Jason Rosenhouse posted Entry 2618 on October 2, 2006 03:34 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2612

Wondering what ever happened to all that ID inspired scientific progress that was supposedly just around the corner? Here’s Bruce Chapman explaining why it hasn’t materialized:

Friends of ID know the cases of a number of ID-friendly scientists who have lost their lab privileges or otherwise been discriminated against at universities here and in the UK. We are not trumpeting very many cases because the situations of several such scientists remain difficult. It is an appalling commentary on the state of academic freedom that ID-friendly scientists should have to work in an atmosphere of fear, but it’s true. We just want friends of ID who wonder why we don’t publicize work in progress more than we do to take a moment and reflect about that!

As for foes and critics who pester us for information about research now underway and who insinuate that, unless we oblige them, we must accept their opinion that such research is not happening, we owe them nothing. Since when does a scientist have to “report” on his work to the public before he is ready? The opposite is almost always the case.

There’s lot’s of ID research, but a conspiracy of censorship prevents us from telling you about it. Lot’s of people are being oppressed by Darwinists, but we can’t tell you who they are.

RIght. And people who deny the existence of robots are themselves robots.

I’ve posted some further comments over at EvolutionBlog. Enjoy!

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 #136810

Posted by ZacharySmith on October 2, 2006 3:29 PM (e)

“Report to the public”!?

Isn’t that just what the IDiots have been trying to do all along by going directly to high school science classes? Bypass the monolithic, dogmatic Darwinist conspiracy and appeal directly to the fresh, open minds of yong people?

Now this clown says ID “scientists” don’t have to report to the public before they are ready?

What’s it going to be, IDiots? Seems they want it both ways. Yep, ID is “all about the science.”

Comment #136811

Posted by Anton Mates on October 2, 2006 3:33 PM (e)

I especially liked this little red herring:

It appears that the distinguished Baylor University philosopher and legal scholar Frank Beckwith will get tenure after all, but that decision came only a few days ago and on appeal at the very end of a long, painful process where his adversaries were well organized, persistent and reckless of facts and decency. His real problems were that he was pro-life and that he had written that it is constitutional to teach about intelligent design. Against those PC liabilities, his long record of outstanding publication didn’t matter at all to his foes.

Uh, right. Offhand I know half a dozen openly pro-life tenured professors here at OSU, but I’m sure pro-life academics suffer serious prejudice at Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas.

C’mon, ID supporters. Aren’t you pissed that the DI thinks you’re that stupid? Jeez.

Comment #136815

Posted by stevaroni on October 2, 2006 3:38 PM (e)

Friends of ID know the cases of a number of ID-friendly scientists who have lost their lab privileges

So go get a grant from the Discovery Institute and continue the research. The DI says they’re actively looking for good studies to fund.

And it’s not like they’re going to need to build something the size of the space station or a supercollider.

Gregor Mendel worked out the basics of genetics with a garden full of pea plants.

Darwin had a book full of notes form his world tour.

Galileo, Newton and Einstein didn’t need much more than paper, pencil, and access to a good library.

Don’t forget this isn’t some subtle, arcane, question about how quarks spin or hox genes work. According to the ID guys, everything that science believes is simply wrong. How difficult can it be to find one little scrap of data that back that up?

Why do the ID forces need anything bigger than the Discovery Institute (which is funded well into 7 figures, BTW) can supply?

Just how much of a “lab” do you really need to find a giant flaw in the fabric of modern science?

As for foes and critics who pester us for information about research now underway and who insinuate that, unless we oblige them, we must accept their opinion that such research is not happening, we owe them nothing. Since when does a scientist have to “report” on his work to the public before he is ready?

I dunno guys, it’s been what, about 20 years now since Creation Scientist supposedly went to work?

Doesn’t it seem like two decades is an awfully long time to wait around for some preliminary data? Any preliminary data?

After all, it didn’t take two decades to put men on the moon.

Don’t we have a right to expect that an effort that should be able to get rolling with nothing more than a good literature search might be expected to produce something by now?

Maybe we should even expect to get that kind of information before we teach it in the schools.

Comment #136823

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 2, 2006 4:13 PM (e)

Here’s the kind of research that IDists are committed to doing (these are Dembski’s words):

If I have one gripe with the scientific community’s reception of intelligent design, it has nothing to do with its less-than-cheerful acceptance of the idea. Rather, what I find objectionable is its willful refusal to admit that intelligent design is accurately focusing attention on some deep conceptual problems in biology (however they end up being resolved). Even Michael Ruse, whom I regard as a friend, exhibits this narrowness when, in responding to Jonathan Wells, he writes “Scientists have looked at ID in some detail and found it sadly wanting.”

Have they really? Some scientists have reflexively reacted against intelligent design because they see it as a political movement (unfortunately with some justification) or as a variant of biblical creationism (fortunately without justification). The fact is that intelligent design is asking biology some tough questions and forcing evolutionary biology to own up, not to some minor crevices that need papering over, but to vast conceptual lacunae that require fundamental rethinking of the discipline. But do not take my word for it.

A prominent biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences with whom I maintain an irregular correspondence wrote me last year. He sees three main alternatives for biology: 1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection. Commenting on these alternatives, he writes: “Of these, I sort of favor the last. If it is true, then Darwin, et al. have found a mechanism that works in simple cases (which it certainly does!) but misses more important mechanisms of evolutionary change and adaptation. The search for the missing mechanisms can only be helped by people like you asking tough questions. Keep at it!”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1215

See, they’re so busy with the “deep conceptual problems of biology” (which, of course, Dembski understands not at all), that they can’t quite get around to publishing papers after 150 years, or in the at least 15 years, if you want to count the latest incarnation of Paley (or are they trying to suggest that there are new converts to ID, who are just starting to do “research”?).

The trouble with these IDiots is that they can never keep their stories straight. Dembski writes about how the real concern is science’s unwillingness to redress the “problems” of the scientific method that gives us our technology and expert opinion in court cases, while Chapman suggests that scientists using at least something like the scientific method are in fact doing work that just happens never to appear.

How could any IDists be doing actual science, if it has such fundamental “materialist” flaws in it? Wouldn’t they be apostates or heretics if they were doing real science? It’s the reliance upon evidence (which the IDiots mis-describe as “materialism”) that the IDiots have a problem with. Our insistence on details is the real sacrilege, the only reason that we “persecute” those who would do “science” sans evidence.

But, oh yeah, they’re just hunkered down with their test-tubes. After having complained about biology’s fundamental flaws, they’re doing science after all, it’s just that they can’t show it to us before it is ready, and apparently it takes an extraordinarily long time for breakthroughs to be produced in ID (yes, I expect that part is true enough).

The only way I can reconcile the two accounts is that there are ID “scientists” out there doing ersatz “science” which, being epistemically flawed, they dare not publish. Thus we have perpetual limbo, with “science” they cannot divulge, since it is so much rot, but it conforms with their conception of science, i.e., it is so much apologetics.

More likely nothing at all is being done, of course. The Templeton Foundation (IIRC) tried to fund ID research, and nothing worthwhile was proposed–not surprising, given the ID animosity against good science standards.

The DI will try to have it both ways, though, since it can’t acknowledge that its fight is against science as both Xians (including most IDCists, outside of origins research anyway) and secularists understand it, and is stuck both criticizing evidence-based science, and claiming to perform the same. Their contradictions prevent real science and cause them to claim that they’d be publishing real science if only we would let them.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #136830

Posted by mplavcan on October 2, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

“deep conceptual problems in biology”

Yeah, right. Dembski is deep, man, real deep. Who needs facts and data when you have deep thoughts. I can just see kindly Dembski, years from now, as Dean of Dembski U, with his bald head, colorful vest, and curly mustache reaching into his black bag and handing out chincy diplomas for “thinkology” for thinking deep thoughts. Instantly, on receipt of the diploma, each student will knit their eyebrows, incorrectly spout out the Pythagorean Theorem and look very serious. American Education will have reached its pinnacle, and Dembski will float away in a big balloon to return to Kansas and see if the science standards have finally met his deep, thoughtful, ideal, complete with a brass band and apple pie.

Meanwhile, the rest of us shallow, deluded souls will carry on in our offices and labs doing experiments, analyzing data, and otherwise trying to advance science by testing hypotheses and asking questions.

Comment #136831

Posted by stevaroni on October 2, 2006 4:45 PM (e)

He sees three main alternatives for biology: 1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection. Commenting on these alternatives, he writes: “Of these, I sort of favor the last.”

So?

I’d wager that most scientists would sum up the state of the art with something like “Right now, we think Darwin was right, but there could always be some additional mechanisms at play”

But I’d point out that the three given options are not exactly, um, equivalent.

Sure, science is currently betting on #2, Darwinian evolution, but I don’t think you’d find a whole lot of scientists out there who would bat an eye at the plausibility of #3, a still unknown natural mechanism that augments natural selection.

Science saying “We might not have the entire picture yet” is, um, not exactly earth-shaking. That’s how science works.

On the other hand, the jump to #1, “God sez ‘poof’ “, is a leap of somewhat larger magnitude, methinks.

Comment #136838

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 2, 2006 5:17 PM (e)

Book-burners know the cases of a number of book-burning-friendly librarians who have lost their stacks privileges or otherwise been discriminated against at universities here and in the UK. We are not trumpeting very many cases because the situations of several such librarians remain difficult. It is an appalling commentary on the state of academic freedom that book burning-friendly librarians should have to work in an atmosphere of fear, but it’s true. We just want friends of book burning who wonder why we don’t publicize work in progress more than we do to take a moment and reflect about that!

Comment #136842

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 2, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

“Galileo, Newton and Einstein didn’t need much more than paper, pencil, and access to a good library.”

Actually all were able experimenters and inventors, getting familiar with the real world before embarking on their remarkable journeys of theory building.

And of course Newton was the Einstein of classical mechanics, and Einstein was the Newton of relativity.

Demsbki however, remains the Hovind of ID.

I’m pretty sure that if we did Bayesian estimates of creationism vs evolution progress based on reviewed papers, belief in creationism would have passed beyond Demsbki’s UPB at this time. Luckily for him, there is no UPB concept in science.

Comment #136844

Posted by Richiyaado on October 2, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

It’s a smokescreen.

If the DI had anything… if there really were any sort of serious research which supported ID… they’d crank up their media machine and trumpet it to the heavens.

But they don’t have anything.

Comment #136845

Posted by ben on October 2, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Demsbki however, remains the Hovind of ID

No, Dembski’s the Hovind of mathematics, but the Malcom McLaren of ID.

Comment #136853

Posted by Richiyaado on October 2, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

It’s a smokescreen.

If the DI had anything… if there really were any sort of serious research which supported ID… they’d crank up their media machine and trumpet it to the heavens.

But they don’t have anything.

Comment #136858

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on October 2, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

The climate of discrimination they describe is of course simply a climate of insisting on real science. As I posted previously, IDers don’t like to mention cases like my own where, though I wasn’t forced to leave, I found I had to because my school director began overtly teaching ID, and using my presence to justify the idea that ID and evolution were simply competing theories (or ideas), in a controversy within science about what was true. Isn’t it wonderful that we can have honest dialouge and debate?

If you’re a Christian and teach biology at a school whose administration is Christian, (outside Catholicism) you’re in trouble. There is a climate of fear and discrimination. In my experience, it’s created by those on the side of ID.

Comment #136863

Posted by GuyeFaux on October 2, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Isn’t this a tautology?

He sees three main alternatives for biology: 1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection.

Sounds like 1) ID, 2) RM+NS, and 3) something else. Well, at least he admits that there’s no dichotomy.

Furthermore, 3) seems like the majority view nowdays anyway. Is there anyone who really believes that RM+NS accounts for all of life’s diversity?

Comment #136868

Posted by David B. Benson on October 2, 2006 7:23 PM (e)

GuyeFaux — I am not a biologist. Why doesn’t RM+NS suffice? Various applications of the Simple Genetic Algorithm suggests that RM+NS does, in fact suffice…

Comment #136869

Posted by Ron Okimoto on October 2, 2006 7:27 PM (e)

When you have to lie in the title of your web site (evolution news and views) you have sunk to a level that you probably can’t see daylight.

Comment #136871

Posted by Ron Okimoto on October 2, 2006 7:34 PM (e)

David Benson wrote:

GuyeFaux — I am not a biologist. Why doesn’t RM+NS suffice? Various applications of the Simple Genetic Algorithm suggests that RM+NS does, in fact suffice…

Because we already know that there are such things as genetic recombination and genetic drift that have been verified to exist in nature and contribute to the diversity and evolution of life on this planet.

Comment #136873

Posted by Thought Provoker on October 2, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t this recent fruit fly experiment at the University of Rochester an important discovery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908194141.htm

I ran across it because Ron Okimoto reminded me about genetic recombination and genetic drift and I looked into the recent developments on that.

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

Comment #136874

Posted by Thought Provoker on October 2, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t this recent fruit fly experiment at the University of Rochester an important discovery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908194141.htm

I ran across it because Ron Okimoto reminded me about genetic recombination and genetic drift and I looked into the recent developments on that.

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

Comment #136877

Posted by Thought Provoker on October 2, 2006 7:57 PM (e)

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t this recent fruit fly experiment at the University of Rochester an important discovery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908194141.htm

I ran across it because Ron Okimoto reminded me about genetic recombination and genetic drift and I looked into the recent developments on that.

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

Comment #136878

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 2, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

ben:
“but the Malcom McLaren of ID.”

You must have touched one of my blind spots, since I have no idea what this means. I could appreciate a little help, if you will.

One Malcom McLaren seems to be an impressario in musics, which can explain my ignorance. Music is what I dance or workout to, sports is when I excercise (dance or gym or vacation), but I have little further interest so I have few ideas about areas and artists in these two practices even though I get a lot of both.

For example, I’ve vaguely heard of Sex Pistols, but I didn’t know they were a punk band, and I have no idea how punk sounds. I can’t connect the info on this McLaren in Wikipedia to ID, not humoristically. (Nor factually, but for some reason I don’t think that was the purpose.)

Comment #136880

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 2, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Torbjorn:

I had to blink at that one too. (M. McLaren)

But the Sex Pistols were not a band before McLaren “created” them as such, based on image and attitude, not necessarily misical aptitude.

So maybe the implication is that Dembski has cooked up a “movement” (analagous to punk) that is all style and no substance, or, as we used to say in Kansas, all sizzle and no steak.

Subvert the dominant paradigm! (old punk slogan)

Comment #136881

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 2, 2006 8:16 PM (e)

Does anybody even read any of DI’s, uh, “press releases” any more?

They’re dead. Dead, dead, dead.

Time to bury the stinking corpse and move on to the next scam.

Comment #136882

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 2, 2006 8:20 PM (e)

Subvert the dominant paradigm! (old punk slogan)

As an old punk rocker from wayyy back, I can say categorically that this was never a punk slogan.

But as an environmental organizer from wayyy back, I *can* categorically say that it was a slogan for Earth First!

Comment #136883

Posted by Karen Spivey on October 2, 2006 8:22 PM (e)

Couldn’t the ID researchers just drop a few hints about their exciting research? They could say, for example, that a ID scientist on continent x is researching z. That wouldn’t really reveal their identity/location to the Darwinian ID-hating lab-burning mobs, would it?

Comment #136884

Posted by jeffw on October 2, 2006 8:25 PM (e)

Does anybody even read any of DI’s, uh, “press releases” any more?
They’re dead. Dead, dead, dead.
Time to bury the stinking corpse and move on to the next scam.

That would be AIG. Bury them, and so many problems are over. ‘Course, no one wants to see Wes, Nick, et al out of a job, or our primary source of entertainment vanish :) Somehow, I’m not worried about that happening.

Comment #136885

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 2, 2006 8:26 PM (e)

I don’t know much about McLaren, either, Torbjorn, but I’m speculating that the reference isn’t merely to McLaren having promoted or managed these various mucic groups but to his having, in some sense, “manufactured” them–or at least taken whatever modest musical talents may have been there originally and “packaged,” “positioned,” and “presented” them to the public in a way that would appeal.

Think of how even the Beatles’ producer, George Martin, was termed the “fifth” Beatle or how controversial the Rolling Stones’ manager (from memory, here) Andrew Loog Oldham, was in their early days.

If you, first, view the Sex Pistols as either essentially talent-less (or not having on their own the kind of talent and drive that would ever have brought them commercial success–and I’m not endorsing the no-talent view, but just attempting to translate the humor) and, second, view the McLarens of the world as concocting, confecting, or conjuring this apparent talent out of nowhere and turning it into a marketable commodity–then I suspect the Dembski:Id as McLaren:Sex Pistols, where ID is to science as the Sex Pistols (again, for purposes of this analogical scheme, tho not necessarily in my personal judgment) is to musical ability, and add to all that the “PR/commodity” aspect of both ID and (some apparently would say) the phenomenon of the Sex Pistols, then I think you’ll begin to see–after much labor–what this one-liner was driving at.

Rent the DVD of “Sid and Nancy” if you are interested in a well-made movie-ized take on the, um, ups and downs of the Sex Pistols.

Comment #136888

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 2, 2006 8:35 PM (e)

Thanks CJ, that makes sense and ben funny on several levels.

So if ID is the punk of pop music, is creationism the atonality of classical music? “The two great errors of the 20th century were atonality and Marxism.”

Comment #136891

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 2, 2006 8:40 PM (e)

Thanks Lenny and Stevepinhead too. (Forgot to update before posting again.) It seems I haven’t missed out much on Sex Pistols, either.

Comment #136893

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 2, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

Frickin’ Degas! Here I was, unable to even open PT, and CJ stole my thunder, and so much more pithily, at that.

While I kept getting, “The Page Cannot Be Found.”

Management, isn’t there ANYTHING more permanent that can be done to solve the hosting woes? I’ve sent in my check to the TO foundation, but the same old problems keep plaguing the site.

Time to move to Seed, like PZ and Zimmer?

Time to pay for a pro for a day or two?

Something, pretty please…!

Comment #136898

Posted by John on October 2, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

Why isn’t anyone asking the obvious question – if there is a “conspiracy” to prevent research, why doesn’t the Discovery Institute pony up the money to do it?

In fact, I recall that a major religious charity that offered to fund ID research could find no legitimate takers. Is anyone out there so stupid as to believe the Christian Right can’t find the money to do this “research” if there really was any?

John

Comment #136905

Posted by Henry J on October 2, 2006 10:09 PM (e)

Richiyaado (#136853) wrote:

If the DI had anything… if there really were any sort of serious research which supported ID… they’d crank up their media machine and trumpet it to the heavens.

But they don’t have anything.

What if they had something but it implied conclusions that would alienate half (or more) of their followers? ;)

Henry

Comment #136909

Posted by Kim on October 2, 2006 10:50 PM (e)

He, let the ID people have the Darwinism, we are way beyond that. Darwin was all about survival, well, guess what, a reduction in survival is sometimes the best thing you can do if it increases you reproduction sufficently. At the same line, ”3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection.” is just ot knowing where you talk about. Ever heard of gene flow and genetic drift?

Comment #136912

Posted by Anton Mates on October 2, 2006 11:01 PM (e)

Steviepinhead wrote:

Frickin’ Degas! Here I was, unable to even open PT, and CJ stole my thunder, and so much more pithily, at that.

While I kept getting, “The Page Cannot Be Found.”

Me, I keep getting the “Because you’re a new poster, your post has been held for approval” message, and then the post never appears. Probably because I’m so famously inflammatory and offensive.

Comment #136913

Posted by demallien on October 2, 2006 11:41 PM (e)

Actually, I seem to recall reading an account, not so very long ago, about a group of actual scientist that were hired (back in the 80’s IIRC) by a Creationist organisation to do “research” into creation science. Apparently they all went out into the field (most were geologists I think), and each and every one of them ended up abandoning creation science, because the evidence was so clear against it. I wish I could find a link to the story.

Anyway, what I found fascinating about this was that at least the sponsors of the work were honest. They did actually let those guys go and do some real science. The misfortune was that they didn’t like the answer that real science gives, even hen carried out by partisans

Comment #136916

Posted by sparc on October 3, 2006 12:19 AM (e)

No, Dembski’s the Hovind of mathematics, but the Malcom McLaren of ID.

You should watch the Sex Pistols film The Great Rock’n’Roll-Swindle and you will understand. Now I am looking forward for Dembski giving a talk on a boat on the Themse to disturb Dawkins celebrating Darwin’s Day 2008.
After 30 years I still love listening to Never mind the Bollocks, a statement nicely fitting when you read stuff from DI, Dembski et al.

Or take this one from I’m a lazy sod

Gotta lot to learn
about when you’re business dies
you will not return

However best fitting is liar

lie lie lie lie liar you lie lie lie lie lie
tell me why tell me why why d’you have to lie
should’ve realised that you should’ve
told the truth should’ve realised you know what
i’ll do
you’re in suspension
you’re a liar
now i wanna know know know know
i wanna know why you never
look me in the face
broke a confidence just to please
your ego shold’ve realised
you know what i know
you’re in suspension
you’re a liar
i know where you go every body you know
i know everything that you do or say
so when you tell lies i’ll always be in your way
i’m nobody’s fool and i know all ‘cos i know
what i know
you’re in suspension you’re a liar
you’re a liar you’re liar
lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie
lie lie lie lie liar you lie lie lie lie
i think you’re funny you’re funny ha ha
i don’t need it don’t need your blah blah
should’ve realised i know what you are
you’re in suspension you’re a liar
you’re a liar you’re a liar
lie lie

Comment #136917

Posted by sparc on October 3, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

BTW, how long will it take until one of the IDiots claims that the Nobel Prize awarded discovery of RNA interference could have not been foreseen by Darwinists, that the underlying mechanisms can not be explained by random mutation and natural selection, and that Dembskis explanatory filter suggestesd such discoveries. Maybe you should make a poll when the first RNAi paper will be quote mined. Or did it happen already?

Comment #136946

Posted by Brit on October 3, 2006 3:03 AM (e)

Thought Provoker:

Maybe this is old news to folks around here, but in the ID/Darwin wars, it shows me that people are looking for (AND FINDING!) alternatives to simple RM + NS.

This isn’t an alternative to RM+NS. Random Mutation includes a whole lot more than point mutation. It’s been known for a long time that there are duplications, insertions, deletions, etc. Finding a surprising instance of gene movement within the genome doesn’t isn’t an alternative to RM, it is another case of RM.

Comment #136958

Posted by Darth Robo on October 3, 2006 5:03 AM (e)

Ah, the Sex Pistols. They did it their way! :)

Comment #136972

Posted by Frank J on October 3, 2006 6:19 AM (e)

Jason Rosenhouse wrote:

Lot’s of people are being oppressed by Darwinists, but we can’t tell you who they are.

Well one of them must be Kenneth Miller. He not only professes belief in a designer, he even identifies said designer as God.

Oh wait, “ID-friendly” must mean friendly to ID pseudoscience. If so, their only “opperssors” are in the mirror.

Comment #136976

Posted by Frank J on October 3, 2006 6:31 AM (e)

John wrote:

Why isn’t anyone asking the obvious question – if there is a “conspiracy” to prevent research, why doesn’t the Discovery Institute pony up the money to do it?

Good question. I ask it often, but most ID critics sadly do not. We know the answer. All their $ goes to PR - apparently they don’t even have the decency to pay the Dover legal bills. But this is not common knowledge among their potential followers who have been misled into thinking that they are honsetly pursuing a promising theory. In fact, ~1/3 to 1/2 of the people who accept evolution think that schools should teach ID or the designer-free phony “critical analysis.” If only they knew.

Comment #136979

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 3, 2006 7:12 AM (e)

Actually, I seem to recall reading an account, not so very long ago, about a group of actual scientist that were hired (back in the 80’s IIRC) by a Creationist organisation to do “research” into creation science. Apparently they all went out into the field (most were geologists I think), and each and every one of them ended up abandoning creation science, because the evidence was so clear against it. I wish I could find a link to the story.

From my Creation “Science” Debunked website:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/whoare.htm

The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957, the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence of Noah’s Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare concluded, “We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geological record is the result of the Flood. I’ve seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe … that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is round.” (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out that Morris’s book The Genesis Flood contained “flagrant errors which the uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect”. (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would “only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God”. (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 293)

A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church’s Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, “The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates– particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals–forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within ‘kinds’. “ (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the “dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors’ views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation.” (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory.

Perhaps as a result of these defections, the creationist movement no longer finances or carries out any field research of any sort. Its sole method of “scientific research” consists of combing through the published works of evolutionary mechanism theorists to look for quotations which can be pulled out of context and used to bolster creationist beliefs.

Comment #136983

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on October 3, 2006 7:34 AM (e)

Ironically, if you are a scientist who is already known for Creationist/ID sympathies (and are thus “in trouble” with the “Darwinist orthodoxy”), your best bet is not to hide your pro-ID work, but to trumpet it far and wide. The only chance for these people to gain their reputation back is to show that they were right after all.

People like Behe, Minnich, Axe, Seelke, Sternberg, and all the “experts” at the Kansas show trial (all of which, of course, are still happily holding on positions and labs), should be out there showing all the wonderful results they can obtain using ID as a guideline.

Hiding the stuff makes no sense at all for them.

Comment #136992

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on October 3, 2006 8:09 AM (e)

Andrea Bottaro wrote:

People like Behe, Minnich, Axe, Seelke, Sternberg, and all the “experts” at the Kansas show trial (all of which, of course, are still happily holding on positions and labs), should be out there showing all the wonderful results they can obtain using ID as a guideline.

Doug Axe? I thought he took a wrong turn on a Seattle freeway and disappeared into the twilight zone. When was the last Axe sighting?

Comment #136999

Posted by Raging Bee on October 3, 2006 8:53 AM (e)

When diddidents in the USSR were persecuted – and I mean really persecuted – their supporters, both at home and in the West, made sure their names and stories found their way into every living room in the West. But here in the US and UK, the “persecuted” IDers are in such dire straits that the Discovery Institute can’t spread the truth about who, exactly, is being “persecuted,” or how, exactly, they’re being “persecuted.”

All we have to do is remember the USSR, and it’s obvious that the IDiots’ “persecution” stories are a sham.

Comment #137000

Posted by Thought Provoker on October 3, 2006 8:55 AM (e)

Brit wrote:

This isn’t an alternative to RM+NS. Random Mutation includes a whole lot more than point mutation. It’s been known for a long time that there are duplications, insertions, deletions, etc. Finding a surprising instance of gene movement within the genome doesn’t isn’t an alternative to RM, it is another case of RM.

Thank you for the explanation. It is what other people are telling me. It looks like I made a mistake (all part of the learning process). I still think it’s a good thing to point out for the ID/Darwin debate as an example of experimental results that some ID proponents say do not exist.

Comment #137006

Posted by Gene Goldring on October 3, 2006 9:47 AM (e)

Has Bill D’s Uncommonly Dense been vapourised?

This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

Comment #137008

Posted by stevaroni on October 3, 2006 9:54 AM (e)

Robo wrote…
Ah, the Sex Pistols. They did it their way!

I thought that was Sinatra. I’m so confused.

Comment #137016

Posted by Brian on October 3, 2006 10:17 AM (e)

I agree that the statments made by the ID camp about conspiracies is utter nonsense. Even when I was new to the debate and read the screed that is Icons of Evolution earlier this year I wondered how anyone could propose that he majority of scientists in America are some sort of evil empire whose only mission is to destroy morals. Curious to see if there was any basis for the idea, I sent some e-mails to the Discovery Institute, and never got any reply.

As for creationists, I sent a few e-mails asking for some scientific evidence for their claims (age of the Grand Canyon, “unfossilized” dinosaurs in Alaska) and have only received one reply, which essentially was a coupon to buy a copy of The Genesis Flood. Much in the same vein, after e-mailing “Dr. Dino” I got a reply saying I should spent the $90 to buy his complete lecture set and it would answer all my questions.

I don’t know if anyone else has seen this yet either, but poking around Uncommon Descent I saw a posting for a new myspace-esque site called Overwhelming Evidence (www.overwhelmingevidence.com). Apparently, “The Darwinists have had your young people long enough to shape, subvert, and corrupt,” and OE will equip and mobilize the young to combat evil people like us. I checked out the site and some of the entries seem like they were written by pro-ID adults under false screen names, and others that seemed genuine were just laughable (my favorite being one bloggers new theory of “cognitive distance” ID). It seems that since adults aren’t buying ID, they’re going to start in on the kids, probably trying to reach them at younger and younger ages. Who knows? Perhaps we’ll someday see Discovery Institute Crunch breakfast cereal (with a free bacterial flagellum model in every box)in hopes to convert preschoolers.

Comment #137023

Posted by Darth Robo on October 3, 2006 11:05 AM (e)

“I thought that was Sinatra.”

Yep. Then the Sex Pistols did the better version. :)

Comment #137035

Posted by Raging Bee on October 3, 2006 12:22 PM (e)

Sinatra did it his way, the Sex Pistols did it theirs.

Comment #137045

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on October 3, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

Demallion-

It is interesting to me that there is less comparison between ID and Mormon research. Even literal creationists and ID folks decry the Mormon anthropological research (about advanced civilizations in the New World) as without merit. Yet their methodologies, in trying to prove events from a holy text using non-existent data- are suprisingly similar. It would be interesting to see an article comparing the two.

Comment #137058

Posted by stevaroni on October 3, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

Even literal creationists and ID folks decry the Mormon anthropological research

Ahhh, but the difference is that the Mormons keep their religious dogma more or less to themselves.

I know several members of the LDS, all very nice, educated people. And while they’re more than happy to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of their faith if you ask, none of them are trying to force our schools to teach it.

(Admittedly, this may, or may not, be different in Utah. I’ve only been there briefly, so I don’t know what the relationship is like between the church and the schools)

Comment #137066

Posted by steve s on October 3, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

If anyone is wondering what this mormon history / creationism thing is, read this excellent essay

http://www.ldshistory.net/bomnot.html

Comment #137076

Posted by Jessica on October 3, 2006 4:25 PM (e)

Stevaroni – As a product of the Utah school system I can say without a doubt that while, what I like to call “non Utah Mormons” are usually really great people, many of the “Utah Mormons” I met were aggressive about their religious beliefs.
The school system also allows Junior High and High School students to take “released time” out of their school day to attend seminary, where they were further indoctrinated in their faith. If you didn’t want to go to the Mormon seminary you were not allowed to take “released time” I might add.

Comment #137084

Posted by GuyeFaux on October 3, 2006 5:37 PM (e)

Admittedly, this may, or may not, be different in Utah.

I believe Utah has put both Creationism, ID, and Darwinian evolution to varios votes. Evolution has come out consistently on top.

Comment #137129

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 3, 2006 8:27 PM (e)

Intelligent Design hasn’t had much success with research. Most of their claims are just redundant copies from a Progressive Creationistic paradigm (nothing new at all really). This is often obfuscated with the Young Earth Creation Science position, which in deed, stands firmly against both categorical groups.

Comment #137131

Posted by Tom English on October 3, 2006 8:27 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

If anyone is wondering what this mormon history / creationism thing is, read this excellent essay

http://www.ldshistory.net/bomnot.html

What a great link! The parallels are amazing. I highly recommend it to those who skipped over it the first time. In the following, think of archaeology as analogous to biology, Mormon as analogous to creationist, Sorenson as analogous to Dembski, and FARMS as analogous to DI.

Another eminent Mormon archaeologist of Mesoamerica, Gareth Lowe, has come down hard on Sorenson’s attempts to, as he puts it, “explain the unexplainable.” “A lot of Mormon ‘science’ is just talking the loudest and the longest,” says Lowe. “That’s what Sorenson is about, out-talking everyone else. He’s an intelligent man, but he’s applied his intelligence toward questionable ends.”

Sorenson is quite well aware of his pariah status among non-Mormon archaeologists as well as in certain Mormon circles, and in a way he seems to relish the intellectual combat. He and his prolific, steadfast colleagues at FARMS are the last of the true believers, still confident that hard proof of Mormonism’s essential truth will eventually emerge from the ground.

“This is a very, very lonely line of work,” Sorenson conceded, running a hand through his thinning hair. “Non-Mormon archaeologists and anthropologists don’t want to have anything to do with us. Still, Mesoamerica is such a wide-open field, with so many complexities and conundrums. Only one one-hundredth of one percent of the material has been excavated. And so I have complete faith that over time, the answers are going to rise up out of the forest carpet …. like wild mushrooms.”

Comment #137132

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 3, 2006 8:28 PM (e)

Guye Faux:

I’d like to see some back up claims for your Utah claim. I’ve heard nothing of the sort (though I’m not terribly familiar with politics in the first place).

Comment #137134

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 3, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

smacks head> WHAT IS WRONG WITH THOSE ID IDIOTS?

Comment #137136

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 3, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

That kind of repugnant filth belongs on my friend JP Holding’s screwball award list.

Comment #137138

Posted by sp on October 3, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

“I thought that was Sinatra. I’m so confused.”

Yep. Then the Sex Pistols did the better version. :)

I am feeling so old …

Comment #137141

Posted by stevaroni on October 3, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

Jessica wrote
many of the “Utah Mormons” I met were aggressive about their religious beliefs.
The school system also allows Junior High and High School students to take “released time” out of their school day to attend seminary

That’s funny, down here (central Texas) the Mormon community is considered one of the most rational, and is widely admired for their dedication to their community. They are known for actually “walking the walk” and behaving as Jesus actually might behave.

And while they will helpfully discuss their faith at great length - really, really great length - they actually understand that others might not share their enthusiasm and are capably of stopping at a socially appropriate time.

This comes as a refreshing change from some of our more strident baptist congregations who absolutely, positively, must at all times share the good news and do their best to convince you to accept Jesus as your personal savior.

There also tends to be an uncomfortable level of proselytizing in the schools, where the occasional teacher or coach who steps over the line is much more common than it should be, but that’s strictly a problem with the evangelical christian community.

I guess your perspective changes whether or not you’re the majority team, huh?

Comment #137143

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 3, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #137171

Posted by normdoering on October 4, 2006 1:06 AM (e)

Wondering what ever happened to all that ID inspired scientific progress that was supposedly just around the corner?

Not really. I figure Bill Dembski will announce on Fox news that he has discovered that a large section of our junk DNA actually contains a coded copy of the Bible and a message from God about electing George Bush to a third term.

Not that he actually found such a message, just that Fox news is willing to announce it. After all, if you check here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

You can see they’ve gotten away with saying Foley, (labelled at the bottom of the screen as “(D-FL)”), is a DEMOCRAT. If they pull off a whopper like that, why wouldn’t they?

Comment #137188

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on October 4, 2006 4:08 AM (e)

As far as forced prostelytism goes, I’ve found it in both the Mormons and conservative Christians. Just the other day I ran into 2 Full Gospel Businessmen at the fair who were so insistent on telling me how I could be saved they couldn’t hear what I had to say or who I was. I was thinking, “This is just like my interactions with Mormons!” Both groups have a tendency to be blind to the person they’re dealing with for the sake of preaching their version of the Word.

Comment #137219

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 4, 2006 8:48 AM (e)

As much as I loathe Faux “News”, isn’t blasting them for a typo a bit much?

Besides, Foley used to be a Democrat. Maybe it’s just Faux being, as usual, decades out of date. :-)

Comment #137224

Posted by Flint on October 4, 2006 9:18 AM (e)

Seems pretty clear to me Glen Davidson put his finger on the heart of the problem: the scientific method *requires* the very methodological naturalism religious faith necessarily rejects. Trying to do the best ID research is like trying to generate the loudest silence. Even thinking about doing genuine research besmirches your Faith.

On the other hand, “science” has powerful juju among the Great Unwashed, few of whom know quite what it is, but it produces really kewl wide-screen TV sets. So there’s a ready-made audience who just loves to hear that the magic they believe in is scientifical after all.

But how about the actual science itself? Here, we fall back on the well-documented phenomenon of Christian Paranoia - the idea that the overwhelming majority of the people are being persecuted by, well, persecuted, see? Science itself is a wonderful thing, but *scientists*, now, they’re Out To Get Us.

And so we remain pure and unsullied by the scientific method, by doing science by the religious method: SAYING we’re doing science, and that it proves our Faith is true. The God of ID does not live in the details.

Comment #137230

Posted by Arden Chatfield on October 4, 2006 10:04 AM (e)

This one sort of stopped me in my tracks:

“This is a very, very lonely line of work,” Sorenson conceded, running a hand through his thinning hair. “Non-Mormon archaeologists and anthropologists don’t want to have anything to do with us

(My boldfacing.)

I find it fascinating that this person thingks of ‘non-Mormon archaeologists and anthropologists’ as forming some kind of category, since that essentially means well over 99% of all archaeologists and anthropologists. I think he’d have done better to say “normal archaeologists and anthropologists don’t want to have anything to do with us” or even “virtually all archaeologists and anthropologists don’t want to have anything to do with us”.

Comment #137252

Posted by PZ Meyers on October 4, 2006 11:13 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #137254

Posted by PZ Meyers on October 4, 2006 11:16 AM (e)

1. Bunch of godless liberals. Any graduate from PCC can outdue any of you guys academically. Some of the rules are weird, but I rather send my daughter their knowing that she will keep her purity until her wedding day rather than send them to any of the heathen insitutions that teaches everyone came from monkeys and wonder why they all act like animals.
All you have to do to know the success of the PCC graduates is get a copy of the NewsLetter or look up the alumni database and you will see how “worthless” their degree really is.
Bunch of monkies.
I am of the opinion that any institution that teaches that your great granddad is a monkey has some major academic flaws.

2. Steve C wrote:
“Why bother…”
That seems to be your problem.

3. PZ Myers wrote:
“Really. When you come online to brag about your academic virtues, you’d damn well better proofread carefully.”
I will leave the proofreading up to you. BTW you do well to proofread the whole blog. I am sure there are many others that could use your help.

4. Steve_C said:
“Oh and I think we are related to monkeys by a very distant ancestor millions of years ago.”
Is’nt that special
There you have it folks, that’s the kind of education that you will be receiving from the secularists.

5. MJ Memphis will not be quite as simplistic. He resorts to the technacalities of double-talk:
“Nope, we didn’t evolve from monkeys. Monkeys (and the apes) and humans did, however, evolve from a common ancestor.”
Ha! Thank you for your thoughts.

6. “The transition will have occurred much too long ago to fit on most conventional family trees, unless you have an unusually detailed pedigree.”
Yes that’s why evolution is nothing more than a theory for those who would have nothing to do with God. It’s the best the skeptic can do to explain God away.

7. “Oh, and regarding your daughter’s “purity”: I’d keep her away from any preacher’s sons if I were you. And probably keep her away from preachers too, for that matter.”
I think I have a better chance keeping her at church than in your STD infected campus whore houses

8. PZ Myers: “My campus is populated by bright, enthusiastic, ambitious young men and women who are here to learn. It is not a whore house.”
Yeah and they happen to believe that you one can have sex before marriage. How many times does one have to have sex before she is a whore? For that matter, how many times does one have to kill before his a murderer?
But you are right in one respect. I think you all do not get paid for your promiscuity. So I digress.
Bunch of godless, fornicators!

9. “Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from monkeys?
Not directly, no, and nobody who’s reasonable makes that claim.”
I know, noone in their right mind enjoys the association. So just hide it behind scholastic mumble-jumble and it makes you feel better.
The devastating truth is that you will not go down very far the geological pedigree and you will run into your long lost relative: the monkey.

10. “Something you may want to check out is the National Genographic Project, specifically their Atlas of the Human Journey, which shows the migration and changes in human populations over the last 60,000 years.”
60,000 years. Ha!
You are going to prehistoric times. Do you not understand what that means. Anything that goes beyond what has been recorded in history is pure conjecture. It’s amazing that you would swallow this hook and line knowing that there is no record of such a migration.
Of course. Evolution is one big knotted-up conjecture.
Congratulations. You have more faith than I do with all my religion.

Comment #137255

Posted by PZ Meyers on October 4, 2006 11:17 AM (e)

11. Of course you will try to play the race game. As a matter of fact, my Dad is black. And I have more black friends than probably you do in your elitist social club.
Jews are God’s chosen people and we owe them a great thanks. It was Hitler, the evolutinist, that killed the Jews not the Christian.
Muslims… as long as they are not terrorist. They still need Jesus though.
Interracial marriage… Ha. I graduated from PCC not Bob Jones. And I am married to someone from another race.
Catholics, well, I have family who are Catholic and I love them very much.
Nice try. But you ate the bait.

It is the evolutionists who popularize race supremacy with its survival of the fittest, not the Judeo-Christian culture.
If you have any general knowledge of history, most of the modern day dictators were evolutionists.

12. DavidD : I’ve made a few “eye-babies” myself. So long as you keep your purity.
I rather have that happen than find out that she’s been participating in those group orgies during spring break.
You guys can never understand PCC because you do not understand God. I do not know of a student that went their in my five years that completely agreed with all the policies but they were content to be there for reasons you will never understand.

Of course. I forgot technacalities:
“On
The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

13. “Do you think that’s possible? It’s true that I didn’t learn that at PCC. I didn’t send my daughters there, either. I’m sure they’re better off that I didn’t.”
Yes. You can send them to a place that will teach them that the only value they have in life is knowing that they came from monkeys.
That’s its OK to have mutiple partners, multiple divorces, and multiple marriages. After all, we are all animals anyway.
So sad.
Justice Jackson noted that ‘The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology’, and ‘carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.’2 He cited a decree of leading Nazi, Martin Bormann: ‘More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.’2 Jackson cited another defendant, the viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer Julius Streicher, who ‘complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.”’2

14. “We are evolving, everthing on this planet has evolved. It is a fact.”
Name one thing that you have observed evolve?

Comment #137270

Posted by Anton Mates on October 4, 2006 12:17 PM (e)

Uh, you didn’t merely reply on the wrong thread; you replied on the wrong blog.

Comment #137274

Posted by stevaroni on October 4, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Some of the rules are weird, but I rather send my daughter there knowing that she will keep her purity until her wedding day rather than send them to any of the heathen insitutions

Back in my younger days, I went to college in one of those pesky “secular” schools. The funny thing is that it was right down the road from an extremenly prim, proper, ivy covered, religiously affiliated college, mostly populated by the daughters of very respectable families who were sent there to “keep their purity” while majoring in pre-wed.

The funny thing is that most of us actively sought out any excuse to go to that campus whenever possible for the simple reason that all those prim, pure co-eds were much, much more, um, how do I put this, socially adept, than our heathen secular girls.

Go figure.

Comment #137276

Posted by Arden Chatfield on October 4, 2006 12:29 PM (e)

Whoever’s imitating ‘PZ Meyers’ there should definitely learn to spell his name correctly.

Comment #137291

Posted by Raging Bee on October 4, 2006 1:51 PM (e)

“Whoever’s imitating ‘PZ Meyers’” should be banned for junior-high sock-puppetry. His pastor should also give him a serious lecture on the subject of “false witness,” before his next attempt to lecture others about “godless fornicators.”

Comment #137324

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:14 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #137325

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

the scientific method *requires* the very methodological naturalism religious faith necessarily rejects.

Well, as lots of scientists who are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Zoroastrian or whatever demonstrate pretty clearly, the scientific method requires METHODOLOGICAL naturalism (and I, uh, don’t recall any prominent Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian or whatever scientist REJECTING methodological naturalism as part of the scientific method), but the scientific method does not require PHILOSOPHICAL naturalism.

The two are not the same.

Comment #137326

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

(idiotic rants by PZ-wanna-be ignored)

(sigh) Why on earth has so much of the lunatic fringe suddenly decided to descend upon us all at once?

Is it because Dembski’s little lovefest got shut down and the nutters have nothing else to do now?

Comment #137328

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:24 PM (e)

The funny thing is that most of us actively sought out any excuse to go to that campus whenever possible for the simple reason that all those prim, pure co-eds were much, much more, um, how do I put this, socially adept, than our heathen secular girls.

Go figure.

We noticed that at our school, too. There was a Catholic school a few blocks away. The girls there were, uh, “easy”.

Must be all that repression that does it. Or maybe their abysmal lack of experience with the real world.

None of us complained, though.

Comment #137333

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 4, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Yamil masquerades as PZ.

*sigh*

pathetic.

Comment #137334

Posted by fnxtr on October 4, 2006 6:48 PM (e)

“Good little girls make some mighty wild women.” – Blue County.

Comment #137339

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 4, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

Don’t worry about the IDers (whoever or whatever they may be, bless ‘em) doing some research. Science will speak for itself. Just follow standard scientific method, and, voila! - the answers. The jargonmist is lying a bit heavy just now. Species, it seems, were revealed in a talkfest, by jargon. Hark! - the red-whiskered bulbul is about to give out its mating call! What will it mate with this year? No, there are no loons in Australia (are there?) Might have to settle for ordinary old crow. Shush! I think I hear it now. Listen …. bwa-ha-bwa-ha-BWA-HA-HA-HAHAHAHA! Oooh, my ears!

Now here we have one or two people with some letters and some educational clout, presumably in association with others who haven’t got quite as far along the ladder of learning. Might be a good thing, not to be too far along this ladder of learning. Integrity, Integrity, wherefore art thou, Integrity? He’s got off the balcony in these parts. Probably gone listening for the mating call of the red-whiskered bulbul. We are advized, at various places on these pages by various contributors (certainly not by all contributors)the following - as appetizers -
1) “Species” carries little or no implication of reproductive self-containment or of being “special”. This despite the fact that I have before me the original Chambers’s 20th Century Dictionary which has Species as an entry under Special. I have found it under its own title in the Oxford, but even there one of its meanings is “kind”, which of course is a meaning originating from the Bible, implying reproductive self-containment.
2) When asked for the technical research on long-term effects of hybridization under natural conditions on close varieties such as domestic cattle and buffalo, one contributor more-or-less says to look it up on WIKIPEDIA and stop asking tiresome questions. (Perhaps this contributor wrote WIKIPEDIA?) At least he seems interested in addressing the matter, albeit by jargon: when are our expert big-guns going to answer the big questions? Could some old-time U.S. ranchers know the answer?
3). We have been confidently advized that there were complex animals such as coelenterates and echinoderms in the Pre-Cambrian. These pre-dated the so-called Cambrian Explosion by tens of millions of years. DICKINSONIA etc etc are painted with a broad chordate - possibilities brush; in fact, many new developments are passed off as proved for this part of the geologic record. I have before me Raup & Stanley’s PRINCIPLES OF PALEONTOLOGY, which addresses the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian issue particularly re the Ediacara fauna/flora. I have open here John Reader’s THE RISE OF LIFE, which does the same. I have here the authoritative 1995 TIME article which was a factor in getting the “Cambrian Explosion” notion up and running. Likewise last year’s SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article highlighting enigmatic (?)microfossils from strata currently classified as Pre-Cambrian, from China. But surely there are people here who can investigate such matters for themselves, in a detached, rigorous way?
Could we benefit from the reputable literature and from a couple of centuries of the accummulated wisdom of Geology?

That bulbul gives me sore ears. It’s actually beginning to sound like a crow! Or is that the rooster? How confusing.

Comment #137340

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 4, 2006 7:09 PM (e)

How confusing.

naughty boy, you forgot to take your meds again, didn’t you.

Comment #137342

Posted by Sounder on October 4, 2006 7:16 PM (e)

1) “Species” carries little or no implication of reproductive self-containment or of being “special”. This despite the fact that I have before me the original Chambers’s 20th Century Dictionary which has Species as an entry under Special. I have found it under its own title in the Oxford, but even there one of its meanings is “kind”, which of course is a meaning originating from the Bible, implying reproductive self-containment.

Hey cool, the dictionary defined a portion of scientific reality out of existence! Where have I seen a kook do that with a book before…?

Comment #137355

Posted by waldteufel on October 4, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

Well, Toejam, he may be taking his meds, but mixing them with too much booze.

Comment #137438

Posted by Lars Karlsson on October 5, 2006 7:52 AM (e)

PZ Meyers wrote:

Bunch of monkies.

I strongly suspect that “PZ Meyers’s” comments were written by a bunch of monkeys locked into a room with a bunch of keyboards. For about one hour.

Comment #137446

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 5, 2006 8:38 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Don’t worry about the IDers (whoever or whatever they may be, bless ‘em) doing some research.

We don’t. We worry about things that might actually happen. Like Burt I. Gordon and Ed Wood rising from their graves, making a movie out of stock footage about giant, transvestite teenagers conquering the Earth for aliens, and it winning an Oscar. This is FAR more likely than the IDers actually doing some serious research.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Science will speak for itself.

Science has spoken, why won’t you listen?

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

{snip blithering about “species” in some foreign language consisting of English words but no conceivable English parsing}

Now here we have one or two people with some letters and some educational clout, presumably in association with others who haven’t got quite as far along the ladder of learning.

Hey, I was born with letters after my name!

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

{Snip more illegible rubbish}

1) “Species” carries little or no implication of reproductive self-containment or of being “special”. This despite the fact that I have before me the original Chambers’s 20th Century Dictionary which has Species as an entry under Special. I have found it under its own title in the Oxford, but even there one of its meanings is “kind”, which of course is a meaning originating from the Bible, implying reproductive self-containment.

Dictionaries: The be all and end all of science. Scientists always use the meaning of words found in the dictionary, after all and never have specialized meanings. Nope, never.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

2) When asked for the technical research on long-term effects of hybridization under natural conditions on close varieties such as domestic cattle and buffalo, one contributor more-or-less says to look it up on WIKIPEDIA and stop asking tiresome questions. (Perhaps this contributor wrote WIKIPEDIA?)

I’ve written a bit of Wikipedia, but nothing on cattle. See, unlike some people, I know better than to expound on subjects I’m totally ignorant of.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

At least he seems interested in addressing the matter, albeit by jargon: when are our expert big-guns going to answer the big questions? Could some old-time U.S. ranchers know the answer?

The answers were in the link I gave you. I guess you couldn’t be bothered to read it. Nope, just declare it “Jargon”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, ignore the answers, and pretend they don’t exist. Typical creationist.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

3). We have been confidently advized that there were complex animals such as coelenterates and echinoderms in the Pre-Cambrian. These pre-dated the so-called Cambrian Explosion by tens of millions of years. DICKINSONIA etc etc are painted with a broad chordate - possibilities brush; in fact, many new developments are passed off as proved for this part of the geologic record. I have before me Raup & Stanley’s PRINCIPLES OF PALEONTOLOGY, which addresses the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian issue particularly re the Ediacara fauna/flora. I have open here John Reader’s THE RISE OF LIFE, which does the same. I have here the authoritative 1995 TIME article which was a factor in getting the “Cambrian Explosion” notion up and running. Likewise last year’s SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article highlighting enigmatic (?)microfossils from strata currently classified as Pre-Cambrian, from China. But surely there are people here who can investigate such matters for themselves, in a detached, rigorous way?

They did. You just don’t like the answer a detached and rigorous review of the evidence gives. That’s your problem, not ours.

Comment #137461

Posted by Raging Bee on October 5, 2006 9:23 AM (e)

Why on earth has so much of the lunatic fringe suddenly decided to descend upon us all at once?

Because they have to do whatever they can to destroy the credibility of a science blog that accomodates the idea that one can be a Christian and a supporter of good, honest science at the same time. Places like this serve to explain important scientific issues to non-scientists of all faiths, therefore they’re a threat to the fundies’ propaganda machine, and their divide-and-destroy tactics, and must be destroyed; or at least dragged down to a junior-high level of debate.

We have been confidently advized that there were complex animals such as coelenterates and echinoderms in the Pre-Cambrian. These pre-dated the so-called Cambrian Explosion by tens of millions of years.

Haven’t we also been “confidently advised” that the Cambrian “Explosion” lasted tens of millions of years, and thus may be said to include the aforementioned complex animals?

PBH’s utter incoherence indicates that he’s hiding from reality.

Comment #137477

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on October 5, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

Of course the thrust behind the writing is not for the consumption of those with an ounce of intelligence, but to the ignoramuses that fork the dough for the DI. Is all about re-create and maintain the now famous persecuted complex employed again and again by the fundies. You see they see themselves as heirs of the martirs and saints that offered their lives for their faith. Since they cannot lay claim to such sacrifices they live vicariously by been persecuted by the heathens. Bruce Chapman is only pandering to his constituency so they keep sending in the money that keeps him living comfortably.

Comment #137483

Posted by Mike on October 5, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

“No, Dembski’s the Hovind of mathematics, but the Malcom McLaren of ID.

Wouldn’t Phillip Johnson be the real Malcom McLaren of ID? With Behe and Dembski as Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious.

If Malcolm McLaren was obscure (I got it but then I still listen to Never Mind the Bollocks) a more ironic analogy would be to suggest Phillip Johnson and Howard Ahmanson were the Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider of ID.

Rafelson and Schneider were the producers of the Pre-fab Four, the, ‘Why are there still’ Monkees!

Comment #137495

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 5, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

Hey! I like the Monkees!

Comment #137506

Posted by Moses on October 5, 2006 5:01 PM (e)

1) intelligent design; 2) Darwinism; and 3) some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, that yields organisms without relying solely on natural selection.

1. God did it.
2. God didn’t do it.
3. God did it and I need to think of a new name for “God did it” to pen more of my crazy theories and make money selling lies to the rubes.

Commenting on these alternatives, he writes: “Of these, I sort of favor the last.”

Quotes taken from Comment #136831

Comment #137513

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 5, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

Michael Suttkus II:

We don’t. We worry about things that might actually happen. Like Burt I. Gordon and Ed Wood rising from their graves, making a movie out of stock footage about giant, transvestite teenagers conquering the Earth for aliens, and it winning an Oscar. This is FAR more likely than the IDers actually doing some serious research.

That, sir, was good for a laugh after a longish day. Thanks!

Comment #137626

Posted by wamba on October 6, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

I think all the Nobel announcements are in now, and ID researchers got skunked again. This is clear evidence of unfair discrimination.

Comment #137636

Posted by somnilista, FCD on October 6, 2006 10:45 AM (e)

Time to move to Seed, like PZ and Zimmer?

Time to pay for a pro for a day or two?

The Scienceblogs site had a serious problem a couple weeks ago; something about an open Javascript allowing bad things to happen, and the site was brought to its knees for a day or so. Since then, they decided to tighten up security and over-did it. I have been unable to post at least three times since. I question the professionality of their pros.

Comment #137654

Posted by wamba on October 6, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

More likely nothing at all is being done, of course. The Templeton Foundation (IIRC) tried to fund ID research, and nothing worthwhile was proposed–not surprising, given the ID animosity against good science standards.

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker, Laurie Goodstein, NYTimes, December 4, 2005:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.

Comment #137675

Posted by AC on October 6, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

Michael Suttkus, II wrote:

We worry about things that might actually happen. Like Burt I. Gordon and Ed Wood rising from their graves, making a movie out of stock footage about giant, transvestite teenagers conquering the Earth for aliens, and it winning an Oscar.

I think you just described the MSTie Rapture. =)

Comment #137698

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 6, 2006 5:26 PM (e)

1. God did it.
2. God didn’t do it.
3. God did it and I need to think of a new name for “God did it” to pen more of my crazy theories and make money selling lies to the rubes.

Its important to realize that half of the staff in regards to the ID movement do not even believe in God. Thats sad that you refer to them as a Creation Science movement, as they totally oppose what we believe in.

We don’t. We worry about things that might actually happen. Like Burt I. Gordon and Ed Wood rising from their graves, making a movie out of stock footage about giant, transvestite teenagers conquering the Earth for aliens, and it winning an Oscar. This is FAR more likely than the IDers actually doing some serious research.

Sadly I agree. The ID side has done no serious research, and even Mike Gene is virtually skeptical of his own ID position and seems more ready to concede the Evolution position as far as Science goes within the ID community, seemingly so. Sadly, this is the apex of ID research, in and within Mr. Gene himself.

Comment #137723

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 6, 2006 10:07 PM (e)

Its important to realize that half of the staff in regards to the ID movement do not even believe in God.

Horse hockey.

Who? Name two.

Thats sad that you refer to them as a Creation Science movement, as they totally oppose what we believe in.

Hmmm. From the Wedge Document, written by Discovery Institute:

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

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

What is this “traditional doctrine of creation” that DI wants “major Christian denominations” to “defend”, and why does DI want them to defend it?

You, sir, are a liar. A bare, bald-faced, shameless liar. With malice aforethought.

Now then, if you are finished lying to us, perhaps you’d like to answer the question that I’ve asked of you:

Should women be allowed to speak in church?

Try to answer without lying again.

Comment #137724

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 6, 2006 10:10 PM (e)

The ID side has done no serious research

Hey Mr Pot, where can I read about the, uh, serious scientific research being done by creation, uh, “scientists”?

Or are all the mighty scientists at AIG too busy working on that new version of the Malleus Maleficarum, so they can help rid the world of, uh, witchcraft?

(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #137742

Posted by Anton Mates on October 7, 2006 12:32 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

1) “Species” carries little or no implication of reproductive self-containment or of being “special”. This despite the fact that I have before me the original Chambers’d5s 20th Century Dictionary which has Species as an entry under Special. I have found it under its own title in the Oxford, but even there one of its meanings is “kind”, which of course is a meaning originating from the Bible, implying reproductive self-containment.

When you say “original Chambers’s 20th Century Dictionary,” you mean the one published in 1901, right? Just checking.

And who told you species “carries little or no implication of reproductive self-containment?” It just can’t be defined only on that criterion, or (among other things) it wouldn’t mean anything for asexual critters.

Oh, but I was quite wrong about “species” and “special” being etymologically unrelated; “special” is actually derived from “species.” However, the two words diverged as early as…well…the 1300s. Which is, for instance, 400 years before Linnaeus. And kind of kills the idea that “species” as a biological term comes with an implication of specialness, even via its etymological history. (As opposed to, say, the “blue plate special” and “Saturday night special,” which do derive from “special” etymologically…yet still have no implication of specialness! Language is weird that way.)

Comment #137743

Posted by Anton Mates on October 7, 2006 12:33 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

2) When asked for the technical research on long-term effects of hybridization under natural conditions on close varieties such as domestic cattle and buffalo, one contributor more-or-less says to look it up on WIKIPEDIA and stop asking tiresome questions.

Looks like you’re tapping into memories on alternate timelines now. Here on Earth-Prime, you asked,”Why can I be certain my cattle will not interbreed with other species, and cease to be cattle?” and “Tell me, would running buffalo with domestic cattle ultimately result in one herd of cross-breeds (like mongrel dogs when they cross-breed) or would two discreet populations persist?” You didn’t ask for “technical research,” nor “natural conditions,” whatever those are.

But if you want some, hey! Glad to oblige. I might have to do these in installments, though.

Paternally inherited markers in bovine hybrid populations
Hybridization of banteng (Bos javanicus) and zebu (Bos indicus) revealed by mitochondrial DNA, satellite DNA, AFLP and microsatellites
Bovine mtDNA Discovered in North American Bison Populations
Identification of domestic cattle hybrids in wild cattle and bison species: a general approach using mtDNA markers and the parametric bootstrap

Comment #137747

Posted by Anton Mates on October 7, 2006 12:39 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

(Perhaps this contributor wrote WIKIPEDIA?) At least he seems interested in addressing the matter, albeit by jargon: when are our expert big-guns going to answer the big questions? Could some old-time U.S. ranchers know the answer?

Ah, so “technical research” good, “jargon” bad?

Anyway, if you want to see what ranchers think, here: American Beefalo International and O Bar R Ranch’s Beefalo Site.

“But those filthy Americans will claim anything,” you say! No problem–here’s the Beefalo Society of Australia.

I encourage you to contact the above and explain that their herds of fertile hybrids are in fact scientifically impossible and must be some sort of delusion, perhaps caused by swamp gas or heavy mescaline use. Be patient and speak slowly; they might be confused at first.

Comment #137975

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #137978

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #137984

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 7:52 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #137990

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 7:57 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #137999

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 8:06 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138011

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 8, 2006 8:19 PM (e)

would somebody PLEASE get rid of this frickin’ crazy ass troll?

Comment #138023

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:01 PM (e)

Troll eh? No just trying to respond to Lenny Flunk thats all. Oh ye of little evidence :).

Comment #138024

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138025

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:10 PM (e)

This is a response to Lenny Flunk, who once again deemed it necessary to call me out to the podium if you will:

Why not try this one for the ID’s oh so supportive view of the Biblical God: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560

I can name two right (IDist who do not believe in God) off the top of my head. The results might very well surprise you. Dr. Jonathan Wells, a Moonie :) Not a supporter of the Biblical God. Dr. Michael Denton is another one, who supports a “vague form of Theism.” When I say God, I mean the Biblical God. Theism does not mean God. It means, “a higher power.” An “intelligent designer” if you will. The media has really done a horrible job at manipulating facts, as they are usually great at doing. They are not Science scholars, they are journalists. The only reason that ID and CS is not being taught in schools is because the school systems supports Atheistic Humanism, which is very well clarified within the Humanist Manifesto. Whenever someone tries to teach it, leave it to the politicians to try to bring some Activist judge in to alleviate the struggle. I really don’t care about these silly judges who know absolutely nothing about Science deciding what should be taught in schools or not. If we were to say whoever teaches Creation Science in schools is right, or Intelligent Design in schools is right, or Evolution in schools is right, then we should also consider Bible schools and Private Christian Academies and such, since they are schools. Once again, this does nothing to say whether or not Evolution is a proven fact, or Creation Science is a proven fact, or Intelligent Design is a proven fact. Its just politics throwing up smoke and mirrors, and is nothing new in this case.

And as far as Intelligent Design, I almost fell into their foolish political beliefs until I realized that Evolution squashed them like a bug. As a matter of fact, before that time, I was like you guys at Pandas Thumb, and used to dogmatically assert Evolution over and over again, and our job was basically the outlook that, Hey, we need to get rid of this Intelligent Design movement. No reason was given as to why. It was just, do it. It was really pseudointelligence at its worst (in regards only to my Evolution staff, of whom I speak of in the former sense). I’m not in the very least impressed with Intelligent Design now nor Evolution, and have since moved to Young Earth Creation Science where I am there to stay.

Comment #138027

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138037

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138045

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138051

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:16 PM (e)

Oh well, thats all I can get up there.

Comment #138055

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138057

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:21 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138058

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 8, 2006 9:22 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #138059

Posted by Anton Mates on October 8, 2006 9:23 PM (e)

Why, Lord? Why?

Comment #138062

Posted by Anton Mates on October 8, 2006 9:32 PM (e)

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

I can name two right (IDist who do not believe in God) off the top of my head.

When I say God, I mean the Biblical God.

When I say God, I mean a hedgehog with the power of telekinesis. Therefore, all the major ID figures are atheists.

Comment #138064

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 8, 2006 9:43 PM (e)

When I say God, I mean a hedgehog with the power of telekinesis.

name wouldn’t be “Spiny Norman”, by any chance?

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/piranha.htm

Comment #138113

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 9, 2006 3:20 AM (e)

I just got back & am happily researching beefalo’s. Am in process of reviewing the literature so conveniently linked to above. Not having the technical know-how to put up such convenient references I give an address which was usefull: HOW I GOT FERTILE BUFFALO X HEREFORD BULLS (were they red-whiskered bulbuls?) by Rancher Burnett, www.ababeefalo.org/abi19.htm . Burnett is hands-on, somewhat reminiscent of Samuel Morse :”What things God hath wrought!”
From what I have read to date, Rancher Burnett won’t be saying that God hath wrought confusion in the biosphere, despite his own hybridization triumphs. Bison won’t be crossing with skylarks or even horses, anytime soon, (even IN VITRO) which is scarcely comforting to the notion of a common great-great-grandaddy. Time is not a mechanism, remember.
Pleased to see we aren’t continuing to do despite to the venerable science of Geology. Some palaeontologists have indeed jumped the gun in this area and have gone as far as speculating on common ancestry (but did they mean, genetic or “blood” ancestry?) but thankfully not too many are running around denying their own discipline by claiming unequivocal advanced organisms in the Pre-Cambrian. Traditionally, one certain way of distinguishing between Pre-Cambrian and later strata has been on the basis of the absence or presence of organisms with hard parts, or with the proven internal complexity of forms such as echinoderms and coelenterates. That’s not to say there weren’t remarkable advances, latest Pre-Cambrian. Avast with the Geology-undermining verbiage, bio-freaks! WIKIPEDIA is WHACKEY-PEDIA if it countenances such outbreaks of excessive over-hypothesization. Hang in there and we might arrange some questions for the big shots. Such as, One, Why did we get rid of our chimp-like genetic information but bless us all, why do we keep a vice-like grip on all our inheritable human defects? Remember, time is not a mechanism. Random encounters with quantum particles, if it is a mechanism, could have killed the moon astronauts, had there been a cosmic radiation storm. And advanced life is demonstrably not mutating for the better. Weeds, bugs, and microbes are the only ones improving genetically right now.
What we want is the mechanism of speciation, not random and disjointed observations.

Comment #138128

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 9, 2006 5:42 AM (e)

I have had a look at the Bison - Beef Cattle links and being as conversant with the language of genetics as with the topography of the far side of the moon, would have to say I leave that to experts. As you know, it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of a great many people, past and present, that the most workable species definition centers around observed reproductive self-containment over time, under natural conditions. Given that, under natural conditions, over time, distinct herds of Bison were observed as well as distinct herds of other types, there is an argument for classing them as separate species. There may be other opinions. Of some significance here could be the observation that two possibly distinct species can be reunited in some measure. Are these hybrids likely to have similarities to the common - as-Darwinists-call-it - ancestor? Can we learn something about speciation by studying the methods involved in getting these two organisms to return towards that common “ancestor”?
Start looking - there will be useful information here.
I have another question - does anyone know if there is any discernable difference between the DNA of domestic goats and sheep?

Comment #138138

Posted by ben on October 9, 2006 6:48 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag ‘kwickxml’

Dr, maybe you should just close your eyes and bang on the keyboard; I think your formatting and your argumentation would both probably come out better than whatever you’re doing so far.

Comment #138170

Posted by Darth Robo on October 9, 2006 9:31 AM (e)

Helywood blithers: “Bovine excrement.”

Such as:

“Such as, One, Why did we get rid of our chimp-like genetic information but bless us all, why do we keep a vice-like grip on all our inheritable human defects?”

Hey, Heywood. YOU’RE 95% CHIMP!!!

(And possibly 50% banana!)

We are what we eat. :-)

Comment #138199

Posted by MarkP on October 9, 2006 11:25 AM (e)

OK, we’ve got two infractions on the play. We’ve got “moving the goalposts” on Heywood:

“From what I have read to date, Rancher Burnett won’t be saying that God hath wrought confusion in the biosphere, despite his own hybridization triumphs. Bison won’t be crossing with skylarks or even horses, anytime soon, (even IN VITRO) which is scarcely comforting to the notion of a common great-great-grandaddy.”

And we’ve also got “appeal to popular vote” also on Heywood:

“As you know, it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of a great many people, past and present, that the most workable species definition centers around observed reproductive self-containment over time, under natural conditions.”

It continues to amaze me how many people think they can alter reality by changing the definitions of the words they use.

Oh, for those of you unfamilar with American football, just assume he got two yellow cards and a kick in the nuts.

Comment #138238

Posted by Anton Mates on October 9, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

Not having the technical know-how to put up such convenient references I give an address which was usefull: HOW I GOT FERTILE BUFFALO X HEREFORD BULLS (were they red-whiskered bulbuls?) by Rancher Burnett, www.ababeefalo.org/abi19.htm . Burnett is hands-on, somewhat reminiscent of Samuel Morse :”What things God hath wrought!”

Of course, as you continue to review the literature, or perhaps stumble upon this, you’ll see lots of examples of hybridization which occurred without any human help. After all, cow genes are currently spreading through wild bovids without the help of a secret army of artificial inseminators!

Bison won’t be crossing with skylarks or even horses, anytime soon, (even IN VITRO) which is scarcely comforting to the notion of a common great-great-grandaddy.

Need some help with those goalposts, Heywood? I might be able to find a tractor….

But in fact you’re right. Bison can cross with cows, but not with skylarks or (probably) horses. Likewise wolves can cross with coyotes and jackals, but not with sharks or tomato plants. It’s almost as if more closely-related species share a more recent common ancestor, and therefore tend to retain more of their original ability to interbreed, than more distantly-related species do! Now where have I heard that before….

Time is not a mechanism, remember.

But some mechanisms take time.

Pleased to see we aren’t continuing to do despite to the venerable science of Geology. Some palaeontologists have indeed jumped the gun in this area and have gone as far as speculating on common ancestry (but did they mean, genetic or “blood” ancestry?) but thankfully not too many are running around denying their own discipline by claiming unequivocal advanced organisms in the Pre-Cambrian.

Advanced organisms in the Pre-Cambrian is common knowledge now, Heywood. I know, it doesn’t feel that way when your personal library dates to 1901, but science has progressed since then.

Avast with the Geology-undermining verbiage, bio-freaks! WIKIPEDIA is WHACKEY-PEDIA if it countenances such outbreaks of excessive over-hypothesization.

Classic. That almost rivals PYGMIES + DWARFS.

Such as, One, Why did we get rid of our chimp-like genetic information but bless us all, why do we keep a vice-like grip on all our inheritable human defects?

We got rid of our chimp-like information? Funny, I’ve got five fingers and an opposable thumb. Don’t you? As for “all our inheritable human defects”…um, which defects are you talking about and why would you expect us to have gotten rid of them?

Random encounters with quantum particles, if it is a mechanism, could have killed the moon astronauts, had there been a cosmic radiation storm.

But there wasn’t, so it didn’t. What’s your point?

And advanced life is demonstrably not mutating for the better. Weeds, bugs, and microbes are the only ones improving genetically right now.

Really? Care to demonstrate such a demonstrable fact? While you’re at it, you might mention your criteria for “advanced,” because they obviously aren’t the same as a biologist’s. Biologists tend to give weeds and bugs quite a lot of respect….

I have another question - does anyone know if there is any discernable difference between the DNA of domestic goats and sheep?

Apparently.

Comment #138278

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 9, 2006 7:33 PM (e)

This is a response to Lenny Flunk

My, that certainly is clever beyond measure.

(snicker) (giggle)

Hey Doc, when you’re finished clogging up the Thumb with your incompetent posting errors (doctoral degree, my ass), I’ll point out to you that (1) Wells’s God is the same as yours, and (2) Denton thinks ID is a load of crap.

Oh, and I’m still waiting to hear from you (1) when AIG’s updated version of the Malleus Maleficarum is going to help us find all those witches hiding out there, and (2) whether or not you think women should be allowed to speak in church.

Comment #138279

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 9, 2006 7:39 PM (e)

After all, cow genes are currently spreading through wild bovids without the help of a secret army of artificial inseminators!

SHHHHH!

If too many people find out about that, I might lose my job!

Comment #138281

Posted by David B. Benson on October 9, 2006 8:06 PM (e)

Earlier there was a good suggestion for the PT moderators: Limiting the number of posts per thread per commenter per day.

I suggest changing this idea to one I have seen used, successfully, elsewhere: Not more than one comment per commenter in any 90 second interval.

Might help…

Comment #138283

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 9, 2006 8:15 PM (e)

“As for “all our inheritable human defects”…um, which defects are you talking about and why would you expect us to have gotten rid of them?”

Maybe PBH has actually learned something - last thread he first insisted that humans accumulated defects towards certain extinction.

Maybe he was thinking of when the creos becomes to many?!

Comment #138284

Posted by Anton Mates on October 9, 2006 8:28 PM (e)

David B. Benson wrote:

I suggest changing this idea to one I have seen used, successfully, elsewhere: Not more than one comment per commenter in any 90 second interval.

Might help…

That’d inconvenience me slightly, since I tend to compose replies offline and then post them all when I have a free moment; otherwise I lose track.

OTOH, if it stems the raging flood of semantic chaos that is “Dr.” “Michael” “Martin,” I will nobly sacrifice five extra minutes of my time.

Comment #138285

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 9, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

Oh, and hey Doc, what is this “traditional doctrine of creation” that DIs ays it wants to defend, and why does it want to defend it?

Comment #138287

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 9, 2006 8:53 PM (e)

I’m as annoyed by the multi-unreadable-indecipherable posts of some of our recent trolls as anyone, but–

–understandable as it is on, for example, PZ’s own blog, where he attracts certain personal hate-trolls–

–this is a group site, with a pretty dedicated bunch of steady troll-repellers available.

I think I’m against banning, post limits, post/time limits, etc., except in extreme cases where the offenders have been warned.

(In any event, as ineffectual and bumbling as Nurse Bettinke and her butterfly-net-guys seem to have been to date, there’s always the possibility that the Trollheim Sanatorium will eventually learn how to control its own.)

Comment #138288

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

Re “That’d inconvenience me slightly, since I tend to compose replies offline and then post them all when I have a free moment; “

Me too.

Course there’s already a timed interval before the next note is allowed, but I think it’s more on the order of half a minute, or thereabouts?

Henry

Comment #138326

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on October 9, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

I’m slightly more educated about sheep and goat DNA but why don’t some of these geneticists talk English? No, I can’t see where I moved the goalposts. If I quote from anything other than what some of these contributors seem to have made up between themselves, it’s either out of date, too recent to be reliable, or “shifting the goalposts”. Good to see that Anton admits there is such a thing as reproductive isolation in nature. Compensates for the despite he does to the published facts of the fossil record. The question I asked was of the actual mechanism that gets rid of the genes of the previous species whilst concurrently preserving the genes of the new one to which it gave birth. Go and re-read it, but I don’t think re-reading a question any number of times will help, unless there is a willingness to comprehend the simple gist of the matter in hand. Sure, it took some time to carve Mt. Rushmore. Unless someone got up there with some rock-cutting equipment, all the time in the world wouldn’t have carved the faces. What was the rock cutting equipment? Don’t say random mutations, unless you have either observational evidence that mutations are improving the genetic information in HIGHER animals, or you have a methematically based process in mind. Something real.

You know, I had a strange occurrence at my site? The Force could be out of balance. It’s a strange occurrence of a weird kind. Out of hyperspace this cryptic verse appeared. What could it mean? Intigued I am.

I’d like to be a bunny,
A’ hopping in the grass.
Forgive this mild calumny;
‘Tis thus the time I’d pass.

I’d nip a dandelion,
And rumble ‘mongst the weeds:
Resulting purturbations
Would scatter all the seeds.

I’d burrow through to China,
Then trim a marigold;
So when I’m not a miner,
I’ll be a gardener bold.

I’d leap o’er weedy patches,
And somersaults do three;
I’d open all the latches,
To lettuce patch entry.

A bane I’d be to farmers,
Who turn the loam so deep.
They’d chase me in pyjamas,
Bemoaning loss of sleep.

I’d wander ‘mongst the berries,
And gnaw on tubers stout.
And ignore silly queries,
Like, What’s this all about?

For bunnies will be bunnies;
‘Though roaming fields so wide,
Those cottontail alumnie’s
In burrows will reside.

Now here’s an even more off-beat occurrence. Fading into a slow-moving vision warp were some words: “Darth Rabot; his mark”. I got a distinct impression of a fading paw-print, possibly of a representative of the LEPORIDAE.

Weird, eh? Here’s more. Pictures of two adorable bunnikins time- warped themselves onto the bottom of the poem. You can verify the phenomenon at www.creationtheory.com . Are these two holograms actually Ken Hamster and Richard (Dawkins) Rabbit trying to get a message through, or is this actually Darth Rabo, his likeness? What, then, is the other robit? Do we need to name these bunnies, before the Force can settle? Can someone oblige? Concerned I am about these bunnies!

Comment #138336

Posted by Darth Robo on October 10, 2006 3:38 AM (e)

PBH:

“Intigued I am.”

You insult the great green master with your bad spelling and bad impression. :(

And before you ask, we doubt it is possible for leporids to mate with Panthera pardus. If any tried, Concerned I WOULD be about those bunnies.

Comment #138351

Posted by Anton Mates on October 10, 2006 6:33 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

No, I can’t see where I moved the goalposts. If I quote from anything other than what some of these contributors seem to have made up between themselves, it’s either out of date, too recent to be reliable, or “shifting the goalposts”.

Oh, Heywood. Creationists under fire have been retreating to “But elephants can’t make babies with rosebushes!” for over a century now. Why deny your respect for tradition?

Good to see that Anton admits there is such a thing as reproductive isolation in nature.

You might be amazed, but this is actually a well-known fact in modern biology. And in non-modern biology, in fact. There was this book, written about 150 years ago, called “The Origin of Species”–not, you’ll notice, “The Nonexistence of Species”–and its author points out:

“It is certain, on the one hand, that the sterility of various species when crossed is so different in degree and graduates away so insensibly, and, on the other hand, that the fertility of pure species is so easily affected by various circumstances, that for all practical purposes it is most difficult to say where perfect fertility ends and sterility begins. “

Looks like you’ve almost caught up to him!

Compensates for the despite he does to the published facts of the fossil record.

*Snort*. Yeah, it’s terribly disrepectful to said published facts to actually cite them and stuff.

The question I asked was of the actual mechanism that gets rid of the genes of the previous species whilst concurrently preserving the genes of the new one to which it gave birth.

Er, no, that’s not what you asked, because you were talking about chimps and humans, and neither is a “previous species” to the other.

Go and re-read it, but I don’t think re-reading a question any number of times will help, unless there is a willingness to comprehend the simple gist of the matter in hand.

I don’t think re-reading that question any number of times would help under any circumstances. “Preserving” the genes of the new species? Why would genes of a new species need to be “preserved” when they’re, um, new?

Sure, it took some time to carve Mt. Rushmore. Unless someone got up there with some rock-cutting equipment, all the time in the world wouldn’t have carved the faces.

It worked for the Old Man of the Mountain.

But you know, you’re absolutely right. If there was an animal running around with four heads that looked like famous American presidents, and on which each head appeared sometime after the election of the corresponding president, we’d be seriously thinking about whether human engineering was responsible.

Got one?

What was the rock cutting equipment? Don’t say random mutations, unless you have either observational evidence that mutations are improving the genetic information in HIGHER animals,

Yes. Next!

Oh, but if you have evidence that “HIGHER animals” are somehow incapable of experiencing beneficial mutations, whereas “weeds and bugs and microbes” are not, please blow modern science out of the water by providing it. (Hint: “Because of math and logic, so there,” and “I’m all out of arguments, so here’s a poem” do not constitute evidence.)

or you have a methematically based process in mind. Something real.

Comment #138352

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 10, 2006 6:54 AM (e)

I’m slightly more educated about sheep and goat DNA

been trying to create some personal sheep/human hybrids have you?

Comment #138360

Posted by PBH on October 10, 2006 7:31 AM (e)

That’s dashed amusing. Anytime you wish to contribute at www.creationtheory.com, Robo, be my guest. Where did you get that style.

Comment #138362

Posted by Darth Robo on October 10, 2006 7:50 AM (e)

“That’s dashed amusing. Anytime you wish to contribute at www.creationtheory.com, Robo, be my guest.”

It IS a joke after all. :-)

“Where did you get that style.”

From Yoda. The Jedi Master who instructed me. ;)

Comment #138368

Posted by Raging Bee on October 10, 2006 8:41 AM (e)

PBH: It’s also “the opinion of a great many people, past and present,” that the Jews are conspiring to take over the world, and regularly eat Christian babies at Passover or some such. Why are such opinions relevant to scientific issues?

Or are you such a weakling yourself that your thought processes can be bowled over by sheer numbers?

Comment #138371

Posted by Richard Simons on October 10, 2006 8:51 AM (e)

The question I asked was of the actual mechanism that gets rid of the genes of the previous species whilst concurrently preserving the genes of the new one to which it gave birth.

PBH: This one sentence is a dead giveaway that the whole concept of evolution has completely evaded your grasp. I suggest you read (and think about) some basic biology texts.

Comment #138495

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 10, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

This one sentence is a dead giveaway that the whole concept of evolution has completely evaded your grasp.

No surprise there — in 25 years of creationist-fighting. I’ve never met a single person who both rejects evolution AND UNDERSTANDS IT.

Not a one.

But then, given Heywood’s incoherent blithering, it’s awfully hard to tell WHAT he understands. (shrug)