Nick Matzke posted Entry 2266 on May 9, 2006 04:46 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2261

Update: An attendee of the Cal Defend Science event chastises Dembski and his fan Samuel Chen; Dembski posts a correction where Dembski’s anonymous source from Kansas somehow innocently got Padian confused with an entirely different person; Dembski’s blog hits a new low with a KKK cartoon posted by DaveScot.

Those of you who enjoy following the erratic goings-on over at Dembski’s blog may have noticed that yesterday he accused NCSE president Kevin Padian of being a racist. As usual it is being copied by other wingnut blogs, and probably will appear on WorldNetDaily within 24 hours. We have been trying to figure out what combination of garbled sources Dembski was relying on for that post, but it seems to be so distant from actual events it is impossible to untangle. Anyhow, here is a little reality to balance things out:

Dembski says,

In two recent “defend science” talks, one at Cal Berkeley and the other at Kansas University, Padian singled out an Asian-American church that supports ID. In March, Berkeley’s IDEA Club sponsored two talks that I gave to packed houses on the Berkeley campus (go here). Some of the key members in that IDEA Club are also members of this church. Padian now explicitly names this church (Berkland Baptist Church) in his public talks and describes the members of the church that attended my lectures as “young,” “Asian,” and “fundamentalist,” and that this is “what we are up against today.”

There are only a few problems with this:

1. According to KU’s events calendar, there has been no meeting of the “Defend Science” group at the University of Kansas, and as far as I know, there has been no Defend Science meeting anywhere in Kansas.

2. The last evolution/creationism events on KU’s calendar are the events in late January/early February at which NCSE, Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS), and various lawyers involved in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case spoke about the case and the implications for science standards in Kansas and elsewhere. Also, the main event on Jan. 30 was put together by KCFS, and was not associated in any way with Defend Science.

3. Late January is long before Dembski’s mid-March talks at Berkeley.

4. Kevin Padian was initially going to speak at the January Kansas event, but had to back out.

5. As far as anyone around the NCSE office can recall (Padian is president of NCSE’s board and is not regularly in the NCSE office), Padian hasn’t even been in Kansas for years.

6. Regarding the Berkeley “Defend Science” event, reports indicate that Berkland Baptist Church was not a subject of Padian’s discussion at all. I only found out about the existence of Berkland myself when Dembski mentioned it on his blog.

(Note: ‘Berkland’ is derived from Berkeley + Oakland. According to its website FAQ, the church is officially part of the Southern Baptist Convention, and is “mostly Asian American, but growing increasingly multi-ethnic.” Googling for Dembski shows that Berkland has an extensive photo essay of Dembski’s visit, apparently including some events at the church – I was only aware of Dembski’s talks at Berkeley until I saw this. But apparently Berkland hosted Dembski, perhaps this is where Dembski got the idea that Padian was talking about Berkland.)

7. At the Berkeley Defend Science panel in April, Padian did note that Dembski’s audience had been much larger than the Defend Science event, and had been predominantly asian-american and fundamentalist. Having personally attended Dembski’s lectures, I can confirm that the audience was probably 80%+ people of asian ancestry, and not all Berkeley students – the audience included folks from around the Bay Area, and from people I talked to at the event I gathered it had been publicized in local churches. The only time I’ve ever seen something similar was when Kent Hovind came to speak at Cal a few years back.

8. As you might be able to predict from Dembski’s performance with the above simple facts, he is also wrong about what Padian said. Padian didn’t say anything derogatory about people of asian ancestry. Padian’s point was simple: the audience that science educators and science fans need to reach in the future was not the audience at the Defend Science meeting, rather it was the audience of Dembski’s talk.

If Dembski wishes to regain any semblance of the decency he lost in the Pianka affair, the Shallit affair, the single-malt scotch affair, etc., he should apologize to Padian and retract his insulting claims. But based on those past experiences, I won’t hold my breath.

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 #100352

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 9, 2006 6:11 PM (e)

Number of non-white associates at ICR …. . zero.

Number of nonwhite associates at AiG …. . zero.

Number of non-white Fellows of the Center for (The Renewal of) Science and Culture …. . zero.

Hmmmmmm …. …. anyone see a pattern here …. ?

Comment #100355

Posted by steve s on May 9, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

Indeed, the thread where we watch Dembski’s blog and laugh is the most popular thread at After the Bar Closes, by a country mile.

Comment #100357

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 9, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

William Dembski’s introduction to “What Darwin Didn’t Know” (2004), “Why then,does Darwinism continue to garner such a huge following, especially among the intellectual elites? Two reasons: 1) It provides a materialistic creation story that dispenses with and need fpr design or God (This is very convenient for those who want to escape the demands of religion, morality, and conscience).”

So see? Just embrace non-materialism and then you can be forgiven all your lies, and once forgiven you can lie and lie and lie….

Comment #100358

Posted by deadman_932 on May 9, 2006 10:09 PM (e)

As presented by Billy Dembski, I might have thought that there was something afoot here, but, according to the Berkland Baptist Church’s own website, the “congregation” is primarily Asian, apparently mostly Korean, http://www.berkland.org/berkeley/ From Berkland Baptist Church’s Webpage:. “BBC ministers to Asian-American college students, graduate students and young adults” and “ The vibrant, mostly Asian-American church exists primarily to minister to students … according to its founder and first pastor Paul Kim.”

Berkland is an Asian American church according to http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=256897 , a “ Berkland xanga blogring” So, we have young…Asian…Christians, some of whom are fundamentalists.

I noticed that when Billy Dembski was asked directly on his blog if he thought Padian was a racist, he didn’t respond. This makes sense, since that would be legally actionable, and Dembski’s silence speaks far more eloquently about how low the scumbag has sunk. He can’t convince any reputable scientists of his claims, he can’t manage to ooze his slimy stench on over to Dover to testify, but boy can he try to smear a person indirectly.

I’d be willing to bet money Billy got his ass kicked regularly as a kid and this forum of his provides him an outlet for that past pain. Okay, it’s a good thing that Billy Dembski is nearly always wrong, but for him and his utterly worthless group of lickspittle toadies to post up Padian’s phone number…well. That just speaks of how low these weasels are.

Comment #100360

Posted by Sounder on May 9, 2006 10:39 PM (e)

It boggles my mind how, after abandoning christianity (thanks in large part to creationists, I might add), I find myself drawn even more strongly to the concept of evil–and men like Dembski are the reason. Thanks, Billy, for reminding me just how morally bankrupt religionists like you truly are.

Comment #100361

Posted by UnMark on May 9, 2006 10:56 PM (e)

Sounder, I couldn’t agree more.

It’s been my experience that those who are most immoral are the most vocal about others’ immorality. I think this is just another example of what an upstanding, God fearing Christian Billy D truly is.

Comment #100362

Posted by Shalini on May 9, 2006 11:03 PM (e)

What a great insight into the true compulsive lying habits (er…I meant morality)of Bill Dembski and friends.

Comment #100364

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2006 11:50 PM (e)

In March, Berkeley’s IDEA Club sponsored two talks that I gave to packed houses on the Berkeley campus (go here)

were these the talks where Dembski claimed to have given testimony in the kitzmiller case?

*sigh*

Comment #100365

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2006 11:56 PM (e)

(Note: ‘Berkland’ is derived from Berkeley + Oakland

hmm. I lived in both places, and trying to combine the two into a conglomerate makes about as much sense as

“Los Angelisco”

unless things have changed drastically in the last 10 years or so, Oakland and Berkeley are quite different cities indeed.

Comment #100367

Posted by Renier on May 11, 2006 4:37 AM (e)

It makes me sick. Don’t the have a rule/law of “no false witness/testimony” ???

Comment #100369

Posted by ben on May 11, 2006 6:00 AM (e)

Not if you’re LFG* apparently.

*Lying For JesusTM

Comment #100370

Posted by wamba on May 11, 2006 7:22 AM (e)

hmm. I lived in both places, and trying to combine the two into a conglomerate makes about as much sense as

“Los Angelisco”

You’re right, that just doesn’t sound right.

San Frangeles flows better.

Comment #100371

Posted by JPadilla on May 11, 2006 8:23 AM (e)

I am the person who went along (foolishly) with what William Dembsky said at his Uncommon Descent Blog and agreed that what was presented there sounded racist to me. I was wrong and wish to publicly say so, as is only right and honorable.

However, I have, over the past two days, attempted three times to post a comment at Uncommon Descent and have grown to believe that dissent is the only uncommon thing there, since each time it has remained unposted. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. Here is my post that I intended to leave there for public viewing and have been essentially forced to post here ——————-

Dr. Dembski: This represents the third time I have asked to have my comment posted. If it does not appear, I can only assume that you or your moderator has chosen to deliberately omit it, a proposition I find troubling and unethical, since my comment is not insulting or deprecatory to *anyone*. The post is as follows: After viewing the responses to Dr. Dembski’s assertions on “The Panda’s Thumb,” and some sleuthing on my own, I am going to retract any claims –on *my* part –of racism against Kevin Padian. It appears that the Berkland church groups are mostly Asian and were not singled out unfairly, merely to note that they are the kind of audiences Neo-Darwinians would like to reach.

It appears to me as though Dr. Dembski is misinformed because there are some serious discrepancies between what Dr. Dembski has posted here and what is claimed by both the NCSE ( personal communication) and a female (Christian) colleague of mine who attended Padian’s talk. Perhaps you can clarify these points, Dr. Dembski, and the points posted at “Panda’s Thumb” on the dating of your claims. What Padian said was not “racist” anymore than it is “racist” to say that there are a large number of European hockey players in the NHL who might be good spokesmen for Christianity. To mention the geographic origins of any group is not *inherently* “racist.”

To try to smear a man as a racist without good cause is, however, inherently unethical, (which I am sure you would agree with) and to deny the right of a dissenter (me) from having a NON-INSULTING disagreement with your point of view is frankly disturbing. If one claims to be an ethical and moral human being, then one has to walk the walk and not merely mouth the words. And if it is in fact DaveScot censoring this post, I would have thought the Marines taught men the meaning of honor.

End post———————————————————

I have placed this here because of the apparent refusal of Mr. Dembski or DaveScot to post this in their forum. I have done so to apologize to Padian and to point out my personal disagreement with the manner in which Mr. Dembski “runs” his blog.

Comment #100374

Posted by Mike Z on May 11, 2006 8:51 AM (e)

Apparently, there is a strong tradition of censoring comments at the UD blog. Anything that might usurp their perceived authority is not allowed.

Comment #100375

Posted by ah_mini on May 11, 2006 8:54 AM (e)

Mr JPadilla, your post is to be commended. It is the mark courage to admit, in front of an audience, that he/she was mistaken about something.

Sadly, as you have noticed, Dembski and his blog cronies are unable to make similar admissions. Nor are they able to handle the criticism of others (who may otherwise be sympathetic to their cause). What you have experienced is nothing new. I have heard of countless similar stories of comments being removed and commenters being banned.

Andrew

Comment #100376

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 8:58 AM (e)

Earlier this year I counted up all the comments on Uncommonly Dense and Panda’s Thumb for an entire month. PT posts got something like 40 comments on average, while UD posts got around 8. Mr. Padilla here is a case study in why this is so. Who would consistently put effort into commenting if they were very likely to be deleted by some tinpot censor? IIRC, we even found that the discussion thread at AtBC where we mock UD, got more comments per time than the whole of UD.

Comment #100378

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 9:02 AM (e)

It should be noted that while Uncommonly Dense deleted Padilla’s comments, they left ones like this up:

Here is Kevin Padian’s phone number 510-524-3456 and his office number @ (510) 642-7434. Since he is so open with criticizing individuals, he must be open to his own personal and individualized criticism from others. We should all let him know how much of a racist he is.

Comment by blooooger — May 9, 2006 @ 2:52 pm

Comment #100379

Posted by B. Spitzer on May 11, 2006 9:06 AM (e)

From ombudsman:

Dembski corrected the statement about the KU talk. It was not Padian but someone who went in Padian’s place.

Wait, let me make sure I’ve got this absolutely straight: Dembski is claiming that Padian is a racist based on a single comment that Padian himself did not say?

Comment #100380

Posted by Faidhon on May 11, 2006 9:29 AM (e)

ombudsman, do you think there’s a chance the good doctor will provide us with, you know, the actual sentence this “racist” remark was made in?
Because, well, quoting, not a paragraph, not a single phrase, but three independent words out of their context is just about as lame as quote-mining can get.
What do you say?

Comment #100381

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 9:29 AM (e)

Nick “Denzel” Matzke said:

7. At the Berkeley Defend Science panel in April, Padian did note that Dembski’s audience had been much larger than the Defend Science event, and had been predominantly asian-american and fundamentalist. Having personally attended Dembski’s lectures, I can confirm that the audience was probably 80%+ people of asian ancestry, and not all Berkeley students — the audience included folks from around the Bay Area, and from people I talked to at the event I gathered it had been publicized in local churches. The only time I’ve ever seen something similar was when Kent Hovind came to speak at Cal a few years back.

Omtardsman said:

Comment #100377

Posted by ombudsman on May 11, 2006 09:00 AM (e) | kill

Point 7 is an admission that the racially loaded term was indeed used in the talks.

Asian-American is a ‘racially loaded term’? LOL okay.

Comment #100382

Posted by FL on May 11, 2006 9:30 AM (e)

Oops. Evolutionists got caught at KU after all. Who’da thunk it.

Most interesting post, ombudsman. Thanks!

FL

Comment #100384

Posted by guthrie on May 11, 2006 9:32 AM (e)

Having read the Dembski entry, I cant see anything about it that makes anyone out to be racist, so I cant understand what “Ombudsman” is on about.

After all, is it so wrong to say that someone is an enemy of science if they support ID, something religiously based with no scientific merit at all?

Comment #100385

Posted by Anton Mates on May 11, 2006 9:37 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

hmm. I lived in both places, and trying to combine the two into a conglomerate makes about as much sense as

“Los Angelisco”

unless things have changed drastically in the last 10 years or so, Oakland and Berkeley are quite different cities indeed.

They’re not all that different. The Rockridge area is shared by both, as is the upscale residential band in the hills and the depressed band in the flats. South Berkeley isn’t quite as bad as East Oakland, but other than that you can easily move between the cities without noticing.

Comment #100386

Posted by Mark Frank on May 11, 2006 9:40 AM (e)

For the record - I was another who attempted to post on Uncommon Descent on this subject. I foolishly did not keep the exact text but it was to point out that the accusation was based on what one anonymous person told another anonymous person who then told Dembski and that at least one person in this chain made an error (since admitted and corrected).

In view of the threats to Judge Jones it does seem that this gossip mongering could have serious results one day.

I also think JPadilla did very well. What a good idea to repeat rejected Uncommon Descent comments here. Maybe this is the beginning of a new concept - the shadow blog for rejected comments.

Comment #100389

Posted by Anton Mates on May 11, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

ombudsman wrote:

The fact remains that Padian and others in the Defend Science group are describing who the enemies of science are using a racial adjective. It’s even worse that it wasn’t Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it’s an institution that’s doing it.

Let’s see here.

1) Bill Dembski conquered much of Asia, murdering thousands of people and looting their valuables.

2) No, wait, that was Genghis Khan.

3) Even worse! That means Dembski and Khan represent an institution of brutal conquerors.

Point 7 is an admission that the racially loaded term was indeed used in the talks.

The term “Asian” is “racially loaded?” So Padian isn’t supposed to admit the existence of Asians? That would make it kind of hard for his Asian grad students to work with him, wouldn’t it?

Do you know anything about the student demographics at Berkeley? Accusing a popular Berkeley professor in the life sciences of making public racist comments about Asians is approximately as plausible as claiming that a popular Brigham Young professor hates white people. This would be an unfounded smear as applied to pretty much anybody, but against Padian it’s a really really funny unfounded smear.

Comment #100390

Posted by gwangung on May 11, 2006 9:50 AM (e)

The fact remains that Padian and others in the Defend Science group are describing who the enemies of science are using a racial adjective. It’s even worse that it wasn’t Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it’s an institution that’s doing it.

Given that I’m Asian American AND that I’m a community activist, I REALLY RESENT IT when asshats like you try to speak for me.

You trying to say that you know better than I do what is or is not racist about me?

Sounds like you’re pointing the racism in the wrong direction, son….

Comment #100392

Posted by J-Dog on May 11, 2006 9:57 AM (e)

Mark and Padilla - Yes, well said.

“I also think JPadilla did very well. What a good idea to repeat rejected Uncommon Descent comments here. Maybe this is the beginning of a new concept - the shadow blog for rejected comments.”

However, Mark, there could be a problem - PT might have to double the size of the band-width to handle all the banned comments!

Comment #100394

Posted by deadman_932 on May 11, 2006 10:11 AM (e)

Once again, the weasels at Uncommon Declivity provide me with mirth for my morning meal.

According to “Ombudsman,” saying “young” and “asian” and “fundamentalists” (in that order?)now equates to “enemies of science” (as if that was ever actually said at all or even implied).

Can you dig deeper into that bin of lies you gather your claims from, Ombudsman? Wait! Billy Dembski already has! In his “explanation” of why he was wrong, he creatively interprets those three words to mean that this relatively minor church is “pervasive” and “large” and “making it harder to teach” ( Although Padian didn’t exactly say that either, eh, Billy?).

Why, no, not even Billy’s “informant” says that at all, merely that Padian remarked that his lecture attendees and billy’s audience were “were different”… because the latter’s were ‘young,’ ‘Asian,’ and ‘fundamentalist.’

Billy further omits that this remark’s CONTEXT was one in which Padian did not call anyone an “enemy of science” but merely one that has to be reached out TO, because they are who attended Billy’s lecture.

As to Dembski’s CLAIM that Padian explicitly stated “this is who we are up against,” can Billy or Billy’s (invisible friend?) informant please provide evidence that this was in fact stated?

I for one see no reason to believe that this is true either, until I see some documentation, since Billy (or Billy’s invisible informant) has already admitted to error and Billy has been quite creative in “interpreting” things that were NOT said. Billy has been caught lying his pasty (oops, is that “racist” too?)ass off far too many times for me to take him at his tainted word.

Comment #100395

Posted by ben on May 11, 2006 10:11 AM (e)

I also think JPadilla did very well. What a good idea to repeat rejected Uncommon Descent comments here. Maybe this is the beginning of a new concept - the shadow blog for rejected comments.

I think the Uncommonly Dense thread at AtBC is doing a good job with exactly this. Plus the crunchy and delicious bonus that this one single discussion board thread about the idiocy of UD gets twice the traffic that UD itself does.

Comment #100399

Posted by Mr Christopher on May 11, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

JPadilla, what you did was indeed honorable and thanks for posting about it here. It appears your attempt to do what is right has resulted in you becoming a non-person at Dembski’s blog. Such is often the case for those who are honest or think for themselves there.

You’re welcome to post here or the After the Bar Closes forum.

Cheers and welcome!

Chris

Comment #100400

Posted by Moses on May 11, 2006 10:30 AM (e)

Comment #100377

Posted by ombudsman on May 11, 2006 09:00 AM (e)

Do you even know what an ombudsman does? His job is to investigate and rectify/prevent administrative errors. Not excuse false charges of racism and bigotry made by his friends. That’s the job of the Grand Wizard.

Dembski corrected the statement about the KU talk. It was not Padian but someone who went in Padian’s place. The mention of Berkland and young Asian fundamentalists was still in the talk at KU according to Dembski’s sources.

The sources were? Credible? Like the “sources” in the blow-up over Pianka? The lying and/or incompetent sources? No independent transcript - no foul based soley on the character of the IDiots who have no credibility after years and years and years of “Lying for Jesus.”

The fact remains that Padian and others in the Defend Science group are describing who the enemies of science are using a racial adjective. It’s even worse that it wasn’t Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it’s an institution that’s doing it.

So, despite because it wasn’t the original person being libeled by Dembski and it remains just one person to have allegedly said this (of which you haven’t put on proof) suddenly it must be “institutional?” Are you crack-brained? It’s still just one person’s comments. That Dumbski attributed the comment to the wrong person in another one of his witch-hunts, doesn’t make it an institutional problem.

So Matzke’s points 1 through 5 are void as the same talk was delivered by a Padian stand-in in KU. Point 6, whether or not Berkland was mentioned by name, is beside the main point. Point 7 is an admission that the racially loaded term was indeed used in the talks. Point 8 is dissembling in that Padian indirectly, if not directly, did indeed identify young asian fundamentalists as enemies of science and one might reasonably that being labled an enemy of science is derogatory.

Racially loaded? Sorry, but that’s the currently accepted “acceptable” term to denote peoples of a broad, diverse ethnic-group. Chink, gook, slope, slant-eye, nip, jap (and I’m sure there are many more that I’ve forgotten since hearing them during my days of growing up in San Francisco) are derogatory racial comments.

::::::

The spell checker is broken!

Comment #100401

Posted by Spike on May 11, 2006 10:40 AM (e)

Being from an Asian-American family, I also have to wonder how pointing out that my family members are Asian-American is racist.

When person A pulls the race card against person B because person B identifies the ethnicity of person C (sorry for the convolutions), I have to wonder if person A thinks person C’s group is so weak they need defending - which is a form of racism, isn’t it?

I don’t know who to make my idea more clear and remain succinct. Perhaps someone else can restate my point.

***

Since we have yet to see a transcript of the talk Dembski is referring to, I have to refer to my own experience with Asian-American Christian fundamentalits.

My Chinese in-laws often attend a church that has a very fundamentalist orientation. I sometimes go to take care of my kids so the grandparents can participate in the meeting. The sermon is piped into the playroom, so I hear it in Mandarin and English. There have been many attributions of miracles, but, so far, I have never heard any comment from the clergy one way or the other regarding ID, creationsism or evolution.

Some of my former collegues from the biotechnology industry attend that church, and I asked one what he thought of the evolution-creation discussion. He demurred, somehwat, saying he was an organic chemist and did not have expertise in the field (! See note 1), but in his opinion, things were too ordered-looking to have come about randomly. I asked him if he ever relied on an intelligent designer when he set up his HPLC experiments, and he didn’t know what I was talking about. I explained as objectively as I could about the ID philosophy and he assured me that all of his scientific work was done sceintifically. Because he works in an FDA-controlled industry, one could expect nothing else, because, so far, the FDA has not allowed ID-science as a basis for development of medical treatments. (See note 2).

In my experience, Chinese-Americans from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and Korean-Americans from South Korea tend to be Christians and participate in evangelical and fundamentalist churches. (See note 3 and note 4) They are, on the whole, college grads and post-grads working in science, engineering and finance. And most, as far as I have experienced, are like my friend - They believe the creation story, but live their secular lives in a secular manner.

Is this a group we who want to defend the division of church and state need to reach? Yes. I don’t know that we need to focus any more attention on this group than any other, however.

****
Editorializing about my own post:

Note 1 - I wish all scientists had the same intellectual integrity as my friend: He has a PhD in organic chemistry and recognizes that his opinon about evolution is just an opinon.

Note 2 - We could start a whole ‘nother website about what passes for science at the FDA and the non-scientific influences that lead to drug releases. And, in fact, I think many people have done so.

Note 3 - Mainland Chinese, especially if they grew up in the Cultural Revolution (more like purge) tend to be de-facto atheists.

Note 4 - “Asian-American” is such a pointless term, because it is too broad. I think most people think of Han-looking Asians (“almond” eyes, black hair, brown skin) when they hear “Asian-Americans” but since Asia includes Russia, Australia, Turkey and other Black Sea and Caspian Sea nations, “Asian-American” includes a lot of folks of caucasian origin.

Comment #100403

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 11, 2006 11:02 AM (e)

Note 4 - “Asian-American” is such a pointless term, because it is too broad. I think most people think of Han-looking Asians (“almond” eyes, black hair, brown skin) when they hear “Asian-Americans” but since Asia includes Russia, Australia, Turkey and other Black Sea and Caspian Sea nations, “Asian-American” includes a lot of folks of caucasian origin.

Just curious – do you consider India part of Asia? And, BTW, IINM, the terms “caucasian” and “white” are not necessarily synonymous, since there are dark-skinned caucasians (ever meet someone from Bangladesh?).

Comment #100406

Posted by gwangung on May 11, 2006 11:17 AM (e)

Note 4 - “Asian-American” is such a pointless term, because it is too broad. I think most people think of Han-looking Asians (“almond” eyes, black hair, brown skin) when they hear “Asian-Americans” but since Asia includes Russia, Australia, Turkey and other Black Sea and Caspian Sea nations, “Asian-American” includes a lot of folks of caucasian origin.

As you may or may not know, “Asian American” is a created term, born in the 1960s during the student protest era (the Third World student strikes, SF State, etc.). It was a term for empowerment for the Japanese American, Filipino American and Chinese Americans of the time (since they made up the vast majority of Asian Americans), creating a term for themselves, as opposed to having a term placed upon them by outsiders, and to help multiply their political power. In subsequent years, this term was expanded to include other groups who were treated similarly in this country; please note that the emphasis is not on the country of origin, but on how members of the group are acted upon by social forces in this country.

Comment #100407

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 11, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

Of course it’s well and good to point out what a dishonest lout Dembski, along with most anyone still allowed to post at Uncommon Descent, is. But there has never been a mote of integrity, intellectual or otherwise, in evidence over there, so naturally this latest isn’t surprising.

What’s interesting is that Dembski seems to be used by the DI and IDiots in general as mere muckraker at this point. He appears to be damaged goods, not suitable to put up as a witness at Dover, not able to put out anything that non-IDiots consider to be even remotely convincing (except perhaps in the abstract–not according to his non-empirical claims about the “real world”), and now, not for anything that pretends to honesty about his opponents. He’s the bad cop, editor of the IDiot version of Weekly World News, or some other blatantly dishonest tabloid. It no longer matters that he preserve credibility, since he has none among the knowing, and needs none among those who love and believe a lie.

There is nothing but praise for Dembski and condemnation for Padian at Uncommonly Dense. He’s a straight demagogue, and evidently that is exactly what is desired and rewarded by the IDiots today, all done under the aegis of the DI. Others associated with this appalling “think tank” hope that they appear to keep their hands clean, while the libels and slander are performed by the hit man that they have designated and hired. Yes, Paul Nelson ought to have more integrity than to continue to associate with such slime, and if he doesn’t we’ll know something about him that we didn’t know, or at least wanted not to know.

This may backfire against these guys, because no matter how low they have proven to be in the past, they have sunk even below that sewer at this point. They seem to be doing desperate things now, for they lost big at Dover, and the fundies themselves are coming against the IDiots that they only tolerated as a means to win legally. In fact, I’ve noticed that our arguments against the vacuity of their term “designer” has been picked up by YECers, who like to point out that their own designer is “known” (of course this isn’t even slightly true in a scientific sense (the YEC god is only “known” as a set of names in the Bible), but I like to see them recognizing that ID is vacuous for the same reasons that we do).

Dembski may be trying to prove something that has not been in evidence for a long time, namely, that he has some teeth. But I suspect that he’s going to be considered even more damaged and “unclean”, and he may tend to drag down “clean hands” Nelson and Behe, et al, in the process. Either they’re going to have to declare Dembski persona non grata, or they’re going to pay the consequences for continuing to associate with people as low as Dembski and DaveScot. It’s going to be fun to watch how the self-inflicted damage to the DI and other IDiots plays out.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #100408

Posted by Chili Pepper on May 11, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

At what point does Dembski’s comments pass into the realm of Libellous Things One Can Legitimately be Sued For?

Comment #100409

Posted by Admin on May 11, 2006 11:38 AM (e)

“Ombudsman” is “DaveScot”. His comment as a banned commenter has been unpublished.

Comment #100410

Posted by Bruce Thompsn GQ on May 11, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

Moses asks:
Do you even know what an ombudsman does? His job is to investigate and rectify/prevent administrative errors. Not excuse false charges of racism and bigotry made by his friends. That’s the job of the Grand Wizard.

With apologies to the great and powerful Oz.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #100411

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 11, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

The spell checker function now works.

Comment #100412

Posted by Steve Verdon on May 11, 2006 12:15 PM (e)

I don’t see the racism.

Are the people at church fundamentalists?

If the answer is yes, then how is this derogatory?

Are the people at the church predominantly young?

If the answer is yes, then how is this derogatory?

Are the people at the church are Asian?

If the answer is yes, then how is this derogatory?

My take on this is that Dembski has nothing left to argue so he is taking the Michelle Malkin approach. Manufacture bogus outrage over nothing and hope nobody looks behind the claims at the actual facts. It has worked well for Malkin in that she sells books, gets face time on television shows, and probably makes a pretty decent living. It is also completely dishonest.

Comment #100414

Posted by deadman_932 on May 11, 2006 12:20 PM (e)

Interesting. “ombudsman,” who claims that the use of “asian” and “young” and “fundamentalist” = “racist”…is the same VIOLENTLY HYPOCRITICAL DAVESCOT …THE MODERATOR OF UNCOMMON DESCENT who wrote http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/451

“Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated. It’s an ugly, dysfunctional belief system even in milder forms, that subjugates the female half of the population. However, since we can’t just kill them all (we can kill the worst offenders though) we have to put a more attractive alternative in place. The more attractive alternative is democracy. Islam can’t survive in democracies for long. It won’t go down without a fight so there must be some bloodshed before it’s a closed chapter in history.”

And : “…Islam is a disease that has no place in the civilized world. That’s the only public awareness I’m interested in promoting. I really don’t care at all if that’s what you expect of me or not. I expect you to be a little less naive but we don’t always get what we expect. “
Comment by DaveScot - November 7, 2005 @ 6:17 am

Comment #100415

Posted by deadman_932 on May 11, 2006 12:28 PM (e)

Billy Dembski and EunuchDaveScot: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

Billy Dembski – Instructions for your future lying posts: 1)Open Mouth (2)Insert foot (3) Shoot foot (4) Repeat

Comment #100416

Posted by Spike on May 11, 2006 12:33 PM (e)

Bill & gwangung

I don’t know that I’ve ever met a Bangladeshi, but I have met Tamils in Singapore with very, very dark brown skin. I know “caucasian” does not equal “white.” Around my part of W. Washington, there are a lot of Eritreans (of some group or other) who are dark-skinned, caucasian Africans. (Or, perhaps, they are the Africans from whom caucasians are derived?)

My point was that many folks often consider Asian-Americans to be from the Western Pacific, when Asia is a very, very, big place, with all kinds of people. On the other hand, there has to be some way to come together in solidarity - but how does one do that without creating minorities within the minorities?

Here is a story about the consequences of drawing too broad a circle around a group of people:

New data show “model minority” is a myth
NW Asian Weekly, May 6, 2006

http://www.nwasianweekly.com/20062919/model20062919.htm

Data collected from the 2000 census, population estimates from 2004, a 2002 survey of business owners and 2002 statistics from the Selig Center for Economic Growth were used for the report, which breaks down the AAPI population into individual ethnic communities, rather than keep everyone grouped together.

Community leaders hope the disaggregated information will defy the myth of the “model minority,” which stereotypes AAPIs as well-educated and well-to-do people.

Nationally, Asian American entrepreneurs own more than 1.1 million businesses and AAPI buying power has tripled since 1990, from $118 billion to $363 billion in 2004.

These statistics, however, mask the disparities among ethnic groups, said Nadine Shiroma, founder of Eastside APIs and ROAR (or Raising Our Asian Pacific American Representation).

PS. Because there are so many references to “ombudsman’s” post, I think the PT moderator needs to republish DS-ombudsman’s comment, otherwise we are replying to nothing!

Comment #100418

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 11, 2006 12:44 PM (e)

PS. Because there are so many references to “ombudsman’s” post, I think the PT moderator needs to republish DS-ombudsman’s comment, otherwise we are replying to nothing!

So how would republishing change that?

We only need the gist, and I think we have it. DaveScot said “ditto” in his slatheringly sycophantic manner, plus he showed up here in order to emphasize the fact that in addition to a callous disregard for truth, some IDers have no respect for law either. Probably it’s not best to reward scofflaws for an egregiousness that produces numerous reactions. Davetard and Dumbski (thank you Berlinski, for enhancing the toxicity of this term in its occasional use) wish and hope for gain via disreputable methods.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #100420

Posted by Mr Christopher on May 11, 2006 1:37 PM (e)

Check out the graphic (pAdian as a KKKer) that Davetard just posted:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/images/padianintro.jpg

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1113

Comment #100422

Posted by Mike on May 11, 2006 1:52 PM (e)

but since Asia includes Russia, Australia

That’ll come as news to the Aussies. They like to think they’ve got a continent all to themselves.

Comment #100424

Posted by Mike on May 11, 2006 1:57 PM (e)

but since Asia includes Russia, Australia

That’ll come as news to the Aussies. They like to think they’ve got a continent all to themselves.

Comment #100425

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 2:04 PM (e)

unless things have changed drastically in the last 10 years or so, Oakland and Berkeley are quite different cities indeed.

Not really. The two cities border on each other. South Berkeley and north Oakland are just about indistinguishable, and basically just blur into each other.

Comment #100426

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 2:09 PM (e)

As you may or may not know, “Asian American” is a created term, born in the 1960s during the student protest era (the Third World student strikes, SF State, etc.). It was a term for empowerment for the Japanese American, Filipino American and Chinese Americans of the time (since they made up the vast majority of Asian Americans), creating a term for themselves, as opposed to having a term placed upon them by outsiders,

I would assume the term was specifically designed to replace ‘Oriental’. (Which I still hear in the midwest but NEVER hear in California.)

Comment #100428

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 11, 2006 2:11 PM (e)

LOL, the KKK cartoon post is taken down now. I saved it immediately of course, if anyone wants it. The funny thing about it is that the actual KKK was pretty anti-evolution if I remember my history.

Comment #100429

Posted by Sounder on May 11, 2006 2:13 PM (e)

DaveScot as Ombudsman>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love watching these guys. Now that Dover’s rendered them harmless, I don’t fear their cons, just laugh at them.

I love to see DaveScot’s attempt at anonymous cheerleading. Reminds me of Dembski’s Amazon.com shenanigans from a while back.

Comment #100432

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

What’s really ironic about this (well, there are several things) is that ‘Asian American’ is about the least ‘racially loaded’ term imaginable. So for Dembski to be beating on Padian for using it seems to imply that NO term for Asian American is permissible to use, and that referring to them as a group in ANY way is racist. What’s funny about that is that it’s a perfect example of the kind of turbocharged ‘political correctness’ that conservatives claim to hate so much about ‘liberals’.

It’s also very telling that Dembski is trying to say that ‘fundamentalist’ is a forbidden word as well.

Comment #100434

Posted by Steve Verdon on May 11, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

Nick, I think you need to put up the KKK cartoon since the cowards at Uncommon Descent took it down. Let people know exactly what they are dealing with.

Comment #100436

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 2:41 PM (e)

It’s now posted HERE:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=446347d9869fd713;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=2790

Comment #100437

Posted by ben on May 11, 2006 2:51 PM (e)

The statement Dembski is claiming Padian made is about as racist as a marketing exec saying: “In Berkeley, we think we’ve achieved the highest market share we can reasonably expect among most demographic groups except fundamentalist christian asians; only about 20% of fundamentalist christian asians look favorably on our product. This is what we’re up against.”

It’s not racist to point out that people of different backgrounds behave differently in ways that seem to correspond to race. Race exists and people differentiate according to it in many ways. It is racist, however, to use BS accusations of racism in others to. further one’s own dishonest agenda, in my opinion

Comment #100438

Posted by Corbs on May 11, 2006 2:54 PM (e)

Is someone keeping a consolidated list of Dembski lies?

It could prove invaluable to someone cross examining Dembski if he ever manages to pluck up enough courage to climb into a witness box.

Comment #100439

Posted by deadman_932 on May 11, 2006 2:54 PM (e)

Oh, hell, I turn away to do some work and the cretins try once again to outdo themselves. Okay, false accusations of racism. False claims of statements by Padian. Padian mocked as a KKK-Freakin’-member over utter lies posted on Dembski’s Delusional Den? What IS the threshold for a viable libel case on the internet nowadays?

Comment #100440

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 11, 2006 2:55 PM (e)

They’re not all that different. The Rockridge area is shared by both, as is the upscale residential band in the hills and the depressed band in the flats. South Berkeley isn’t quite as bad as East Oakland, but other than that you can easily move between the cities without noticing.

yeah, right, and their downtowns look exactly the same too.

oh, and what about the way each is governed? oh yeah, exactly the same.

/sarcasm

are you sure you actually live there??

just because cities overlap in spots, or have similar geography in spots, DOES NOT make them similar in whole.

I stand by what i said, “Berkland” makes NO sense.

Comment #100441

Posted by gwangung on May 11, 2006 2:57 PM (e)

I would assume the term was specifically designed to replace ‘Oriental’. (Which I still hear in the midwest but NEVER hear in California.)

Yup.

Comment #100443

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 3:10 PM (e)

yeah, right, and their downtowns look exactly the same too.

oh, and what about the way each is governed? oh yeah, exactly the same.

/sarcasm

are you sure you actually live there??

Well, *I* went to UC Berkeley for 9 years, lived in Oakland for 10 years, and worked in downtown Oakland for 9 years. I now live 10 minutes away from Berkeley. I go to both cities probably once a week.

There’s a huge back-and-forth between Berkeley and the northern half of Oakland. Many many people live in one and work or go to college in the other. The southern third of Berkeley is just about indistinguishable from the northern fourth of Oakland, in both good and bad neighborhoods.

So ‘Berkland’ didn’t seem odd at all to me. I assume it implies it’s supposed to subsume both cities, and there’s a booming Korean business district now in my old neighborhood in north Oakland.

Comment #100448

Posted by Spike on May 11, 2006 3:41 PM (e)

“but since Asia includes Russia, Australia”

That’ll come as news to the Aussies. They like to think they’ve got a continent all to themselves.

Harder and harder to tell, these days. Especially since the 1997 handover made lots of Hong Kong money and people flow south.

Comment #100450

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 11, 2006 3:55 PM (e)

northern half of Oakland.

exactly!

the NORTHERN half of oakland is seemless with berkeley.

that’s about it.

amazing how you can say the two cities are similar, when you yourself state how you worked in downtown oakland.

remarkable.

why don’t you show me the similarities in city production, government, scale, size, population, economic base…

shall i go on??

ridiculous.

Comment #100451

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 11, 2006 4:01 PM (e)

actually, let me reword that.

not the northern HALF, more like the northern 1/8th of Oakland is indistinguishable from the southern 1/8 of Berkeley.

and neither city would define themselves by these areas.

Comment #100453

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 4:13 PM (e)

actually, let me reword that.

not the northern HALF, more like the northern 1/8th of Oakland is indistinguishable from the southern 1/8 of Berkeley.

and neither city would define themselves by these areas.

Um, do you work or live there?

And yes, for 10 years I lived in a neighboorhood about 10-15 minutes north of downtown.

I would say anything north of Pill Hill, say from 30th street up, is basically the same kind of neighborhood as the southern quarter/third of Berkeley, say from Alcatraz south. That’s roughly the northern third of Oakland. Not all of Oakland is the hood. Not all of Berkeley is yuppies and professors.

Seems to me like a third of a city of 300,000 blending seamlessly into another city is grounds for saying they’re not very different.

Besides, I would invite you to point out where I said “Oakland and Berkeley are exactly alike.”

Really, I think you need to calm down.

Comment #100459

Posted by Don Baccus on May 11, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

Mr. Christopher wrote:

Check out the graphic (pAdian as a KKKer) that Davetard just posted

Hmmm … the image generates a 404 and the link to the post says none is found.

Pulled by Billy?

Comment #100461

Posted by Faidhon on May 11, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

Hmm. “Ombudsman” can also be an anagramm for “Dumbo’s Man”…

Comment #100462

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

Hmmm … the image generates a 404 and the link to the post says none is found.

Pulled by Billy?

Here’s the bizarre story. With no known racist quote by Padian, they create a cartoon of him as a Klan member. (Hard to read copy archived here http://img42.imagevenue.com/loc106/th_75435_padianintro.jpg ). Us followers of UD archived it at AtBC in case it got pulled by Davetard the Banninator. Shortly thereafter, he pulls the cartoon. He is Davetard, after all. The bizarre thing is that he then comments,

It seems the peanut gallery liked the “Defenders of Science” political satire so much they archived it at antievolution.org”

Check it out quick before they make it disappear!

Comment by DaveScot — May 11, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

He posts an unjustified accusation, deletes it, links to our archiving of it, and then unjustifiably accuses us of imminent deletion of it. That’s some kind of recursive irony I can’t fully comprehend.

Comment #100463

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 11, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Hi, FL. Welcome back. Shoulda guessed that you’d be here to do YOUR dirve-by right after Donald did HIS.

Now that you’re back, perhaps you would like to answer my simple little question that you keep running away from time and time and time again.

Forget already? No problem — I’m happy to remind you (and everyone else).

*ahem*

You crowed on and on for hours about how ID didn’t support creationism and didn’t have anything to do with it.

In the ID “Wedge Document”, one of the “Five Year Objectives” is listed as:

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

Would you kind explaining to us (1) what this “traditional doctrine of creation” is that DI wants “major Christian denominations” to “defend”, and (2) why DI would want to list “defending” “creation” as one of its objectives if, as you stridently declared, ID has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, no siree Bob not at all in any way shape or form?

Or are you (and other IDers) just BS’ing us when you make that claim?

Comment #100464

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 11, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

Oh, and hey FL, since you’re so gung ho about hunting down racists and all, would you mind explaining to me why neither ICR nor AIG nor Discovery Institute’s Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture has any leading figures, of any note, who are not white (and, with the lone exception of Nancy Pearcy, white MALES, to boot)?

Is there some legitimate scientific reason for that, FL?

Comment #100465

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

Whereas there are lots of minorities and women on the Panda’s Thumb crew?

Comment #100468

Posted by Pizza Woman on May 11, 2006 6:59 PM (e)

Speak for yourself, guy!

Comment #100469

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 11, 2006 7:09 PM (e)

Hmm. “Ombudsman” can also be an anagram for “Dumbo’s Man”…

Hmmm… I think we just might have to borrow that!

Comment #100473

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 7:15 PM (e)

Posted by Pizza Woman on May 11, 2006 06:59 PM (e)

Speak for yourself, guy!

Get back in the kitchen, woman, and make me some pizza.

Comment #100476

Posted by Anton Mate on May 11, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

yeah, right, and their downtowns look exactly the same too.

They don’t, of course. But it’s easy to visit either downtown from either city; it’s not like the people are distinguished by which one they’re allowed to hang out in.

oh, and what about the way each is governed? oh yeah, exactly the same.
/sarcasm

Loni Hancock or Shirley Dean on one side, Jerry Brown on the other? I don’t think most people would see a massive political difference there.

are you sure you actually live there??

Yep, I was born there, and lived there up until a couple years ago when I graduated college. And I can attest that residents do not particularly remember where along College, or Telegraph, or Shattuck, or San Pablo, you hit the city border.

just because cities overlap in spots, or have similar geography in spots, DOES NOT make them similar in whole.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that Berkeley and Oakland don’t have distinguishing features. But they share several neighborhoods and demographics, which makes it perfectly reasonable for a church to say it serves “Berkland” rather than people from either city in particular. It’s just a name they probably thought was catchy.

Comment #100477

Posted by Chris Hyland on May 11, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

Hard to read copy archived here

Easier to read copy archived here: http://img42.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc106&image=75435_padianintro.jpg

Comment #100480

Posted by Anton Mates on May 11, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

Whereas there are lots of minorities and women on the Panda’s Thumb crew?

Well, we’ve got Tara, and if we’re talking the larger community there’s RGD, and one poster already identified as Asian just in this thread, and I combine more ethnicities than you could shake a white hood at. Just off the top of my head.

And there is the ravishing goddess Andrea Bottaro.

*runs*

Comment #100482

Posted by Pizza Woman on May 11, 2006 7:57 PM (e)

All the pizzas mah heart belong to Lenny!

Well, at least until Monday, when LPG gets back from his hard-earned vacation.

Dang, it’s gonna be hard to give up that Vikin’ Piss, too. (Beats the heck out of mere tips, far’s ahm concerned, wipes foam from mouth.) But each to their own.

Comment #100483

Posted by steve s on May 11, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

And there is the ravishing goddess Andrea Bottaro.

I knew Tara was female, but really all the other PTers I’m familiar with–I’m talking contributors, not commenters–are white males. Despite the fact, of course, that Nick Matzke is going to be played, in the movie about Kitzmiller, by Denzel Washington. Andrea I’m not sure about. I didn’t know if Andrea was female or an Italian guy.

Comment #100487

Posted by Anton Mates on May 11, 2006 9:33 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

I didn’t know if Andrea was female or an Italian guy.

Crap, then my flight was wasted. Andrea’s a guy.

Comment #100491

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 11, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

Um, do you work or live there?

one, i already pointed out that i had. lived in oakland, did my grad work at berkeley.

two, why would i even bother arguing about this if i hadn’t?

er, strike that last, there’s been plenty of arguments on the thumb that had no basis in reality.

bottom line, I just think it’s not a good idea to lump berkeley and oakland as one thing.

that’s what is implied by the use of “berkland”.

yes, this is a silly argument.

no, i can’t see any reason to continue.

Comment #100495

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 11, 2006 11:12 PM (e)

And there is the ravishing goddess Andrea Bottaro.

Boy, I’m flattered. First time anyone called me “goddess”. Or did you mean “godless”?

Comment #100496

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 11, 2006 11:45 PM (e)

Boy, I’m flattered. First time anyone called me “goddess”. Or did you mean “godless”?

lol.

either way, you still have the “ravishing” part to deal with.

I think you have a fan.

Comment #100504

Posted by John H on May 12, 2006 3:58 AM (e)

I didn’t see the KKK cartoon, but William Dempski has pulled it from the site, describing it as “totally inappropriate”. Not that that excuses whatever the original cartoon was, or the rather baffling Spanish Inquisition “joke” that has replaced, but, well, y’know, whatever, it’s gone now. Which is something.

Comment #100512

Posted by Anton Mates on May 12, 2006 8:42 AM (e)

Andrea Bottaro wrote:

Boy, I’m flattered. First time anyone called me “goddess”. Or did you mean “godless”?

Both, naturally. It would hardly be modest to worship yourself.

Comment #100517

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 10:23 AM (e)

If we are going to talk about the moral highground here, do realize the power and authority in academia are not in the hands of Dembski or Berkland. Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated. If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case. Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission. Try saying grace with Kevin Padian there.

The following actually happend during a med school interview…”So I see you are a Christian, what is your view on abortion?” I fail to see how this relates to someone who wants to be a pathologist.

NCSE claims it is the scientific process that’s at stake. I adhere to the scientific process, but I don’t believe in scientific naturalism. (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm) They are two different things. Adherence to scientific naturalism should not be the criterion, but adherence to scientific process is.

“Young Asian Fundamentalist”

Comment #100522

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 12, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

Have any proof of this, or is this just your persecution fantasies? Fundamentalists in America seem to take it as an article of faith that they’re horribly persecuted, but their evidence is laughable.

I adhere to the scientific process, but I don’t believe in scientific naturalism. (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm) They are two different things. Adherence to scientific naturalism should not be the criterion, but adherence to scientific process is.

Care to explain to us the DIFFERENCE between the two?

If you think rejection of ID & Creationism is religious persecution, you’re a very confused young man. Good luck getting out of grad school.

Comment #100526

Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 11:54 AM (e)

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

LOL. You’re a retard.

Comment #100531

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 12, 2006 12:28 PM (e)

The following actually happend during a med school interview…”So I see you are a Christian, what is your view on abortion?” I fail to see how this relates to someone who wants to be a pathologist.

First of all, it would be utterly naive to expect med school interviews to focus on issues strictly related to what the perspective students think their main interests are. At that stage, most of them are clueless anyway and will most likely change their mind by the time they graduate.

Second, believe it or not there is some interest on the side of med schools to maximize diversity of opinions and backgrounds among their students. This is because students, especially those who grew up in relatively uniform environments, learn a lot about psychosocial issues from each other, potentially more than from their teachers. And while relatively few students may have had close interactions and discussions with fundamentalist Christians, most if not all of them are going to have fundamentalist Christians as patients, and awareness about belief issues will be important for their practice. In your example, ironically, answering that in fact one is opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds might be the ticket to admission, rather than rejection.

Finally, it is important for faculty to have a good idea about their students’ backgrounds, in order to be sensitive as well as tailor certain educational aspects to them. The practice of medicine is very much enmeshed in complex social, political and psychological issues. Anyone who enters med school with the expectation to just deal with and learn a bunch of clinical and biological notions, steer away from controversial topics, and get kicked out the door is probably choosing the wrong career path.

Comment #100535

Posted by Anton Mates on May 12, 2006 12:53 PM (e)

JFWANG wrote:

Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated.

…you’ve never read that loyalty oath, have you?

“Having taken the constitutional oath of the office required by the State of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named, and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and that I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a consideration of payment of my salary.”

Are you claiming that ID advocates are Communists and armed revolutionaries?

If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case.

We did.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

Uh-huh. That’s why open Creationist Jonathan Wells was able to get a Ph.D. under Stephen Gould, yes?

Try saying grace with Kevin Padian there.

Comment #100536

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

1) On politically incorrectness of ID in grad school admission- I mentioned the Sternberg case in my post as an evidence of persecution. If you believe the “persecution” is just in my mind, then I really can’t convince you otherwise. I don’t know of any studies. But if you think anybody would put church activities (unless it’s unitarian) on their resume for grad school, you must be mistaken. Assume YOU are on the admissions committee and someone highly qualified (years of undergrad research in lab, good grades, demonstrated interest in the subject..etc.) comes up for review with a blurb on serving as a missionary, would you look upon that experience negatively? I personally know examples of the above, but the applicants were smart enough to avoid putting “church” in their list of activities.

2) On the difference of scientific process and scientific naturalism- The scientific process is a method of inquiry. It is limited in scope in detecting immaterial things. Scientic naturalism is a materialist PHILOSOPHICAL belief that all matters in universe can be explained with the scientific method. However, Scientific naturalism cannot be proven with the scientific method. Carl Sagan believed the universe always existed. Christians believe God alwyas existed. Neither claims can be substantiated with the scientific process. (actually Sagan’s been proven wrong in his assertion, but that’s not really important. big bang can still be explained as “always existed”)

Of course, the inquiry into origin is an legitimate and valuable endeavor. Like Russell, I find a large part of my life’s joy coming from satisfying my mind. Given the incredible complexity of life and the current lack of a materialist mechanism of origin (no one’s able to show a RNA strand forming from the early atomsphere), I tend to believe in an “intelligence” for origin. Of course others have the right to believe in random chance for orgin. My stance cannot be proven. Materialist stance can be proven, but is highly unlikely to be proven. Any decision on this the matter of origin in the current time is rash, but alas, we all have to choose a side based on probability.

The majority of basic research has little to do with belief in evolution. What’s the connection of doing a western blot with a belief in evolution? Most research has to do with how things work, not how things came about.

3) On being called a “retard”- please qualify on your criteria. I believe in the scientific process, but also see its limitations. I do not believe in scientific materialism.

Comment #100538

Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 1:06 PM (e)

On being called a “retard”- please qualify on your criteria.

I’ll let other people waste time on you.

Panda’s Thumb is like a bizarre farm where pigs show up, and the farmers go all crazy shovelling pearls before them, and the pigs roll around for a while, and leave.

Comment #100540

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 1:07 PM (e)

The last sentence should have read: “I believe in the scientific process, but also see its limitation. I do not believe in scientific naturalism.”

Comment #100543

Posted by Anton Mates on May 12, 2006 1:14 PM (e)

Sorry, last post was incomplete.

JFWANG wrote:

Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated.

…you’ve never read that loyalty oath, have you?

“Having taken the constitutional oath of the office required by the State of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named, and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and that I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a consideration of payment of my salary.”

Are you claiming that ID advocates are Communists and armed revolutionaries?

If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case.

We did.

Several times.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

Uh-huh. That’s why the openly creationist Kurt Wise was able to get a Ph.D. under Stephen Gould, yes? And why there are Christian graduate student groups at almost every public university? And why some of my fellow grads send out public emails ending with things like “I’ll keep you in my prayers,”and nobody cares other than to think, “Gee, that’s a nice thought?”

Try saying grace with Kevin Padian there.

Let’s see, Kevin Padian reviewed a book on “evolutionary theory from a Christian perspective” by saying:

“At last, a book written by evangelical Christians that shatters the myth of necessary conflict between creation and evolution. All Christians should read this book for instruction and perspectives on science that they can trust and think about. So should all scientists, Christian or not, who are interested in the practical rapprochement that is possible between science and religion. Keith Miller has done a tremendous service in gathering knowledgeable scientists with a variety of theological views. Their science is accurate and their perspectives should be discussed extensively by students and professors together all over campus.”

Yep, that’s some serious anti-Christian hatred there, huh?

You know, a lot of people on this list have met Padian, or taken classes under him. Trying to smear someone as a bigot just doesn’t work when you’re talking to people who know him better than you do.

Comment #100557

Posted by Mike Z on May 12, 2006 1:44 PM (e)

JFWang:

FYI, what you are labeling “the scientific process” is typically referred to as “methodological naturalism” when it is being contrasted with scientific naturalism (aka ontological naturalism or physicalism).

Comment #100562

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 12, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

If there is any reality to this at all, I suspect what you’re referring to is that you’ve heard some cases of fundamentalist grad students who constantly ‘witnessed’ to their advisors (and other students), and the advisors got irritated by this and drew the conclusion that the student in question had an obnoxious, immature personality. I truly hope you don’t think this is the same thing as ‘persecution’.

The Sternberg case has long since been revealed as a bogus case of persecution of Christians. If you cannot come up with better proof than that, then people here will have no choice but to think your claims of religious persecution are delusional.

Comment #100565

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 2:23 PM (e)

1) Casting pearls infront of pigs- sounds a little familiar…if by pearls you mean applying the scientific process to examine evidence, I am all for it. If by pearls you mean scientific naturalism, then it’s only valuable if you want to live an uberman life. It cannot be proven to be objectively true, so believe whatever you want.

2) On academic freedom and loyalty oath- The problem with a royalty oath is academic freedom, not necessarily being communist or anarchist. The question is whether students not believing in materialist evolution are capable of doing outstanding research and adding to human knowledge. You examined the evidnece, read the research proposal, and make a determination. Religious activity should not enter into consideration.

If I was a math grad student at Ohio State, then I don’t think I have that much to worry about. You think we want to keep our mouths shut and keep anonymous in discussions? Kurt Wise is teaching in middle Tennessee. I don’t want to be doing research in Tennessee. (I assume one of Gould’s Ph.D.s should have enough research ability to not teach there given a choice.)

3) My apologies for the blurb on Padian. I have not met nor taken classes from him, so I should not have simply assumed he would object to me praying. However, after reading about his political affiliations, I would feel extremely uncomfortable revealing my religiosity.

Comment #100571

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 2:48 PM (e)

I admit such “persecution” has never happend to me, but then I am really careful with what I say and who I say it to. Plenty of stories with people around me. Do you want to take my word for it? I had asked earlier about the scenario when YOU are on the admissions committee. What do you yo’ll think?

Materialism can be as strong of a exclusive claim on truth as any religion. Read the below.

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=640

Comment #100575

Posted by Steverino on May 12, 2006 3:00 PM (e)

“Our art department at UD is working on a more suitable image drawn from the Spanish Inquisition.”

Well, I hope UD recieved permission to repost (reprint) copyrighted-owned images.

Perhaps the owners of Monty Python rights would be interested in how UD procured and is implementing THEIR property.

Comment #100579

Posted by Spike on May 12, 2006 3:26 PM (e)

JFWang,

I think Andrea did a good job dealing with your worries in the comments section of the Telic Thoughts post.

Sure, nearly anything “can be as dogmatic” as anything else. PZ Meyers is an easy target, too. He seems to be a very good scientist, but when he discusses issues outside of science, he “can be as dogmatic” as any other crank.

So forget about him. (Unless you want to post to his blog.) You can talk to me, instead.

My first question: What is materialism?

Comment #100583

Posted by Spike on May 12, 2006 3:33 PM (e)

Sorry, your exact words were not “can be as dogmatic” - I misquoted. If the reader will grant that “dogmatic” can mean the same thing as “strong of a exclusive claim on truth” then we can continue.

Comment #100586

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 12, 2006 3:35 PM (e)

Let’s go back to your original statement:

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

Now, if by this you mean that Evangelical students cannot ‘witness’ to their professors and count on it not having negative repercussions socially, I can believe that.

However, if you’re trying to imply that once it is known that a certain student is a Christian, then that student’s academic future is destroyed, and that his advisors will not write recommendation letters for him, even if he never mentioned it – well, if that’s what you’re claiming, I don’t believe you. I think people who have told you that are either lying or badly deluded.

Besides, what do you mean by ‘keeping your faith a secret’? I was in grad school 9 years, my advisor was a Christian but very seldom mentioned it, I never once mentioned my religion to him, and I don’t recall this ‘silence’ being burdensome or oppressive. I never saw a REASON to try and talk to him about my religion. I think both of us recognized that being of different religions, it would be rather ill-mannered to talk to the other about religion without being asked. Was that my ‘keeping my faith secret’? If so, what’s so horrible about that?

Comment #100592

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 12, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

I think both of us recognized that being of different religions, it would be rather ill-mannered to talk to the other about religion without being asked. Was that my ‘keeping my faith secret’? If so, what’s so horrible about that?

It’s a burden if your religion exhorts you to “go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations” whether they want to be or not, being arrogant enough to believe that what works for you must be forced upon everyone else.

Comment #100593

Posted by Spike on May 12, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

Hey.

Isn’t it a sin to keep one’s Christian faith secret for material gain?

Comment #100597

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

1) Materialism- ontological naturalism. The philosophical belief that nothing supernatural exists in the universe. Basically, the scientific process is sufficient to explain everything in the universe. But can someone please explain to me how you would prove with the scientific process “the universe is all there is, there was, and eve will be.”

2) On professors- Unfortunately, not all professors can be as open minded about religion. Some even view it as a “virus!” Yikes. You think if a IDEA club president, highly qualify as the person might be, will get a equal shot in the ph.d. admission process? The question is whether disbelief in evolution takes away from someone’s ability to do scientific research under the scientific process. I don’t think so. But some do. And you can see how this would affect a rec letter.

3) Sinful to keep faith secret for material gain?- I doubt anybody enters research for material gain, but I see the point you are trying to make. The short answer is…If there is no gain from unnecessary conflict, why would I start a fight? You witness with your life and your deeds, not ideas alone.

However, when I am being called a IDiot, I want people to know my philosophical position is no more far fetched than anyone elses. It is my position that you don’t have to be a “retard” to be a theist. You just have to pick your fight.

Comment #100599

Posted by B. Spitzer on May 12, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

But if you think anybody would put church activities (unless it’s unitarian) on their resume for grad school, you must be mistaken.

Interesting. I did put church activities on my resume when I applied for grad school– grad school in evolutionary biology, no less. And I got letters of recommendation from science faculty, despite having worn a cross to their classes every day. (The letters must have been pretty good, too, because I was admitted to a very selective grad program.)

I’ll confess that there have been times when I’ve been careful about voicing my beliefs in an academic setting. There are certainly people in academia who have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to religion. But frankly, JFWANG, I think that people in academia are more open to the idea of faith than we Christians give them credit for. My sense is that we censor ourselves– because of what we imagine other people will think– a lot more strictly than those “other people” would.

–B. Spitzer

Comment #100600

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 12, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

2) On professors- Unfortunately, not all professors can be as open minded about religion. Some even view it as a “virus!” Yikes. You think if a IDEA club president, highly qualify as the person might be, will get a equal shot in the ph.d. admission process? The question is whether disbelief in evolution takes away from someone’s ability to do scientific research under the scientific process. I don’t think so. But some do. And you can see how this would affect a rec letter.

This is innuendo, not evidence. As far as I’m concerned, one’s religion in and of itself should have no bearing on one’s advancement or progress in grad school. It shouldn’t impact whether one gets grants, letters, or jobs. My very strong suspicion is that it doesn’t.

However, you seem to want to claim that religious freedom is supposed to include the ‘right’ to get a PhD in intelligent design, and that not being able to do this is persecution. Setting aside the fact that the great majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as junk science, and creationism as not science at all, I have to ask you one question: ID advocates are always telling us that ID is not religous, and yet they also say that people who oppose it are anti-religious. How can both of these statements be true simultaneously? If ID is real science, how can opposing it be anti-religion?

Comment #100601

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on May 12, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

JFWANG questions:

What’s the connection of doing a western blot with a belief in evolution? Most research has to do with how things work, not how things came about.

Think about the biology underlying your western and not the technology. The idea of common descent is represented by your western blot. Cross reactivity between your antibody raised against an antigen from one species and now used as a probe for an antigen from a different species is the result of conserved epitopes and these are the result of conserved sequences. If you reject evolution you reject western blot analysis.

You do have the option of invoking a number of ad hoc explanations for the conservation of epitopes and sequences but the justifications can get sticky with lots of nonspecific binding and high backgrounds.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #100602

Posted by guthrie on May 12, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

Here we come to one of the main points of the matter:

JFWANG said:

However, when I am being called a IDiot, I want people to know my philosophical position is no more far fetched than anyone elses. It is my position that you don’t have to be a “retard” to be a theist. You just have to pick your fight.

But when it comes ot evolutionary biology, we are talking about science. Which is related to, but not the same as philosophy. So far, all the scientific evidence is that ID is a big pile of smelly pants. Now, if you have some actual scientific evidence that ID is correct, please share it, we would be interested in seeing it.

Comment #100603

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 5:43 PM (e)

On arrogance of Christianity-

Ivan: “chocolate is the best ice cream flavor”

Boris: “rocky road is the best ice cream flavor”

Stalin: “vanilla is the best ice cream flavor. we will all eat vanilla ice cream from now on.”

That’s arrogance. What’s wrong witht he above? Two things:

1) Ice cream favor is subjctive preference. Nothing can be “best” according to preference.
2) Even if you have something objective better, you don’t have the right to make others go along with you.

I’ll give adult jehovah’s witnesses the right to refuse blood tranfusion. I’ll try to persuade them as I would peruade someone not to commit suicide, but it’s within their right to reject. You are given the dignity to make a response to God’s invitation. Love has to be based on the dignity to chose. You can’t chose to love and marry someone when a gun’s pointed to your head.

I am Chinese-American and according to your logic…Christianity came to me through “imperialisit” missionaries who had nothing else better to do but come to China to force their subjective point of view on my ancestors. The problem with the above is…

1) Christianity, if true, makes an objective claim on reality. So a decision to accept or reject is warranted.
2) No one forced me to accept. In fact, there wasn’t even a dangling carrot. I chose against my personal preferece for hedonism in light of the truth claim. I doubt anybody developed a love relationship with God based on threats.

Sorry, I am leaving the evo-ID discussion here. My point is Christianity is indeed exclusive, but exclusivity does not denote arrogance.

Comment #100607

Posted by Zarquon on May 12, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

JFWANG wrote:

It is my position that you don’t have to be a “retard” to be a theist.

Funnily enough, people aren’t saying that. Even PZ Myers. You do have to be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked to be an antievolutionist.

Comment #100610

Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

Sorry, I am leaving the evo-ID discussion here.

Don’t be sorry. We’ll manage.

Comment #100612

Posted by JFWANG on May 12, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

One last post before I run off to dinner…

1) On perceived “persecution”- I reread some of my posts and realized I might have come across too much of a whiner. Believe what you will, but let’s all try to be generous in our own conducts.

2) Ph.D.’s on ID?- That’s for the philosophy department. But scientists are still within their right to point out the short-comings of the evolutionary theory. Yes, you can still practice the scientific process, but reject materialism.

3) On western- This deserves a longer treatment. Will write on it when I get back from dinner.

Comment #100614

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 12, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret

Hang on there, young jedi —- I thought ID was SCIENCE and NOT, repeat NOT, N-O-T, religious doctrine.

So why the heck are you dragging religious opinions into this?

Thanks for once again demonstrating to all the lurkers out there that:

(1) ID is just fundamentalist Christian apologetics
(2) IDers are just lying to us when they claim it’s *not*, and
(3) Judge Jones was perfectly correct when he concluded that it *is*.

This is why I love fundies so much. They KNOW that if they preach, then their crap will never see the inside of a scienec classroom. So what do they do? They preach anyway.

They simply cannot shut their big mouths. They simply can’t go ten minutes without preaching their religious opinions to all and sundry. It’s why ID will never win. IDers MUST, absolutely MUST, avoid preaching. And they can’t do it. They don’t WANT to do it. Just let them talk long enough, and they happily shoot themselves in the head every single time.

I love them. Absolutely love them.

They are by far their own worst enemy.

Comment #100615

Posted by Spike on May 12, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

JFWang,

Thanks for your replies.

I’m not sure how, the scientific process is sufficient to explain everything in the universe follows from The philosophical belief that nothing supernatural exists in the universe, but if the first statement is required to be a materialist, then I am not one, even though my personal philosophy includes disbelief in anything supernatural. So I would agree with you, anyone who would make the claim that the scientific process is sufficient to explain everything in the universe is being dogmatic. I would modify it to say, “The scientific process is the best method we know of to explain everything in the universe.” Perhaps we will develop a new epistemology where we can know for a fact that there are things beyond the material universe, but faith certainly is not it.

I do agree with you that unnecessary conflict has no gain. I certainly don’t bring up religious issues at an insurance appointment. But necessary conflict does. If you could prove that professors were treating people of one faith differently than people of other faiths or non-faith, then you would have an establishment clause case that I would help you fight. I recognize that if it were true, it would be hard to ferret out, but your new career is to do research on hard subjects that don’t yield up ready answers! You should be able to apply all the tools of evidence gathering and reasoning to this problem that you would use to find out where the active sites are in some novel protein.

There are jackasses on this web site, and I am one of them sometimes, who insult people who don’t believe what they do. I agree with you again. When we act like that, we are no different than Dembski and DaveScot. If you haven’t spent much time in blogland, you’ll find that you have to develop a thick skin pretty quick. If there were a special filter that could edit out ad hominems, some posters would never be heard from again!

I don’t believe religionists are retards, just wrong.

Comment #100617

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 12, 2006 6:30 PM (e)

Adherence to scientific naturalism should not be the criterion, but adherence to scientific process is.

I quite agree. Show us how ID applies the scientific process.

Here’s my standard response to all the whiners who want to weep to me that “science unfairly excludes my religious opinions boo hoo hoo”:

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

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

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

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

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

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

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

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

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

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

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

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

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

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

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

IDers, please fill in the blank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment #100618

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 12, 2006 6:33 PM (e)

Yet another pointless religious war.

Is it that time of the month already?

Lessee …. Donald did his monthly driveby, check. FL followed with *his* monthly driveby, check. Sal then does *his* monthly driveby —

Waaaaiiiiitttttt a second. It ain’t time for the pointless religious war yet. That isn’t supposed to come until AFTER Sal does his monthly driveby.

Comment #100619

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 12, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Yes, you can still practice the scientific process, but reject materialism.

Show us how.

Show us how to scientifically test for the presence or absence of non-material causes or processes.

Please be as specific as possible, and spell it all out using the steps of the scientific method.

Comment #100620

Posted by Spike on May 12, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

Comment #100610
Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 06:15 PM (e)

Sorry, I am leaving the evo-ID discussion here.

Don’t be sorry. We’ll manage.

steve s, I think JFWang is just apologizing for going off topic. Don’t be such a hater!

Comment #100622

Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

they do bring out the worst in me.

Comment #100623

Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

I’m going to put Lenny in the killfile if he doesn’t cool it with the chapter length cut and pastes.

Comment #100625

Posted by Spike on May 12, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

Listen, (or not),

I think JFWang is not the typical fundie IDiot. I think he/she may be an honestly misled person.

Now is our chance to shine.

If we claim to want to change minds, we have to remember all those maxims about “more flies with honey” etc. Even if you don’t like flies, perhaps they are just butterflies who haven’t had a chance to spread their wings. (Anyone got a Precious Moments™ icon to place here?)

A person can be exacting in their requirements for evidence without being mean.

If someone gets caught up in Ken Ham’s website and beleives all of his drivel without a chance to check it, then comes here to try and convert us, and we call them names and insult them, guess what? Ken Ham is right! We evil Darwinists really can’t have a civil discussion and we really do attack anyone who doesn’t believe as we do.

Your choice.

Comment #100626

Posted by Anton Mates on May 12, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

JFWANG wrote:

2) On academic freedom and loyalty oath- The problem with a royalty oath is academic freedom, not necessarily being communist or anarchist.

Yes, loyalty oaths are bad. But how does an anti-Communism oath of the ’50s serve as evidence that there’s a similar oath against theism in modern universities?

If I was a math grad student at Ohio State, then I don’t think I have that much to worry about. You think we want to keep our mouths shut and keep anonymous in discussions?

My wife’s a biology grad student here, and I spend a great deal of time in the EEOB department. The biology departments have plenty of openly practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus, as well as agnostics and atheists. As is usual in any area of society, there are more daily professions of belief than of non-belief. (Which I don’t think represents discrimination against unbelievers–they just don’t have much reason to talk about what they don’t do.)

Of the three bio faculty members that I can think of who are involved in the evolution/creationism controversy, all are Christian and regularly say so. And nobody minds. Really, this is not an issue.

Kurt Wise is teaching in middle Tennessee. I don’t want to be doing research in Tennessee. (I assume one of Gould’s Ph.D.s should have enough research ability to not teach there given a choice.)

Wise doesn’t seem to do much research of any stripe anymore, regardless of his ability. Possibly being a Young-Earth Creationist has something to do with that.

But that’s beside the point. You said openly Christian students have difficulty getting into grad school. Wise is a counterexample. Are you suggesting now that Gould and the Atheist Naturalist Materialist Academic Establishment took him in and helped him get a Ph.D. just so that they could trick him into ending up in Tennessee? Isn’t that kind of a circuitous way to discriminate against him?

Comment #100630

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 12, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

I think JFWang is not the typical fundie IDiot. I think he/she may be an honestly misled person.

Now is our chance to shine.

I agree, he’s patiently explained his positions and soaked up a lot of abuse. Let’s be nice and maybe we can help him.

Comment #100633

Posted by deadman_932 on May 12, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

Everyone has their style of debate/discussion, and I don’t avoid insults at all when my opponent has consistently engaged in ..well, say the behavior and style of a Dembsky. JFWang there isn’t even close to that, and in fact seems pretty patient and innocuous, if misguided.

If the International Unit of weaseldom were to be termed a “Dembsky,” (Dk) ol’ JFWang there would only rate a .2 Dk. He doesn’t seem too bad at all, in comparison.

Comment #100634

Posted by deadman_932 on May 12, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Ah, hell, I forgot to add that the preferred pronunciation for the IU of weaseldom (Dk) is “dĭk”

Comment #100636

Posted by deadman_932 on May 12, 2006 8:31 PM (e)

Hmmm..JFWang posted a comment at Dembsky’s site http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1114#comment-34315 “Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated.” That has raised his Dk value to .35 due to his silly assertion.

Comment #100638

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 12, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

I’m going to put Lenny in the killfile if he doesn’t cool it with the chapter length cut and pastes.

Don’t read ‘em. (shrug)

Comment #100641

Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 8:44 PM (e)

Oh, i don’t. It’s just annoying to have to put a brick on the Page Down button and go make some tea while the computer scrolls through your comment.

Comment #100642

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 12, 2006 8:52 PM (e)

“Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated.”

Goodness me, that’s a remarkably stupid statement!

Um, back then it was anti-Communist loyalty oath.

Now it’s an anti-Christian persecution fantasy. Somehow these are the same thing?

I hate to say it, but I think JFWang believes absolutely everything his rightwing pastor tells him. A waste of a mind. I’m starting to think he might be just another credulous UD-wingnut.

Comment #100648

Posted by PvM on May 12, 2006 10:56 PM (e)

Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated. If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case.

Huh? Sternberg made the editorial decision to have published a particularly poor paper on the Cambrian. Could you explain your claims?

Btw, don’t doctors during their education not run internships which may or may not include situations of abortions? Just curious.

Naturalism is like Intelligent Design, a faith based position. I agree, we should adhere as scientists to methodological naturalism, sadly enough ID has nothing much to offer in this area. Lacking scientific content, ID indeed becomes a threat to science and may I add, to religion.

Comment #100649

Posted by PvM on May 12, 2006 11:02 PM (e)

JFWAng: My stance cannot be proven. Materialist stance can be proven, but is highly unlikely to be proven.

Need I say more… ID is dead, long live cdesign proponentsists

Comment #100654

Posted by JFWANG on May 13, 2006 1:32 AM (e)

Hi All,

Sorry to respond so late. Had Bible study later on in the night and just got home after hanging out with the guys. Been thinking about the issues and want to write some responses. Thank you for all the people who want to keep it civil. I really do appreciate it. I too would prefer Craig’s style to Dembski’s edginess.

1) western blot and homology- Agree. Working with the technology doesn’t necessarily mean I thought about the ramifications. I have been thinking about the issue all night and got some ideas, but realized too I need to do a little bit more reading on the literature before I give a reply. I know you guys have a pretty low view of IDers already, so I want my answer to be relevant. Homology as a whole was something that bothered me, but I reasoned my way through it. If you want my answer to be more complete, please suggest some more literature on binding that I should consult. Otherwise I’ll just have to do my best to answer over the weekend.

2) How can one accept the scientific process and reject ontological naturalism?

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

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

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

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

If I do not evoke supernatural agents for the hypothesis, then metaphysics do not enter the picture. It’s that simple. The scientic process is limited to natural phenomenon. Creation is not a natural phenomenon. You can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty by not applying the scientific process to creation, but please show me how my “creationist” theory is any worse than martian rocks and space aliens which dodges the origin question. The theory is cells coming out of an amino acid punch bowl. Possible? yes. But you tell me how you get 300 genes together with everything fitting. On top of that, you have to give an answer on the origin of the molecules in the early atomsphere. (I thought I read somewhere there’s now a physical mechanism to show how matter can arrive from nothing.) Can someone send me the name of the paper. I couldn’t find one.

3) On ID is not science, Evolution is, Dover, …etc.

I am going to first confess I never investigated the Dover case thoroughly. Just read about Dover in the times. All I have to say is…Teach the scientific process. Teach the data. Teach the pathways. Things you can see with a microscope. Let the kids decide later in life when they can see more of the evidence and understand the evidence better. Fair?

4) loyalty oath- The whole point is whether it’s fair to judge someone’s research ability on criteria that has nothing to do with research ability. Being communist does not impair your ability to teach monetary theory, although your brand of monetary theory will be threatening to the establishment. Being anti-neodarwin doesn’t take away from your ability to do scientific research. I don’t see a need for the supernatural for explaining how things work.

5) On my rightwing pastor- I don’t know where to begin here. If anything, I am more concerned about social injustice…income disparity, corporate governance, medical coverage…than most people. (of course I assume by rightwing you meant the above.) I think my pastor would vote democrat if not for the abortion issue as would I for that matter. Let’s not open another can of worms here.

Being Christian doesn’t mean you chuck your brain at the door. I feel like if you belief is not constantly examined and even threatened, then it’s not a very deep belief at all. Off to bed. I’ll definitely write more on homology next time, not trying to dodge the question here.

Comment #100659

Posted by buddha on May 13, 2006 4:30 AM (e)

JFWANG:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

I have never before witnessed divine intervention.

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

The universe is all that exists; there are no gods.

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

I will never witness divine intervention because – by hypothesis – there are no gods.

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

I have observed many religious ceremonies including “healing” and “prophecy” services; I have never witnessed divine intervention.

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

I have never needed to modify the hypothesis.

Comment #100664

Posted by guthrie on May 13, 2006 6:34 AM (e)

Again, we come to a problem:

I am going to first confess I never investigated the Dover case thoroughly. Just read about Dover in the times. All I have to say is…Teach the scientific process. Teach the data. Teach the pathways. Things you can see with a microscope. Let the kids decide later in life when they can see more of the evidence and understand the evidence better. Fair?

Certainly, it is fair. Now, what data to support their hypothesis do ID proponents have? Not just things they think are wrong with evolution, after all, Newtons laws clearly didnt cover everything about the motion of things, (Precession of Mercury etc) yet they were used for centuries without any trouble.

It took Einstein etc to explain things in an even better way, with a bigger theory that could be confirmed in so many ways that I think they are past 20 decimal places in measuring the confirmation.

So, what is the evidence for the theory that some intelligence is behind the evolution of life on Earth?

Comment #100667

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 13, 2006 8:05 AM (e)

The scientic process is limited to natural phenomenon. Creation is not a natural phenomenon.

I see. So, as I suspected, ID is NOT science – it REPLACES science. As I suspected, your gripe is that scienec won’t accept your religious opinions WITHOUT testing them using the scientific method. Your complaint is that science simply won’t accept your religious opinions on your holy-say-so.

Got it.

Thanks, once again, for showing all the lurkers that:

(1) ID is not science and is just religious doctrine
(2) IDers are just lying to us when they say it’s *not* just religious doctrine, and
(3) Judge Jones was entirely correct when he concluded that it *is* just religious doctrine.

Comment #100669

Posted by steve s on May 13, 2006 8:22 AM (e)

On top of that, you have to give an answer on the origin of the molecules in the early atomsphere. (I thought I read somewhere there’s now a physical mechanism to show how matter can arrive from nothing.) Can someone send me the name of the paper. I couldn’t find one.

Oh yeah, that one paper which covers everything from the quark-gluon plasma of the big bang straight through to the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. Let’s see, where did I put that one….

Comment #100682

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on May 13, 2006 11:09 AM (e)

Late last night JFWANG says:

1) western blot and homology- Agree. Working with the technology doesn’t necessarily mean I thought about the ramifications. I have been thinking about the issue all night and got some ideas, but realized too I need to do a little bit more reading on the literature before I give a reply. I know you guys have a pretty low view of IDers already, so I want my answer to be relevant.

Your particular views on ID are not at issue in this discussion.

Yes, by all means read the literature but I would much prefer to hear what you think, not regurgitation from the literature or someone else’s quotes. What do your reasoning processes tell you.

It is not the ramifications of the technology but rather the underlying biology, why do westerns work? Why did someone even try a to transfer proteins to a membrane and probe with an antibody, just because they were jealous of the DNA people who were always transferring things to membranes?

Homology is important but what else do you notice when you compare sequences from different organisms? If you run westerns think in terms of a blot with a series of homogenates from different organisms probed with a series of monoclonals against the same protein.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #100684

Posted by B. Spitzer on May 13, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

from Lenny:

As I suspected, your gripe is that scienec won’t accept your religious opinions WITHOUT testing them using the scientific method. Your complaint is that science simply won’t accept your religious opinions on your holy-say-so.

Um, Lenny, AFAICT, JFWang seems to be committed to the use of methodological naturalism in science. Indeed, he’s quoting you rather approvingly on the subject, as far as I can make out. I think you’re jumping to conclusions.

from Bruce Thompson:

Yes, by all means read the literature but I would much prefer to hear what you think, not regurgitation from the literature or someone else’s quotes. What do your reasoning processes tell you.

Actually, I was very pleased to read that JFWang thinks it’s appropriate to look up what other people have written before forming his own opinion. If only all of the anti-evolutionists would do some homework before marching in with defiantly flawed opinions!

Maybe I’m just an incurable optimist, but he seems (so far) to be rendering unto science what is science’s. Why not keep our guns in their holsters and let him have his say before we react?

Comment #100686

Posted by Pizza Woman on May 13, 2006 1:01 PM (e)

Yeah, Lenny, I know that the likelihood of someone coming from that kind of perspective admitting to learnin’ something new from us “evil” evo-loo-shun-ists is pretty low, but what can it hurt to have a civil conversation with the guy?

An’ he does seem like kind’ve a sweet kid to me, not too troll-y or yucky so far…

Hey, JF? How do ya feel about, ahm, legless reptiles?

Comment #100689

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 13, 2006 2:14 PM (e)

Um, Lenny, AFAICT, JFWang seems to be committed to the use of methodological naturalism in science. Indeed, he’s quoting you rather approvingly on the subject, as far as I can make out. I think you’re jumping to conclusions.

It sure doesn’t sound that way to me.

But if so, then, um, what is it exactly that he’s bitching about …?

Comment #100690

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on May 13, 2006 2:17 PM (e)

B. Spitzer said:

Actually, I was very pleased to read that JFWang thinks it’s appropriate to look up what other people have written before forming his own opinion. If only all of the anti-evolutionists would do some homework before marching in with defiantly flawed opinions!

I was expecting something beyond a stock ID answer or a quote from a paper, something that conveys an understanding of the underlying principles. I agree that an uninformed opinion is inappropriate but a reasoned answered based on ones training is a starting point for a discussion.

I did not see his answer, nor was my response meant to convey, an opportunity to attack an ID proponents opinion but rather convey information. This is another opportunity to challenge thinking and reasoning, confrontation, no.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #100691

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 13, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

Yeah, Lenny, I know that the likelihood of someone coming from that kind of perspective admitting to learnin’ something new from us “evil” evo-loo-shun-ists is pretty low, but what can it hurt to have a civil conversation with the guy?

Well, my dear cutie, I don’t recall being UN-civil to him.

He made the statement:

Yes, you can still practice the scientific process, but reject materialism.

I can only assume that, like other IDers, he means to reject materialism WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

If so, I want him to show me how.

If not, then what’s he bitching about?

Surely he is not so utterly idiotic as to assume that scientists are, by definition, god-hating atheists?

Of course, he DID make the silly claim that scientific professionals punish “Christian” students for being “Christians”, so maybe he IS that idiotic, after all.

I assume that, like every other fundie, he is equating “Christian” with “fundamentalist”. Fundies, of course, seem to *all* have the self-righteous arrogant prideful holier-than-thou delusion that they, and they alone, are the only Real Christians™©.

After all, if he is NOT equating the two, then he’s an even bigger fool than I thought, since some of the topnotch institutes of higher learning in the US, like Notre Dame, Brigham Young, and SMU, were founded and run by religious institutions, and are therfore, I’m pretty sure, not even remotely “anti-Christian”. Yet they *all* think ID/creationism is full of crap, and none of them teach it.

Comment #100696

Posted by Henry J on May 13, 2006 3:07 PM (e)

Re “Even if you don’t like flies, perhaps they are just butterflies who haven’t had a chance to spread their wings.”

But wouldn’t those be coccoons? (Or larva?)

Henry

Comment #100697

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 13, 2006 3:29 PM (e)

It’s a tough call. It’s hard to get past the fact that JFWang *did* say this, as well:

“Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it’s the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it’s not explicitly stated.”

No matter how you slice it, that’s an exceptionally stupid, wingnutty thing to say.

Comment #100700

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 13, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

No matter how you slice it, that’s an exceptionally stupid, wingnutty thing to say.

Indeed, it seems to me as though he’s just brainlessly parroting standard DI boilerplate, and quite literally hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s talking about. He seems to have completely (and naively) swallowed all of DI’s BS about “science is atheistic!!!!!!!!!” and “the only people who oppose ID are atheist darwinists who want to destroy God, Mother and Apple Pie !!!!!!!!!!”.

Perhaps Mr Wang will take the time to do some minimal research, and therefore come to learn that (1) most Christians, worldwide, think the fundies are nutters, and (2) most Christians, worldwide, have no gripe at all with science or evolution, and think ID/creationism is a load of right-wing politically-motivated horse crap.

Fortunately, ignorance is a correctable condition. UN-fortunately, correcting it requires a bit of effort on one’s part.

Most fundies consistently demonstrate themselves to be unwilling to make the effort. I hope Mr Wang is not one of them.

Comment #100708

Posted by Anton Mates on May 13, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

JFWANG wrote:

4) loyalty oath- The whole point is whether it’s fair to judge someone’s research ability on criteria that has nothing to do with research ability.

No, the whole point is whether biology departments are actually doing this. We have done our best to demonstrate to you that there is no general bias against Christian faculty or grad students in university life science departments. I’ve pointed out that most universities have well-publicized Christian student/faculty organizations, and that there’s a large number of well-respected, openly Christian biologists. Another poster has noted that they listed Christian activities on their evo-bio application, and were accepted. I’ve also pointed out that an open creationist earned a Ph.D. at Harvard, under Gould. If you want to use Sternberg to make a case, you’re welcome to do so, but given that a) he wasn’t a Smithsonian employee in the first place, b) his own journal says he didn’t follow the procedures and wishes of the editorial board, and c) he wasn’t punished in any way by anybody, that’s going to be a difficult trick to pull off.

So, do you have any actual evidence that there’s a policy of anti-Christian discrimination in bio departments? Incidentally, even if you thought that med school interviewer’s question about abortion was unjustified–which it wasn’t, as people have pointed out–Kevin Padian and most university bio departments have nothing to do with medical schools.

Comment #100710

Posted by PvM on May 13, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Why do so many people believe in the ‘persecution’ stories? Is it because ID lacks in much of any scientific relevance and thus this must be because of the evil scientists who refuse to acknowledge or print ID research? Of course no evidence of much of any ID relevant research has been presented.
Lacking even the basic evidence that ID is scientifically fruitful or that Christians are persecuted in the US for their beliefs, seems rather ridiculous and yet, recently various Christian organizations have complained of the religious persecution Christians face in the US. Imagine that…

Sigh… As a Christian myself I am quite surprised that some of my fellow Christians believe these stories without doing much digging themselves to determine the level of veracity.

Comment #100717

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 13, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Why do so many people believe in the ‘persecution’ stories?

Because they all have raging martyr complexes, and WANT to be “persecuted”. They ENJOY it. It’s their way of bragging about how “holy” they are.

Comment #100718

Posted by Greco on May 13, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

I admit such “persecution” has never happend to me, but then I am really careful with what I say and who I say it to.

Wanna play that game? A biology teacher told me once that when he applied to a Catholic high school, his interviewer said “Well, we welcome everyone here - except atheists of course.”

Comment #100720

Posted by Greco on May 13, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

Christianity came to me through “imperialisit” missionaries who had nothing else better to do but come to China to force their subjective point of view on my ancestors.

It did. Dominicans especially went to China and insisted that anyone who would not convert would go to hell to be tortured. Eventually the Chyinese government got fed up with it and executed some and expelled others.

If the attitude of the dominicans, and other denominations, is not imperialism, I don’t know what is.

Comment #100726

Posted by JPadilla on May 13, 2006 9:52 PM (e)

Once again, DaveScot has seen fit to censor my posts at Uncommon Dissent, so I am forced to post my views in other forums. Like here. This is the post I attempted to make at Uncommon Dissent:

DaveScot says: “Suicide bombers kill/wound as many as possible, they don’t know who the victims are, they don’t care whether the victims have done anything wrong (perceived or real), and in their indiscrete targeting even kill people of their own creed.”

You must mean “terrorists” DaveScot, not all suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is a monthly event in places like Iraq, where the relevant distinction between suicide bombers that attack military and civilian targets is clear:

1. Suicide bombing against military targets is classified by Military Historians as a form of armed violence in assymetric warfare.
2. Suicide bombing against indiscriminate or chosen civilian targets is called terrorism.

Even though you claim to have been a Marine, I’m not surprised you didn’t know that, DaveScot. Your ignorance on multitudes of subjects – as well as your hypocrisy – seems unlimited. Quote:

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated. It’s an ugly,
dysfunctional belief system even in milder forms, that subjugates the female half of the population. However, since we can’t just kill them all (we can kill the worst offenders though) we have to put a more attractive alternative in place… It won’t go down without a fight so there must be some bloodshed before it’s a closed chapter in history. Comment by DaveScot - November 5, 2005 @ 6:01 am

Don’t bother making excuses for this, DaveScot. I know you can, but why bother? Your accusations are amazingly hypocritical. Yes, I know you claim to have said this due to Islam’s alleged “subjugation” of women due to their inability to vote. You’ll conveniently forget that women in the United states only got the right to vote less than 90 years ago (1920). You’ll conveniently forget that women in Islam do have the right to vote in many democratic and even monarchical Islamic states. You’ll forget that women in the U.S. recieve unequal pay for equal work to this day.

But that’s not the point, is it, Dave? The point is that you, as a petty tyrant, have a minor position of power and brook no dissent from your simpleminded claims. And, as an innately status-concious, insecure, simple-minded “tough guy,” you won’t have the ethics neccessary to post this. That is pretty funny

Comment #100727

Posted by JPadilla on May 13, 2006 10:29 PM (e)

My Point is quite simple,DaveScot, and I know you read the posts here: You excoriate Kevin Padian (again, wrongly) for saying that religious fundamentalist fanatacism that leads to murder…is wrong.

You then take that simple idea and twist it to mean that Kevin Padian somehow hates all fundamentalists and lumps all killers together unfairly, according to your erroneous redefinitions of what a suicide bomber is. As I noted, SOME suicide bombings are considered legitimate military actions when directed against military targets. But you say :

“If Padian can’t tell the difference between a mass murdering suicide bomber indiscriminately blowing up crowds of people and a gunman carefully selecting a single target for murder then Padian simply isn’t playing with a full deck and one has to hope he never decides to murder anyone because he isn’t able to distinguish between killing a crowd of strangers and a single person against whom he holds a grudge.”

Let’s be quite honest, DaveScot: from what I have read at Uncommon Descent and other forums, your only interest in attacking Kevin Padian is not because he is a “racist” or that he “hates fundamentalism” because he said no such things. What you hate is that Kevin Padian testified in the Kitzmiller case, so you have embarked on what one writer at Panda’s Thumb has called a “SwiftBoat” campaign.

You rail at Padian for trumped-up claims that he NEVER said and then excuse your own murderous statements about killing Muslims. This is hypocrisy. You fail to allow others to point out your errors. This is called hubris. Here is what I really think, DaveScot – a person here, in the “After the Bar Closes” section analyzed you to what I think is a tee: You are at best a mediocre mind that was able to get in on the ground floor of a company which took off. But it was not due to your innate mental abilities–you don’t *really* know math, or stats or information theory, or genetics, or much of anything. It was simply luck. You have an overweening sense of your own self-importance however, and now seek the attention of others via your imagined mental abilities, but you fail in direct debate and exchange of ideas. So you used troll tactics at “Darwinist” sites until you got the attention of William Dembsky, who used what little computer skills you have to appoint you “gatekeeper” and you now feel all filled with self-importance, but still cannot manage a coherent supported debate.

So what is left for you but to pose and preen and attack people like Padian dishonestly and hypocritically while disallowing any disagreement…while others laugh at your inanity and point out your errors and fallacies and utter lies by the boatload at places like…here.

I will vote with my feet. In Mark 6:11 says that when one is not welcome or unheard, “shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.” I believe I’ll do just that.

Comment #100733

Posted by Alexey Merz on May 13, 2006 11:22 PM (e)

JFWANG wrote:

But if you think anybody would put church activities (unless it’s unitarian) on their resume for grad school, you must be mistaken.

I sit on the University of Washington’s Graduate Admissions Committee for the Department of Biochemistry. You are simply wrong.

I would estimate that about one third of the several dozen applications that I reviewed this year included mention of work done in church-sponsored activities, religious studies, or missionary work. These items (like athletics) neither add to nor detract from an applicant’s chances for acceptance. They are, generally speaking, not relevant.

We are interested in one question: does a given applicant appear to have the talent, background, and motivation to do well as a graduate student in biochemistry? A student’s religion, or aptitude as a squash player or linebacker, is irrelevant*.

That you think we would bother to even consider religion indicates that JFWANG has no concept at all of what science, and science education, are about.

* Note: I am inclined to give extra weight to students who are excellent cooks. These students have skills directly relevant to biochemistry bench work, and they tend to bring tasty items to lab meetings and parties.

Comment #100735

Posted by buddha on May 14, 2006 12:53 AM (e)

Alexey Merz wrote:

I would estimate that about one third of the several dozen applications that I reviewed this year included mention of work done in church-sponsored activities, religious studies, or missionary work. These items (like athletics) neither add to nor detract from an applicant’s chances for acceptance.

That’s because you don’t have the green beard gene.

Comment #100763

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on May 14, 2006 11:04 AM (e)

Dr. Merz advises interested prospective graduate students:

* Note: I am inclined to give extra weight to students who are excellent cooks. These students have skills directly relevant to biochemistry bench work, and they tend to bring tasty items to lab meetings and parties.

Ammonium sulfate does not add to the flavor during protein purification and dialysis does not restore the original flavor. In fact, purifying to homogeneity does not increase the flavor one bit, although this may be a function of the protein. Beta mercaptoethanol is definitely not a flavor enhancer and drives away all the dinner guests. Instead of slaving over a hot stove, you end up standing in a cold room which can be good or bad depending on where you were raised.

On the plus side, if you work with the right kind of organism you can bring tasty treats to parties.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #100810

Posted by Shalini on May 14, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Does anyone notice that DaveScot is doing us all a service by debunking (time and time again on Dembski’s blog), the notion that ID isn’t about religion?

Comment #100817

Posted by Andrew McClure on May 14, 2006 9:41 PM (e)

Shalini wrote:

Does anyone notice that DaveScot is doing us all a service by debunking (time and time again on Dembski’s blog), the notion that ID isn’t about religion?

He that troubleth his own house is probably a blogger

Comment #100983

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16, 2006 4:32 PM (e)

Now that there is an apology on the table, I should note an earlier comment on an ID advocate admitting error:

Is a willingness to correct error a virtue? No, it is simply a minimum standard for participation in argumentation. Implying that we should be impressed that someone corrects errors that others have pointed out is like saying that a child caught with hand in cookie jar should be rewarded for the simple act of removing his hand when caught. It is only by comparison to the astoundingly bad record of antievolutionists in general in correcting their misinformation that Casey Luskin could appear virtuous in this regard.

(Source)

The same goes for others.

Comment #113698

Posted by TramadoL97190 on July 20, 2006 9:05 AM (e)

My life’s been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven’t gotten anything done lately. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

Comment #114119

Posted by TramadoL5840 on July 21, 2006 8:53 PM (e)

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don’t care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

Comment #114120

Posted by TramadoL45808 on July 21, 2006 8:56 PM (e)

I haven’t been up to much lately. I’ve basically been doing nothing , but it’s not important. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me lately.

Comment #114419

Posted by TramadoL58202 on July 23, 2006 7:10 AM (e)

I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.

Comment #114923

Posted by TramadoL58181 on July 26, 2006 4:27 AM (e)

I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn’t bother me. Shrug. I haven’t been up to anything. I haven’t gotten much done today.