Mike Dunford posted Entry 2200 on April 10, 2006 04:51 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2195

Here’s the latest update in the continuing saga of UT Professor Eric Pianka, and the articles from the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise.

I got up early this morning, and made several phone calls to try and get to the bottom of why all mention of Pianka had been expunged from the paper. Bottom line: big misunderstanding, and the articles are now back online. It had absolutely nothing to do with the paper trying to dodge responsibility for its actions, or the paper not standing behind the articles, or any of the other possibilities that I had thought were likely. It appears that I didn’t have the full story, and jumped to some conclusions in the earlier articles that were not entirely justified.


Read More (at The Questionable Authority):

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 #95916

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on April 10, 2006 5:12 PM (e)

So, Mike, when does your other post disappear? :)

Comment #95917

Posted by BWE on April 10, 2006 5:13 PM (e)

Wow. It’s still kind of strange though. So, are they going to print retractions? Endorsements? Prove their story? Give more info? It seems that they have earned a small level of noteriety over this. How are they planning on exploiting it?

Comment #95918

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 10, 2006 5:14 PM (e)

DaveScot is wrong again:

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

Everyone was wondering why the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise pulled all the Pianka stories.

Well, none of us guessed and in hindsight it was rather obvious. At least it should have been obvious for me. The traffic generated by the stories was overwhelming the Gazette’s server. As of this minute two followup Pianka stories that weren’t linked by Drudge et al are back online. Forrest Mims explains it here.

Comment #95922

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 5:29 PM (e)

Well, that makes more sense than what I thought they had done. I thought they updated the articles but they are just the same as the ones before. The april 2nd article is still missing in action however.

Comment #95925

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on April 10, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

The latest article from the The Seguin Gazette-Enterprise now includes a charge from Pianka claiming “The man is rabid,” Pianka said, describing Mims — the man he calls an avowed enemy. “He has a warped world view.” Additionally, Mims latest comments do not include his original charges.

Something still smells and it’s not rotting fish.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #95926

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Apparently, the company had directed that the transcript and the audio recording from the speech be removed because both were at least partially incomplete. That was apparently misunderstood, with the result being that all of the materials were removed.

hmm, are you sure you’re not still getting a polite run-around there, Mike?

I’m sorry, but that’s about the lamest excuse from an editing department I’ve ever heard.

Moreover, it doesn’t explain why ALL references to Mims, Pianka, and even the likely response letters in the opnion section were removed so completely.

simply clerical error?

I remain dubious.

I like your public stance tho. Serves as a model for decency that one could only hope Mims himself would learn from.

Comment #95927

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 10, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

It appears that I didn’t have the full story, and jumped to some conclusions in the earlier articles that were not entirely justified.

These, by the way, are words that I’ve never ever heard an ID/creationist manage to choke past their lips.

Sort of like “My religious opinions aren’t any more authoritative than anyone else’s”.

Comment #95928

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 5:52 PM (e)

I’m not sure if that wasn’t there before. I had thought they edited it at first but that turned out to be mistaken when I looked for the google cache. Mind I didn’t do a very comprehensive analysis just enough to realise they hadn’t been extensively updated as I first thought.

Instead, the article discussed in the post on QA is now pretty much just gone. They haven’t replaced it yet, although that could just be an oversight given the new story.

Comment #95930

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

Moreover, it doesn’t explain why ALL references to Mims, Pianka, and even the likely response letters in the opnion section were removed so completely.

I think it’s fair enough actually. Given the hugely antagonistic nature of the story and the resulting viscious firestorm, it would be easy to misinterpret a command to take down the incomplete transcript articles as ‘remove everything’. It doesn’t explain why the April 2nd article, that contained the allegations from Mims is gone but the other two are still there.

This whole incident started with a ‘misunderstanding’ that went too far…

Comment #95931

Posted by Tim on April 10, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

ha ha Evolution is proven by your un-necessary rambling. A panda’s thumb has nothing to do with your religion called evolution. It can’t be called science because you haven’t proven it yet. Come on I’m a 13 year old kid and I’m smart enough to know that.

Comment #95934

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Come on I’m a 13 year old kid and I’m smart enough to know that.

look out! it’s a 13 year old einsteinian streaker!

Comment #95935

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

How about no.

Comment #95939

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on April 10, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

Curious, the last name of the reporter has also changed. Maybe she got married in the meanwhile. ;-)

Comment #95941

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

D:

I didn’t spot that. It could be possible, I’ve often thought that reporting on genocide and other ideas is the best time for a wedding.

Comment #95947

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

I didn’t spot that. It could be possible, I’ve often thought that reporting on genocide and other ideas is the best time for a wedding

of course! If you’re afraid some mad scientist is in the process of promoting the imminent release of a strain of virus that will wipe out 90% of humanity, better to get married NOW than later, eh?

Comment #95950

Posted by Moses on April 10, 2006 6:19 PM (e)

Comment #95931

Posted by Tim on April 10, 2006 05:56 PM (e)

ha ha Evolution is proven by your un-necessary rambling. A panda’s thumb has nothing to do with your religion called evolution. It can’t be called science because you haven’t proven it yet. Come on I’m a 13 year old kid and I’m smart enough to know that.

The jig is up! Thirteen year-old Tim’s found us out after 140 years of lies! Run for the hills boys! Run for the hills!

Comment #95953

Posted by steve s on April 10, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

I got up early this morning, and made several phone calls to try and get to the bottom of why all mention of Pianka had been expunged from the paper. Bottom line: big misunderstanding, and the articles are now back online. It had absolutely nothing to do with the paper trying to dodge responsibility for its actions, or the paper not standing behind the articles, or any of the other possibilities that I had thought were likely. It appears that I didn’t have the full story, and jumped to some conclusions in the earlier articles that were not entirely justified.

You weren’t the only one making errors:

#7

So why has the Seguin Gazette Enterprise pulled the entire story, including the Pianka transcript, from their website?

My bet is the left wing of the science establishment got all lawyered up and threatened to dover the tiny Seguin Gazette for a million bucks. That’s what biology is all about these days, don’t you know, suing instead of science. But hey, suing and science both start with an ’s’ and have two syllables so it’s all good. -ds

Comment by Gerard Harbison — April 7, 2006 @ 8:58 pm

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

#8

Dave, I think it is more likely that the paper realized that they had reported on hearsay, their source lacked credibility and they are trying to backktrack. Had they in fact been threatened with legal action, they would have put that on the front page and rolled out their First Amendment defense.

The transcript of the speech and the recorded question could not be hearsay so your hypothesis seems to have a fatal flaw as those disappeared too. I think more likely they didn’t have the legal right to publish the transcript and were coerced into pulling everything in order to avoid prosecution and stifle themselves about the deal. Another possibility is the Department of Homeland Security got involved and issued a national security gag order. In any case the silence is deafening. Something really smells rotten in the state of Denmark. -ds

Comment by Dartos — April 8, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

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

You can make a mistake. Only Davetard can be counted on to take it to the next level.

Comment #95960

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 7:25 PM (e)

OT:

hmm, seems the front page of PT just disappeared?

anybody else having this problem?

Comment #95963

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 7:31 PM (e)

nevermind, it’s back for me now.

Comment #95964

Posted by Page Six on April 10, 2006 7:32 PM (e)

This is all an exercise in plausible deniability. They’re in damage-control mode. The backlash is enormous, and heads have already begun to roll. Circle the wagon train.

Comment #95965

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

Not really. That Mims account has fallen over since more facts have emerged only requires one head to roll here.

That would be Mims. If no action is taken concerning his overdone hysteria then I would be very surprised. At the very least, he’ll have earnt the general dislike of those he works with. That’s never a lot of fun.

Comment #95968

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 7:42 PM (e)

and what about the folks still promulgating his spew? like Denyse Leary?

what about Dembski calling the Gestapo?

all water under the bridge, i suppose.

oh, let’s not forget the death threats.

truth is, many heads should roll here, but Mims will likely be the scapegoat, since he started it.

Comment #95973

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 10, 2006 9:04 PM (e)

It’s funny to see DaveScot try to defend opinion of the matter and arrogantly respond to Mike Dunford’s report.

Mike was informed by Southern Newspapers that the Pianka articles were removed because of a miscommunication between the corporate office and SGE. SNI only wanted the partial transcripts removed. (Given the response of the SGE to Mike, there may be some tension between the local office and corporate office.)

DaveScot, on the other hard, uses second-hand information to guess that an IT person removed the articles because of server load. (And I guess neglected to tell his bosses that their most popular article was gone.)

Which one has more support behind it?

Comment #95985

Posted by apollo230 on April 10, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

The ID community sent their cavalry in the wrong direction. They should pray now that they don’t get Sioux’ed.

The stated mission of the ID camp is to find an intelligent designer.
However, why do they insist on finding someone’s a** (namely Pianka’s) to kick instead?

I subscribe to the possibility of ID, but this offensive on Pianka was not an example of intelligent design. My fraternity claims to be in the right, but now they find themselves in the rut.

Comment #95987

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 10:35 PM (e)

in the rut.

yup.

you still have a chance to get out.

will you take it?

Comment #95988

Posted by apollo230 on April 10, 2006 10:36 PM (e)

I have learned that a Cornell University professor is going to teach a course that scrutinizes the Darwinist/ID debate. Your thoughts?

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=634

Comment #95990

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

you’re a little late on the draw there; it’s already been brought up both on PT and ATBC.

However, so far in looking at the course syallabus and the recommended reading list (especially the optional one), it looks like the prof. is presenting the history of the formation of the ID concept from earlier creation”science”, and then deliberately challenging his students to do the research on each of the claims made.

the funny thing is, as a college course, this sounds like a fine idea.

ID only can exist as a concept in ignorance. As you yourself just showed us well in the other thread.

In fact, I’d recommend you take this course yourself.

You might actually be forced to recognize the flaws in logic and execution that run rampant in WD40’s ramblings, since you refuse to examine them here.

a bit much for a high school student tho.

Comment #95994

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 11:03 PM (e)

Hey Apollo-

hmm, not that I’m the official anything here, but since we ditched our last big troll recently, would you care to apply for the position?

If you have followed PT at all in the last few months you may have noticed posts by one Larry Fafarman.

He got a wee too vindictive, tiresome, and broke the posting rules here to boot, so we had to dump him.

You seem far more reasonable and interesting than larry was.

care for the job?

it doesn’t pay anything, and you likely will be the subject of derision for much of the time, but you always have the opportunity to change our minds, provided you can provide evidence to do so.

Comment #95996

Posted by RBH on April 10, 2006 11:32 PM (e)

ID advocates ought to read more of MacNeill’s posts on Evolution List before they get all excited about ID being taught. MacNeill seems to be a sharp guy. I do pity the people in the course, though, because Dembski’s The Design Inference is required reading, and it’s about the most painfully obfuscatory book one would want to try to read. I read it twice and it hurt both times.

RBH

Comment #95998

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on April 10, 2006 11:37 PM (e)

He doesn’t like Dembski at all as well, which I found an interesting tidbit. He’s taken a bit of flack for his opinions on Dembski, which he has made rather clear, over at Telic Thoughts. Personally I happen to agree with him and I don’t think this course is going to be quite what the IDists expect. Take his questions he asked in the thread about this at TT. Without a detailed knowledge of ID rhetoric, answering them (or should I say, obsfuscating the point while pretending to answer them in an ID favourable manner) is not something that will be easy for someone unfamiliar with the debate.

It’s going to be very interesting to see what the reaction to the course will actually be.

Comment #96001

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 12:59 AM (e)

yes, yes. I think we are spoiling the good professor’s fishing expedition.

*wink*

Comment #96009

Posted by Corkscrew on April 11, 2006 5:42 AM (e)

apollo230 wrote:

The stated mission of the ID camp is to find an intelligent designer.
However, why do they insist on finding someone’s a** (namely Pianka’s) to kick instead?

OK, here’s the deal. There are some good, decent people who support ID and are genuinely interested in the concepts involved. There are also many many people who see it merely as a way to do an end-run round Edwards v Aguillard (the case where creation science got smacked down).

Most of the originators of Intelligent Design fall into category B. This includes Dembski, who infamously referred to ID as “the logos of St. John written in the idiom of Information Theory”. It also includes Jonathan Wells, who said “Father’s [Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism” (yes, Wells is a Moonie). It includes all of those who were involved in (imperfectly) transforming ‘Of Pandas And People’ from a Creation Science textbook to an Intelligent Design textbook. That means, IIRC, that Behe is in on it too.

You are being duped by these people. Your innate desire to believe in God is being exploited by their marketing to get you to buy bottled moonshine. And the worst part is that it’s completely redundant - the entire point of faith is supposed to be that you can believe without seeing concrete evidence. Like Thomas, you’re asking for something solid to quell your doubts. Unlike Thomas, the people giving it to you are hucksters.

Comment #96010

Posted by Corkscrew on April 11, 2006 5:53 AM (e)

(I apologise if there are two copies of this post floating around - hit “post” by accident halfway through)

apollo230 wrote:

The stated mission of the ID camp is to find an intelligent designer.
However, why do they insist on finding someone’s a** (namely Pianka’s) to kick instead?

OK, here’s the deal. There are some good, decent people who support ID and are genuinely interested in the concepts involved. There are also many many people who see it merely as a way to do an end-run round Edwards v Aguillard (the case where creation science got smacked down).

Most of the originators of Intelligent Design fall into category B. This includes Dembski, who infamously referred to ID as “the logos of St. John written in the idiom of Information Theory”. It also includes Jonathan Wells, who said “Father’s [Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism” (yes, Wells is a Moonie). It includes all of those who were involved in (imperfectly) transforming ‘Of Pandas And People’ from a Creation Science textbook to an Intelligent Design textbook. That means, IIRC, that Behe is in on it too.

You are being duped by these people. Your innate desire to believe in God is being exploited by their marketing to get you to buy bottled moonshine. And the worst part is that it’s completely redundant - the entire point of faith is supposed to be that you can believe without seeing concrete evidence. Like Thomas, you’re asking for something solid to quell your doubts. Unlike Thomas, the people giving it to you are hucksters.

And they’re actually getting rather desperate because, despite the support of ID in school boards across the country, the only time it came to trial it got its ass handed to it. Scientists have been calling these people frauds for ages, but now even the mainstream media is getting in on the act. The hucksters are therefore in need of some sort of gimmick to convince their followers that they’re still in the running. Rather predictably (since it’s been used by creationists, alties and other folks for time out of mind) they’ve turned to attacking science itself. It’s all very postmodernist.

Hope that answers your question.

Comment #96012

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 7:07 AM (e)

The stated mission of the ID camp is to find an intelligent designer.

Au contraire, they do everything possible to AVOID finding it. Or talking about it. Or identifying it.

Comment #96013

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 7:14 AM (e)

The stated mission of the ID camp is to find an intelligent designer.

Actually, their stated mission is to establish a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. After all, they are largely funded by a single extremist whacko billionnaire who, for twenty years, was the cash cow and chief cheerleader for the Christian Reconstructionists, who advocate disbanding the US Constitution and replacing it with “Biblical law”, to include such things as executing sinners, heretics and infidels (by the Biblically-approved expedient of stoning them to death).

The complete stated mission of the ID movement can be found here:

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

An excerpted sumamry:

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

They are Taliban-wanna-be’s. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Comment #96017

Posted by Fly_On_The_Wall on April 11, 2006 8:12 AM (e)

Mims wrote:

“Yet there’s more, for Professor Pianka and his Ebola plush toy made an appearance at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, on 31 March 2006. There he showed the same Power Point slides of skulls and Ebola. But he went even farther this time, perhaps not knowing that reporter Jamie Mobley and her tape recorder were present. The lecture was also recorded by a reporter for a major magazine.You can read Jamie’s story here if the servers are not crashing from her follow up stories.”

(emphasis mine)

The UD robots have been bellyaching about the “Real Speech” being the portion of the first presentation for which no transcript had been released. Yet Mims implies here that the St. Edwards speech was MORE over the top. If the second speech was more extremist, the first one must have been tame indeed, relative to all of the hysteria raised.

Comment #96022

Posted by apollo230 on April 11, 2006 10:10 AM (e)

Good morning, Corkscrew! Thanks for your comments.

I am not crazy about the pushiness or the moral arrogance of the Christian far-right. Their ideas do not belong in public schools or in Congress, for that matter. I am aware of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge document, which does prove that this element has taken up ID for its own purposes. By inviting fundamentalists into its big tent (Bruce Thompson alluded to this in a prior post) the ID “camp”-namely good ship Discovery-has guaranteed for itself a backlash, because fundamentalist actions and arrogance has left a long trail of historical ruin behind it. ID only contaminates itself if it gets too political or mixes itself up with aggressively religious elements.

Some will say that ID is contaminated period, with or without overtly theistic involvements, and that I should give up the belief altogether. That I cannot do because teleology is in my bones, I guess. If that makes me look foolish, just call me Panda’s Thumbs very own Village Idiot, Corkscrew! I am sure that some will be very happy to oblige, but if they do, they should do so in good humor, because even teleologists have feelings! :)

Best regards,

apollo230

Comment #96023

Posted by Flint on April 11, 2006 10:16 AM (e)

apollo230:

No, we know you’re not an idiot. Water runs downhill because it was intended to run downhill. And thus, we have insight into the Mind of God. Right?

Comment #96025

Posted by Greg Peterson on April 11, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

This all seems like excellent material for NPR’s show, “On the Media.” I wonder if they have any plans to address this issue?

Comment #96026

Posted by Corkscrew on April 11, 2006 11:05 AM (e)

apollo230 wrote:

Some will say that ID is contaminated period, with or without overtly theistic involvements, and that I should give up the belief altogether. That I cannot do because teleology is in my bones, I guess.

And many evolutionary biologists would fully agree with you that the world around us was designed (ref. theistic evolution). Where they would disagree with you is in the statement that design in living organisms is any more scientifically detectable than design anywhere else. That’s what Intelligent Design states and that’s what the evidence (and, some would say, the theology) completely fails to support.

Comment #96027

Posted by Frank J on April 11, 2006 11:09 AM (e)

Corkscrew wrote:

There are also many many people who see it merely as a way to do an end-run round Edwards v Aguillard (the case where creation science got smacked down).

Time for my usual 2c: One does not need the current ID strategy to do an end run around E v. A. Calling the the creator a “designer” and leave him/her/it unidentified would suffice. Plus ID’s characteristc evasion of its own position was well underway before E v. A. Which only means that ID’s true motivation was to do an end run around the scientific failures of, and irreconcilable differences among, the mutually contradictory classic creationist positions. That’s where creation “science” really got smacked down, and the ID scammers have known it for 20 years.

Comment #96028

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 11, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

Their [the fundamentalist’s] ideas do not belong in public schools or in Congress, for that matter.

How about Phillip Johnson’s ideas? And is there any distinction between the ideas of “Darwin’s nemesis” and fundamentalism?

By inviting fundamentalists into its big tent (Bruce Thompson alluded to this in a prior post) the ID “camp”-namely good ship Discovery-has guaranteed for itself a backlash, because fundamentalist actions and arrogance has left a long trail of historical ruin behind it.

Who else would care about ID? I mean, besides a few ignorant clods.

ID only contaminates itself if it gets too political or mixes itself up with aggressively religious elements.

How can ID ever be contaminated? Does it have a core of consistent empirically-based theories that risks “contamination” from others?

And what can ID do except be political? Is it likely to do good research, or even bad research?

Some will say that ID is contaminated period, with or without overtly theistic involvements, and that I should give up the belief altogether.

The “covert” involvement is the actual issue. However, I hardly care if you give up your beliefs, since you seem to have no real understanding of the distinction between belief and science anyhow.

That I cannot do because teleology is in my bones, I guess. If that makes me look foolish

It simply shows how far from scientific thinking you are. It is not foolish, until you attempt to claim that teleology is science.

We do not avoid teleology because we don’t like it, we avoid it because it has proven useless to science, aside from dealing with humans and other animals. That is what makes science into science, the willingness to give up preconceptions, at least while dealing with scientific matters.

I am sure that some will be very happy to oblige, but if they do, they should do so in good humor, because even teleologists have feelings!

Yes, well, you need to learn enough science to at least quit insulting people for adhering to the evidence. Non-teleologists are not that way because of “belief” or “opinion” as you opined in other threads, they are that way because they wish to understand the evidence sans bias (or at least with as little as possible).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #96029

Posted by Mike Crichton on April 11, 2006 11:18 AM (e)

A panda’s thumb has nothing to do with your religion called evolution. It can’t be called science because you haven’t proven it yet. Come on I’m a 13 year old kid and I’m smart enough to know that.

A quick question: I thought heat could only flow from high concentrations to low. But my refrigerator insists of pumping heat from low concentration to high. Doesn’t this violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you can’t explain this mystery to me _right_now_, what makes you think you understand science well enough to comment on matters scientific? :-)

Comment #96030

Posted by Andrea on April 11, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

To go back to the topic:

Fly on the Wall:

Mims wrote:

“Yet there’s more, for Professor Pianka and his Ebola plush toy made an appearance at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, on 31 March 2006. There he showed the same Power Point slides of skulls and Ebola. But he went even farther this time , perhaps not knowing that reporter Jamie Mobley and her tape recorder were present.The lecture was also recorded by a reporter for a major magazine.You can read Jamie’s story here if the servers are not crashing from her follow up stories.”

(emphasis mine)

The UD robots have been bellyaching about the “Real Speech” being the portion of the first presentation for which no transcript had been released. Yet Mims implies here that the St. Edwards speech was MORE over the top. If the second speech was more extremist, the first one must have been tame indeed, relative to all of the hysteria raised.

It’s even weirder than that. Mobley says in her SG article of April 5th that Pianka invited her to the speech.

Pianka extended that invitation to the Gazette-Enterprise, where the publication made a digital recording of Pianka’s lecture.

So, Pianka gave his St.Edwards speech, Mims heard it (or read the transcript), concluded it “went even farther” than the TAS speech, complimented Mobley on the scoop and alleged Pianka was finally caught with his pants down, while in fact Pianka himself had asked the reporter to attend the talk, and let her record it. Perhaps now Mims will change his mind as to which speech was actually more outrageous.

Also, for those interested in additional perspective, you can listen to this interview of Mims’s (warning: long and weird), where he glibly compares Pianka to Hitler, all the while seemingly going along with his interviewer’s bizarre conspiracy theories about CIA plots, mass concentration camps and global environmentalist domination.

Comment #96035

Posted by Don Baccus on April 11, 2006 12:18 PM (e)

apollo230 wrote:

I am aware of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge document, which does prove that this element has taken up ID for its own purposes.

No, they have not “taken up ID”. These are the FOUNDERS of Intelligent Design speaking. Intelligent Design was morphed by them for the purposes later stated explicitly in the Wedge Document.

Comment #96037

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 12:52 PM (e)

Apollo said:

because fundamentalist actions and arrogance has left a long trail of historical ruin behind it.

are you sure you want to be one of the ones left in its wake?

sure sounds like it.

oh, have you decided on the position of official PT troll yet?

Comment #96056

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

ID only contaminates itself if it gets too political or mixes itself up with aggressively religious elements.

Um, but that is all ID *consists of*. Take out the aggressively religious/political elements, and there’s nothing left. (shrug)

Comment #96058

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

It simply shows how far from scientific thinking you are.

No, he’s just bought into the whole ID BS about evolution being “atheistic”.

Once he realizes that evolution isn’t any more “atheistic” than is gravity or nuclear physics or economics or the rules of baseball, he will understand how deeply and profoundly the IDers have been lying to him.

Comment #96066

Posted by KiwiInOz on April 11, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

Sir Toejam, perhaps you can answer this. Apollo says that he is into teleology (it’s in his bones!) - does that mean that he studies teleosts? Yet another embracing his inner fish?

Comment #96071

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

yikes, that was bad.

I suppose that’s why they call it ichthyology as opposed to “teleostology”

actually, the real reason is that teleosts are bony fishes, and ichthyology embraces the study of all fishes, both bony and not, jawless and jawed.

Interestingly, while there are plenty of ichthyologists who only study relatively few (or even one) species of bony fish, they still don’t refer to themselves as teleostologists, nor even wrt the specific genus they study, like “cichlidist” or “pomacentridist”.

Likewise when i was studying sharks, I didn’t refer to myself as an “elasmobranchologist”.

hmm, it seems to me that other than those that study humans (anthropologists), those who study animals usually refer to themselves at essentially the “order” level.

entomologist
mammologist
herpetologist

sorry, i felt i had to punish you for that horrid attempt at humor

;P

Comment #96072

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 6:37 PM (e)

at essentially the “order” level

make that “class”, of course

Comment #96074

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 11, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Once he realizes that evolution isn’t any more “atheistic” than is gravity or nuclear physics or economics or the rules of baseball, he will understand how deeply and profoundly the IDers have been lying to him.

It’s a good thought, anyhow.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #96075

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

oh and since the subject was raised, and Apollo is apparently interested in teleology, perhaps a reference to a good discussion of it is in order?

here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biol…

Comment #96077

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

It’s a good thought, anyhow.

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

Actually, in my 25 years of fighting against creationists, I can count on the fingers of one hand the total number of people I have seen “converted” into giving up fundamentalism/creationism.

I no longer even bother trying. The payoff simply isn’t worth the effort. And for every one who changes his mind, there are a gazillion more uneducated dolts willing to step into his place.

I can maybe nudge Apollo a wee bit. But if it’s his choice to remain uninformed and pig-ignorant, well, there’s nothing that anyoen can dom about it. Fortunately, ignorance is a correctable condition. UN-fortunately, correcting it requires a bit of effort on his part. (shrug)

Creationism/ID is a political movement. It must be beaten with political methods. And no political movement in history has ever been beaten by converting all its members to another view.

Comment #96079

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

Of course, if all the fundamentalist atheists jump all over him, that will remove any possible hope. (sigh)

Comment #96081

Posted by Corkscrew on April 11, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

Of course, if all the fundamentalist atheists jump all over him, that will remove any possible hope. (sigh)

Yeah, it’s a fun balancing act. Specially with people like that kid Tim, who are blatantly wind-up-and-go minions of other folk. On the one hand you don’t want to give the impression that you’re giving daft claims any credence; on the other hand, you don’t want to isolate people holding those daft claims.

Comment #96083

Posted by KiwiInOz on April 11, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

Please Sir. May I have another?

Comment #96084

Posted by KiwiInOz on April 11, 2006 7:10 PM (e)

I’m just a mere ecologist with a warped sense of humour.

Comment #96087

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 7:54 PM (e)

Please Sir. May I have another?

are you sure?

naw, I wouldn’t want to punish the rest of the PT readers.

besides, i think I broke my paddle

;)

Comment #96101

Posted by djmullen on April 12, 2006 12:56 AM (e)

“Please Sir. May I have another?”

I think the phrase you’re looking for is actually,

“Thank you, sir. May I have another?”

as uttered by a young Kevin Bacon in “Animal House”.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes

Comment #96102

Posted by KiwiInOz on April 12, 2006 1:01 AM (e)

I was actually inspired by that classic movie ‘Oliver Twist meets Animal House: the Smack Down’.

Comment #96263

Posted by hrc on April 13, 2006 12:35 AM (e)

The speech that the Seguin Gazette supposedly posted is no longer there. Can QA call them again about that?

Comment #96291

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 13, 2006 7:40 AM (e)

Of course it’s not there - that was the part that the corporate offices wanted taken down because it wasn’t complete, as Mike already reported.

Comment #96344

Posted by Raging Bee on April 13, 2006 1:57 PM (e)

I no longer even bother trying. The payoff simply isn’t worth the effort. And for every one who changes his mind, there are a gazillion more uneducated dolts willing to step into his place.

True. But you may diminish the ardor and energy some of them bring to the debate, simply by showing them that arguments refuting their “science” don’t follow the script their preachers give them. I suspect that once they learn the hard way that they can’t “win” the argument as easily as they’re led to believe, many of them will just keep their beliefs to themselves, and sit out the big shouting-matches.

Comment #96406

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 13, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

Oh, I don’t at all mind pounding their dumbass arguments into talcum powder, right in front of everyone.

:)

I am simply under no illusion at all that any of it is remotely likely to change a fundies’ mind. That’s simply not my goal.