I guess they should have asked YOU, huh.

And you wonder why everyone makes fun of you, Carol … ?

Comment #77755

Posted by Carol Clouser on February 5, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

Lenny wrote:

“Sure sucks to be you, doesn’t it.”

I am sure I come with some negatives, Lenny, although I cannot identify what those are, but I am also sure that I would much rather be me than you, anytime!

Then Lenny wrote:

“Do you have some sort of lethal allergy to answering questions, Carol? Or are you just too brilliantly superior to bother with us poor unwashed peons?”

That communist sounding clap-trap will not do. I plead not guilty. I have answered more than my share of questions here, including yours. Many of yours however are rhetorical dead-ends that you do not really want to have answered.

Lenny continued:

“I guess they should have asked YOU, huh.”

No doubt, that would have been to their benefit. The very first line, “God hates homosexuality” is already false. All the Bible is against is unprotected anal sex. And considering what has been going on, I think it is safe to say that that prohibition is fully justified.

Lenny is not finished yet:

“And you wonder why everyone makes fun of you, Carol … ?”

Is that what they are doing? I thought, Reverand, they were asking me sincere questions that I was supposed to answer. In any event, it is she who laughs last who laughs best. We shall see.

Comment #77774

Posted by k.e. on February 6, 2006 12:07 AM (e)

Carol the righteous and totally predictable, demonstrates her bibliopolic difficulties

Carol, or is that Carlos? You may wonder why you draw so much heat, could it be you are regarded here by all, a bibliolater ?

Why is it Carol, you vehemently bibliolate in a
Bibliolatrous manner

How do you rationalize your bibliology at the same time as being a bibliolater ?

Now if you were in fact a bibliopole, it might be excusable, however you claim to know something about physics/nature.

So a history of social consciousness shaped by magical realism, artistic constructivism and imaginatively recreated life, in the Middle East is physics/nature is it Carol?

From “How to read the Bible literally:”
For example, the Bible clearly says that God hates homosexuality. That part is literal. The bible also says that God hates mixing different fibers in clothing. That part is not literal

Carol said:
The very first line, “God hates homosexuality” is already false. All the Bible is against is unprotected anal sex. And considering what has been going on, I think it is safe to say that that prohibition is fully justified.

Huh? That would be the future past perfect
version of the bible is it. ?

I don’t believe anyone can understand their native tongue (and therefore the reality it describes) properly without a deep understanding of another language OR a pursuit that does not use language at all. For (a very limited) example sport, an artistic creative activity, yes and even sex and beer….er Carol that was very unbiblical of you to shift the biblical moral relativism and bibliophilic homophobia of anal sex, is that because you are bilobular? How do you explain the Perfumed Garden? Do you read that literally or just enjoy bibliomania ?

Comment #77779

Posted by k.e. on February 6, 2006 12:28 AM (e)

Carol said:
In any event, it is she who laughs last who laughs best. We shall see.

Indeed Dispensationalist Dementia.

Comment #77851

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 6, 2006 10:46 AM (e)

PZ:

This thread has now deteriorated to the point of Carol babbling stuff like this:

In any event, it is she who laughs last who laughs best. We shall see.

Maybe time to close the thread?

Comment #78090

Posted by BWE on February 7, 2006 12:07 PM (e)

No! Carol was just getting to the good part. I know she was just about to tell what she means when she writes. We’re —–>—- that close. I can feel it!