Steve Reuland posted Entry 3240 on July 13, 2007 01:59 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3229

Today’s Denver Post and Colorado Daily have articles on the threats made to the CU Boulder faculty. The perpetrator has been identified as one Michael Korn, a former Messianic Jew who has converted to Christianity. And he’s been up to this for awhile it seems.

As the Post reports, Korn has not just been targeting evolutionary biology faculty, he’s appealed, so to speak, to those higher up in the academic food chain:

CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the individual appeared to be “casting a wide net” among university officials, sending e-mails to Peterson, the vice chancellor for undergraduate education, the head of the ecology and evolutionary biology department and several other faculty members. Hilliard said Peterson is taking the messages seriously.

“He’s concerned,” Hilliard said. “Our faculty cannot work and conduct research in a climate of fear.”

CU police detectives began investigating the threats, which claim to be from a religious group and which criticize the professors for backing evolution, in the past week. On Monday morning, faculty members found packages of documents slipped under lab doors.

Although the letters and material claim to represent an entire group, Korn is at this point the only known perp. According to investigators, the messages that were received were very similar, if not identical, to the ones that Matt Young posted two days ago:

Purported excerpts of the messages have appeared online at a site called The Panda’s Thumb, which is devoted to critiquing “the claims of the antievolution movement.” Hilliard said the posted messages are “consistent” with those sent to CU professors but couldn’t confirm whether they are word-for- word copies.

In the messages, the individual cites plans to file legal charges against the professors, compares the professors to child molesters and mentions a pastor’s message about killing “the enemies of Christian society.”

The Daily highlights some of Korn’s antics:

Last weekend more than a dozen envelopes bearing the image of skull and crossbones and containing letters threatening the lives of CU-Boulder evolutionary biology professors were slipped under the doors of CU-Boulder buildings….

Several sources say Korn has distributed flyers on campus and has barged into offices of biology professors and administrators in the past year.

But in recent days the threatening e-mails and letters have occurred with increasing frequency and intensity.

On Friday an e-mail sent to CU-Boulder’s evolutionary biology department bore the subject line “a final CU Boulder EBIO appeal” and repeated the line “every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.”

That line, as well as “they must go,” have been repeated in a number of communiqués, said a source.

He gets style points for the skull and crossbones, but barging into people’s offices is a little uncouth.

The anti-evolutionary communication began one year ago, when someone left a book in the campus mailbox of Jeffry Mitton, chair of CU-Boulder’s Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department.

Mitton said the book was entitled “The Evolution Fact Book.” (An internet search revealed Korn is the author of the book.)

Mitton said the book didn’t worry him.

“It was just one of these sorts of things that is put out by creationists just declaring that there is no evolution,” Mitton said. It contained no threats.

Last fall, however, Mitton started receiving e-mails and pamphlets.

“Those became much more personal,” he said. “It referred to specific biologists, but not by name.”

Korn’s tirades appear to be a slightly amped up version of the inflammatory rhetoric that the Discovery Institute publishes on a regular basis. All the familiar tropes are there: Claiming to have scientific proof of evolution’s demise, blaming evolution for all the problems of the world, accusing scientists of corrupting society, accusing scientists of elitism, etc. Thus far the DI’s only reaction has been to insinuate that the CU professors lied to the police about the whole affair, and to “suspect that if these guys [the perps] are ever caught, they won’t turn out be creationists, or even very religious people”. That was a rather ridiculous claim to begin with (who else, but a creationist, would even have a motive?) but now that the perpetrator has been identified, and is quite clearly a creationist, I’m sure we’ll be seeing a heartfelt retraction and apology. Or perhaps the DI will go with their usual shtick and accuse the evil Darwinists of attacking Korn’s “academic freedom”. We’ll see.

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.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #187628

Posted by Andrea J on July 13, 2007 12:34 PM (e)

My fiance was also targeted by this man, after his presentation at a popularly oriented paleontology conference. Korn sent out a mass e-mail to conference presenters, to which my fiance responded. I don’t have a copy of any of the messages, but he accused Darwinists of ‘child molestation,’ and, when my fiance responded, replied to him with a very nasty email which was forwarded to all conference participants.

I mention it because my fiance is an undergraduate at CU Boulder, and brought up his harassment with his advisor in the geology department, who had, I believe, considered taking legal action with CU legal services. CU has been aware of this man and hi hateful rhetoric, at the very least since March, and with his past history, I am quite frankly astonished at the Campus Police’s decision not to ban anyone from campus.

Comment #187632

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 13, 2007 1:01 PM (e)

I know that showing Crowther and the DI to be incompetent at prediction is hardly newsworthy, but it’s worth repeating what Crowther wrote at the DI’s site about the “perpetrators”:

I suspect that if these guys are ever caught, they won’t turn out be creationists, or even very religious people.

They’re as good as sociology as they are at biology.

Glen Davidson
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic

Comment #187635

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 13, 2007 1:05 PM (e)

I guess ID’s application to forensics was broken this week.

Comment #187642

Posted by mikepmarkey on July 13, 2007 1:38 PM (e)

“a former Messianic Jew who has converted to Christianity”

I think maybe the reporter got mixed up on terms. A Messianic Jew is one who has converted to Christianity. Probably intended to mean “a former Jew who converted to Christianity”. But, maybe Korn has been disowned by the other Messianic Jews. I’d rather not subject myself to his webpage long enough to figure that one out.

Comment #187644

Posted by George Cauldron on July 13, 2007 1:39 PM (e)

I suspect that if these guys are ever caught, they won’t turn out be creationists, or even very religious people.

It’s true: ID can’t make predictions.

Comment #187646

Posted by Eamon Knight on July 13, 2007 1:39 PM (e)

a former Messianic Jew who has converted to Christianity

Nit: not “former”. AFAIK a “Messianic Jew” is by definition a Jew who has converted to Christianity, ie. believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. IIRC, MJs are theologically Protestant fundamentalist while retaining a Jewish praxis (eg. kosher, Jewish holidays).

Comment #187647

Posted by tacitus on July 13, 2007 1:47 PM (e)

I don’t have a copy of any of the messages, but he accused Darwinists of ‘child molestation,’

You see this type of rhetoric all the time, and not just from creationists. If you spend any time on Christian message boards frequented by fundamentalists you will see plenty of examples of the same vitriol directed at liberals of any kind, usually because they are pro-choice. There are a few who frequent an otherwise fairly well moderated Christian message board who will decry any well reasoned argument from a liberal purely because they believe that any opinion from someone who is not anti-abortion on any subject is worthless, because they are murderers and in the thrall of Satan.

There really is no reasoning with this type of person.

Comment #187648

Posted by Steve Reuland on July 13, 2007 1:55 PM (e)

I think maybe the reporter got mixed up on terms. A Messianic Jew is one who has converted to Christianity. Probably intended to mean “a former Jew who converted to Christianity”.

From what I understand, Messianic Jews are not the same as Christians. I don’t know what the difference is exactly, but the guy claims to have been baptized which makes him a full-fledged Christian. Or something.

Comment #187656

Posted by CJO on July 13, 2007 2:33 PM (e)

AFAIK, a “Messianic Jew” is a Jewish person who believes the messiah has come. Jesus is a popular choice (a la Jews for Jesus –members of which explicitly deny being “Christian”) but several rabbis have applied for the job (Job?) as well.

Comment #187660

Posted by Mr_Christopher on July 13, 2007 2:42 PM (e)

Does the DI or other creationist organizations peddle this “The Evolution Fact Book”? That would be a laff riot.

Chris

Comment #187664

Posted by Mr_Christopher on July 13, 2007 2:52 PM (e)

The guy’s web site is pretty revealing. He’s crazy. 9-11 was an “inside job” and Bush pulled the strings. Who knew?

He’s a science denier, views himself as a persecuted victim, and has a marginal grasp on reality. All he needs to do now is deny the HIV-AIDs link and he’ll become a Discovery Institute Fellow.

Nice.

Maybe Dimsbki could use him as one of his UD lapdogs.

Comment #187665

Posted by Coin on July 13, 2007 2:59 PM (e)

The fiance of a friend of mine also was one of this guy’s targets, and the letter she got was completely different from any of the ones I’ve seen quoted elsewhere. Did *every* target get personalized rants? The amount of time and effort this guy must have gone into writing all of these is starting to sound enormous.

It’s like one of those USENET flooding trolls somehow broke its chains and escaped into the real world or something.

Comment #187666

Posted by Paul Burnett on July 13, 2007 3:02 PM (e)

I wonder if the religious fanatic in Boulder is connected with the religious fanatics in Washington DC yesterday: “The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ.” - http://www.operationsaveamerica.org.

Comment #187667

Posted by Jason P on July 13, 2007 3:05 PM (e)

Apparently a number of individual harassment charges may be pressed by the county government, but CU is only investigating the possibility of banning Mr. Korn from campus.

Additionally, because Korn was sending expensive copies of Harun Yahya’s Atlas of Creation to these professors, it has been suggested that he is receiving outside funding.

Updates as I get ‘em.

Comment #187668

Posted by Gary Hurd on July 13, 2007 3:10 PM (e)

I find that the difference between the near hysteria over the Colorado harassment and the PT denial of actual professional and physical harm caused to Paul Mirecki fascinating. Disgusting, but fascinating.

Comment #187674

Posted by Vyoma on July 13, 2007 3:35 PM (e)

It seems pretty clear to me from the descriptions of this Korn-hole’s antics that he’s mentally ill… but we’re talking about creationist fundamentalists here. Finding mental illness in that crowd is about as difficult as finding Chinese-manufactured goods at a Wal-mart.

Comment #187675

Posted by David Fickett-Wilbar on July 13, 2007 3:37 PM (e)

Finally something that falls into my field! A “Messianic Jew” is one who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, while still holding themselves to be a Jew, and worshiping in an essentially Jewish manner. A “Messianic Jew who has converted to Christianity” is one who has decided to give up the charade and admit that they’ve been a Christian all along.

Comment #187691

Posted by Steve Reuland on July 13, 2007 4:48 PM (e)

Gary Hurd wrote:

I find that the difference between the near hysteria over the Colorado harassment and the PT denial of actual professional and physical harm caused to Paul Mirecki fascinating. Disgusting, but fascinating.

What hysteria? I don’t see any hysteria here.

The obvious difference between this case and the Mirecki case is that here we know who the perp was and what his motives were. That was not true with Mirecki.

I agree that our reporting of the Mirecki case could have been handled much better, but it was hamstrung by a lot of behind the scenes bickering which you, Gary, were a prime contributor to.

Comment #187694

Posted by Jason P on July 13, 2007 5:07 PM (e)

The issue is not whether this man is mentally ill. The issue is that he poses a possible threat to the faculty and students of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado. If, as it appears, the university administration is not taking sufficient measures to protect faculty and students from Mr. Korn, this is a problem, and calls into question several decisions in recent years by the administration, most recently the arrest of a student for harmless social activism following the VT shootings, but also systematic tolerance of religious-motivated incidents on campus and systematic intolerance of certain idealogical perspectives.

CU has been aware of this man for several years now, and they’ve been aware of his specific antics, as Andrea stated earlier, since March. The fact that they have done absolutely nothing as of yet, and the fact that they are not seriously pursuing any sort of legal action in this incident is something that I find extremely worrisome.

Comment #187706

Posted by Popper's Ghost on July 13, 2007 5:46 PM (e)

He’s crazy. 9-11 was an “inside job” and Bush pulled the strings.

Given how widespread that belief is, it’s not much of an indicator.

Only 10% of Americans believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK. I guess they haven’t read Vincent Bugliosi’s book (but who can blame them at over 1600 pages, plus CD).

Comment #187708

Posted by David B. Benson on July 13, 2007 5:50 PM (e)

9/11 being an inside job is certainly a indication of a lack of rationality and understanding of natural causes.

I think of that as being a form of being mentally crippled, which might be considered a minor form of mental illness…

Comment #187717

Posted by Popper's Ghost on July 13, 2007 6:35 PM (e)

9/11 being an inside job is certainly a indication of a lack of rationality and understanding of natural causes.

Unless you mean it tautologically, 9/11 was not due to “natural causes”.

As with the Kennedy assassination, there’s a lot of false information floating around, much of it intentionally fabricated and much of it due to sincere misunderstandings and bad inferences. And that gets mixed up with (to some degree justified) paranoia, a belief (not entirely unjustified) that some people can get away with just about anything, a will to believe … sure it’s irrational, but all human beings are irrational to some degree or another. I know a lot of otherwise rational people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies (aside from the one concocted by Mohammed Atta et. al.), just as I know a lot of otherwise rational people who believe in JFK conspiracies (I was one for 30 years, until large amounts of evidence became available on the internet), just as I know a lot of rational people who believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, that even if there weren’t, going to war was a good thing despite Bush leading it, that Bush in 2000 was a “compassionate conservative” …. 9/11 conspiracies may seem a lot less plausible to most people, but it depends on just which false information you have been exposed to and what you’re ignorant about. And that’s what a lot of it amounts to – ignorance, not mental illness.

Comment #187727

Posted by David B. Benson on July 13, 2007 7:25 PM (e)

Popper’s Ghost — It depends upon what one means by natural causes. Those claiming an inside job simply fail to understand how quarter mile tall skyscrapers, both damaged and on fire, could possibly fall down like that without explosives. Even when it is explained to them in the simplest of terms. It is those people I find irrational, and the postings (elsewhere) of some of them certainly appear to sufficiently disordered as to suggest more extreme mental illness.

I’ll agree ignorance has something to do with it initially. But after its been explained to them?

And your personal examples do not convince me, since it seems to me, that while you can often post well, you too often descend to name calling. That I take as irrational on your part, under the assumption you want to change someones mind. But perhaps you were only ignorant of that point up until now…

So you don’t appear that mentally well to me…

Comment #187733

Posted by raven on July 13, 2007 7:55 PM (e)

There isn’t much doubt he is unbalanced.

The question is, “is he dangerous”?

The escalation in symptoms and threats over time is a bad sign. Simple extrapolation, plot probability of going homicidal versus time. Psychs. look at this as one of the few ways to determine if someone is dangerous. Past history is important too but we don’t have access to this.

The cops need to haul him in, have him evaluated, explain what the laws are and how he has broken them at the least. Harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, and threats are all crimes in most jurisdictions.

It is odd that CU is apparently doing nothing if the reports circulating are accurate. If Seung Cho taught us anything, it is not to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are acting out and escalating.

One thing for sure. If the Xian jihadi gets violent, the admin. at CU, Boulder will have one hell of a lot of ‘splaining to do. They will have time while they fill out their unemployment forms.

Comment #187735

Posted by raven on July 13, 2007 8:00 PM (e)

The other thing CU should do is upgrade the security around the biology building. Security cameras at the entrances and parking lots. More frequent patrols by campus security. Maybe a permanent guard stationed somewhere.

They have a lot of responsibility for the safety of students, staff, and faculty. People are watching, this is not the type of situations any admin. wants to screw up.

Comment #187737

Posted by Popper' Ghost on July 13, 2007 8:08 PM (e)

So you don’t appear that mentally well to me…

I’ll put my mental stability, rationality, and any other relevant quality up against yours any day.

Comment #187750

Posted by Sir_Toejam on July 13, 2007 10:37 PM (e)

Thus far the DI’s only reaction has been to insinuate that the CU professors lied to the police about the whole affair,

they also suggested revisiting what happened to Mirecki.

not a bad idea, considering that there were a lot of skeptics here on the thumb, too.

I still think Gary Hurd was closer to reality there than many of the other contributers at the time.

Comment #187793

Posted by C.W. on July 14, 2007 3:30 AM (e)

A nutcase making vague threats is not “terrorism”. Please stop saying that. It’s embarrassing.

Comment #187800

Posted by ben on July 14, 2007 5:21 AM (e)

A nutcase making vague threats is not “terrorism”. Please stop saying that. It’s embarrassing.

Every good pedant should have a dictionary.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Comment #187801

Posted by C.W. on July 14, 2007 6:35 AM (e)

No ben, don’t be silly. A pedant would start an argument wether the “and” in your quote is an inclusive or an exclusive conjunction. A reasonable person would agree that calling something terrorism when it’s obviously not is the kind of flammable rethoric that should be avoided (for a number of reasons).

Comment #187807

Posted by raven on July 14, 2007 8:04 AM (e)

It is terrorism plain and simple. Falls within any definition of terrorism.

Being crazy (if he is) is what he is and why he may be doing it.

Terrorism is the activity being carried out.

These are two entirely separate issues.

Comment #187812

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on July 14, 2007 8:58 AM (e)

I guess definitions of terrorism are somewhat subjective, but if the reasoning is that the guy is just a lone crank, and not an organization like the Red Brigades or the Animal Liberation Front, then one would have to exclude bona fide terrorists like the Unabomber, which clearly makes no sense. If instead the reason for the exclusion is that Mr. Korn has (to our knowledge) yet to hurt anyone, then it’s a meaningless distinction, and a dangerous one.

This doesn’t mean that the guy deserves the same treatment as a terrorist killer, but that terrorism has many forms, and in my opinion, issuing credible, repeated threats to ideological opponents with the intent to intimidate them and disrupt their activities falls under the category.

Comment #187817

Posted by ben on July 14, 2007 9:51 AM (e)

I was being the pedant, by making a point using only a dictionary citation. I’m going to do it again:

vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns]-noun
…..
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

Which satisifes both sides of that conjunction, if one takes it to be inclusive.

Comment #187824

Posted by J. Biggs on July 14, 2007 11:18 AM (e)

A nutcase making vague threats is not “terrorism”. Please stop saying that. It’s embarrassing.

It may not necessarily be “terrorism” in a broad sense, but legally what Mr. Korn did is referred to as making terroristic threats. Making terroristic threats is still a type of terrorism and should be taken seriously in any case. Surely you aren’t suggesting that Mr. Korn is not dangerous or that the CU and the local police shouldn’t act to prevent the escalation of this irrational and illegal behavior.

Comment #187832

Posted by Jesse Johnson on July 14, 2007 12:11 PM (e)

Yeah, this Korn fella’s website really makes it look like he’s nuttier than Chinese Chicken Salad. I like how his name is spelled with a ‘K’ like the band Korn. They aren’t exactly what I’d call Christian music, despite the fact that their tours are often called “The Family Values Tour.” The irony here is delicious.

Comment #187844

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on July 14, 2007 1:55 PM (e)

then one would have to exclude bona fide terrorists like the Unabomber, which clearly makes no sense.

Hmm. I have always envisioned terrorism as larger scale organized violence and threats in order to coerce, as in “the maffia terrorized the store owners”.

To water down the concept the same way that the concept of “war” is now meaningless (not every declaration of “war” gets the nations to declare a state of war) seems dangerous.

I prefer to call these violent nutcases that among other things uses terrorism. Nutcases needs treatment of another kind than normal criminals and less nutty terrorists. For one thing, normal terrorists works in cells - nutcases can immediately be pulled in for preventive incarceration.

Comment #187848

Posted by raven on July 14, 2007 2:24 PM (e)

It is the Jihadi troll from Kansas. Seeing as how your co-cultists have published their to murder lists, why don’t you publish yours? Since you are not very bright or sane, in the likely event you can’t write a coherent thought, just copy someone elses. Pat Robertson has dibs on Hugo Chavez, that one is off the table.

Pat Robertson: wikipedia
Hugo Chávez“ I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.

We will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it.
[Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts My note. Terry’s sympathizers have, in fact, murdered more than a few health care workers.

“Pastor Jerry Gibson spoke at Doug Whites New Day Covenant Church in Boulder.

He said that every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.

bcseweb.org Rushdooney:
Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population.

We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens.

Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority: Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realise that in such a case as
….cut for length
Rev. William Einwechter, “Modern Issues in Biblical Perspective: Stoning Disobedient Children”, The Chalcedon Report, January 1999

When The Hate Comes From ‘Churches’
ASHLAND, Ore. - A recent spate of crimes points up a growing connection between hateful actions and organizations calling themselves churches.
Two brothers from northern California reportedly linked to such a group were charged this week with the killing of two gay men near Redding. Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams also are suspects in the firebombing of three synagogues in the Sacramento area last month.

According to personal acquaintances as well as law enforcement officials, the Williams brothers were involved in Christian Identity, a religion that holds Jews and nonwhites to be subhuman and is closely tied to the Aryan Nations white-supremacist group based in northern Idaho.

Meanwhile, officials are investigating the links between Benjamin Smith and the World Church of the Creator. Over Independence Day weekend in Illinois and Indiana, Smith shot Asians, Jews, and an African-American (killing two and injuring nine) before killing himself.

Fundie cultists frequently publish lists of groups they plan to or would like to kill. From above quotes, we have MDs, “enemies of christian society” (whoever they are), heresy etc., disobedient children but only by stoning, gays, Jews, nonwhites, the topic of this thread-scientists and others.

If the truth is ugly, way it goes. By their words, ye shall know them, The Book.

To make things worse, they occasionally do murder people.

This doesn’t happen with mainstream christian denominations that I know of. Our church always talked about world peace and eliminating poverty. If you would have suggested drawing up a list of groups to hate and kill and arms and ammmunition to buy, well, it would be inconceivable.

Comment #187866

Posted by J. Biggs on July 14, 2007 4:04 PM (e)

The articles to[sic] not say that Korn is the perpetrator, they say that unamed[sic] sources do[sic].

Quit lying.

Your understanding of journalism astounds. Journalists typically use either named or unnamed sources to establish what was done, by whom, when and how. The methods journalists use are not always accurate but in this case it is well established through multiple sources, including several who have posted on this blog, that Mr. Korn is the perpetrator in question.

And how come its[sic] ok for Dawkins and Dennet to claim child abuse?

It is my understanding that Dawkins et. al. only assert that teaching creationism is a mild form of psychological abuse, they do not by any means equate creationists with child molesters as Mr. Korn does; Neither do they condone the use of violence or murder to enforce their points of view. Rationality is the essential difference between those whom you disparage and this nut-job.

Comment #187867

Posted by Jesse Johnson on July 14, 2007 4:15 PM (e)

Terrorism is the unlawful use, or threat, of force against civilians to accomplish a political or ideological goal. Delivering those letters was a terrorist act. A word of advice for those who see this blog as an attack on Christianity: Shake the nuts from the tree. They just make you look bad. It makes you look even worse when you try to use incorrect semantics to weasel around what he’s doing.

Comment #187876

Posted by Joe on July 14, 2007 6:41 PM (e)

These guys are weird. Why do men have to do God’s work? Isn’t he powerful enough to do it on his own?

Let’s take a look at religious belief. Every society that we know of has had a spiritual orientation. Most every culture has such beliefs, and the individuals in the societies believe in them honestly.

People born in India almost always grow up to be Hindu. Those born in Tibet almost always become Buddhist. People born in Tel Aviv grow up Jewish, and those in Iran become Muslim. But remember that had they been born in Persia around 500 A.D., they would have believed in Zarathustra, not Mohammed. And in 0 A.D., they believed in Mithra.

People born in Italy usually become Roman Catholic, and those in Greece become Greek Orthodox. But if they had been born in Greece 3,000 years ago, they would have believed in Zeus. And in Rome 3000 years ago, people believed in Jupiter.

In Central America and Mexico, a person born in 1400 AD would have believed in The Aztec gods, but today they are Catholics. Could that be because the Spaniards who over-ran their country were Catholic?

In the United States, there is more variation, but similar patterns occur. In the south, there is a strong likelihood of children growing up in a fundamentalist church. Those born in Utah are much more likely to belong to the Mormon Church than someone born in a small town in Georgia.

Looking at these patterns of belief, we must conclude that the religion you believe in is the result of your time and place of birth. Had you been born in a different part of the world, you would likely have different beliefs.

No matter where a person is born, and hence the religion they believe in, they believe their religion is the true one, and they live their lives by its precepts. Thus, in India, when her husband dies, the wife will throw herself on the funeral pyre and be burned alive. She does this of her own free will.

In Muslim countries, women who themselves have suffered “female circumcision”, will have their daughters similarly mutilated. Jews will have their sons circumcised without anesthesia. Mormon doctrine still supports polygamy, though it is not part of the official policy.

The doctrine of many Christian churches supports the idea of war, even though Jesus spoke of forgiveness and compassion. [Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.”]

Perhaps there is room for us to be tolerant of those who have different beliefs than we do, since it is just the accident of our time of birth and our place of birth that gives us our “righteous” beliefs.

Comment #187892

Posted by George Cauldron on July 14, 2007 9:12 PM (e)

Hey raven, how do you define terrorism?

Would you include putting people in Gulags, re-eduation camps, and the like until they renounced their beliefs as terrorism?

And would you like to kiss my ass?

Why do you seem to think that Jesus wants you to lie for your faith?

The articles to not say that Korn is the perpetrator, they say that unamed sources do.

Is this your way of claiming that the perpetrator won’t be a Christian?

Don’t hold your breath.

You might also work on finding better heroes.

Comment #187918

Posted by Admin on July 15, 2007 6:31 AM (e)

Rule 6 violators have had their comments unpublished.

Comment #187920

Posted by Frank J on July 15, 2007 6:58 AM (e)

J. Biggs wrote:

It may not necessarily be “terrorism” in a broad sense, but legally what Mr. Korn did is referred to as making terroristic threats. Making terroristic threats is still a type of terrorism and should be taken seriously in any case.

As I learned from being on a jury last year, “terroristic threats” is a much milder charge than what we normally think of “terrorism.” In fact, thoughts of 9/11 and “terrorism” caused us to deliberate far longer than we needed to.

Not to downplay the seriousness of it though. And, contrary to the wishful thinking of anti-evolution activists, I’d be just as outraged if it were an “evolutionist” making “terroristic threats” to anti-evolutionists.

Comment #187925

Posted by Frank J on July 15, 2007 7:25 AM (e)

Joe wrote:

These guys are weird. Why do men have to do God’s work? Isn’t he powerful enough to do it on his own?

I can’t put my finger on it, especially since some of the most vocal defenders of evolution and critics of ID/Creationism are devout Christians, but somewhere there’s a line that gets crossed, whereby the anthropomorphization of God becomes very unhealthy. That always seems to be the basis on the obsessive need to attack evolution (and invariably personify it as “Darwinism”). For these people, promoting doubt about evolution is always, and increasignly, more urgent than developing an alternate theory (and backing up their pathetic claims of being scientific).

I don’t know about the rest of you, but if Korn were a regular Jew, even Orthodox, I would have been a lot more surprised. Yes, I know that many of them are creationists too, but there’s something about “Messianic” that just “fits” the character of someone with such a rabid distaste for evolution.

While many people like to call ID “Creationism Lite,” I see it as even more passionate than classic creationism about equating the methods of the unnamed, unembodied, possibly deceased designer with that of humans.

Comment #187928

Posted by Dr Bruce, Woolloomooloo Philosphy Dept. on July 15, 2007 8:19 AM (e)

There is no rule 6.

Comment #187929

Posted by David Stanton on July 15, 2007 8:35 AM (e)

Joe wrote:

“Perhaps there is room for us to be tolerant of those who have different beliefs than we do, since it is just the accident of our time of birth and our place of birth that gives us our “righteous” beliefs.”

Thanks for the excellent history of world religions. Given these observations, there are a few questions that could be asked:

1) Why is time and place of birth so important in determining beliefs?

2) How many of these religions can be true?

3) Assuming that one religion can be true, which religion is the one true religion and why can’t they convince anyone else?

4) What do all these religions have in common?

5) Why does almost everyone feel such a strong need to have a religion?

6) Why don’t scientists have these problems with scientific theories?

Comment #187935

Posted by Frank J on July 15, 2007 9:08 AM (e)

David Stanton,

My 2c (partly tongue-in-cheek):

1) Why is time and place of birth so important in determining beliefs?

I think he means that all people living long ago, and many today, can’t really be faulted for getting natural history wrong. Of course, the ~50% who believe in astrology have a different meaning in mind.

2) How many of these religions can be true?

At most one of course.

3) Assuming that one religion can be true, which religion is the one true religion and why can’t they convince anyone else?

It’s Lenny’s pizza delivery boy’s religion, and I guess he can’t convince everyone because not everyone likes pizza.

4) What do all these religions have in common?

An annoying habit whereby, whenever they take issue with science, they conveniently overlook the existence of other religions, and their conflicts with them.

5) Why does almost everyone feel such a strong need to have a religion?

I read that, ironically, natural selection is the culprit. If so, and if in the age of science it’s no longer an advantage, it could take 1000s of generations before it goes away. Unless some religious fanatic makes our species extinct first.

6) Why don’t scientists have these problems with scientific theories?

Because their claims are independently verifiable of course.

Comment #187954

Posted by Paul Burnett on July 15, 2007 1:28 PM (e)

I cannot let Joe’s Comment #187876 pass without comment. Joe said:

“In Muslim countries, women who themselves have suffered “female circumcision”, will have their daughters similarly mutilated. Jews will have their sons circumcised without anesthesia.”

The two kinds of “circumcision” are not at all similar, and calling female genital mutilation (FGM) “female circumcision” is a worse lie than calling creationism “intelligent design.” “Circumcision” means “cutting around,” but the common practice in Muslim countries is not cutting around but cutting OFF the clitoris, clitoral hood and labia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutt….

Comment #187962

Posted by William E Emba on July 15, 2007 2:15 PM (e)

Joe wrote:

Jews will have their sons circumcised without anesthesia.

Both topical anesthesia and wine are used. I’ve seen dozens of traditional Jewish circumcisions, and I’ve come to one general conclusion. 8-day old babies will cry or not cry for pretty much anything, and their crying correlates poorly with the 5-10 seconds when the cut takes place. Some will wail when picked up, passed to another adult, or when their diaper is removed. Some cry on and on afterwards, some stop instantly. An observer standing back from the front who did not know the spoken Hebrew identifying the various stages of the ceremony would have absolutely no way of telling when the cut happened.

I have never observed a non-traditional (ie, non-kosher) circumcision, so I cannot comment on them.

Comment #187977

Posted by Vyoma on July 15, 2007 4:09 PM (e)

Paul Burnett wrote:

The two kinds of “circumcision” are not at all similar, and calling female genital mutilation (FGM) “female circumcision” is a worse lie than calling creationism “intelligent design.” “Circumcision” means “cutting around,” but the common practice in Muslim countries is not cutting around but cutting OFF the clitoris, clitoral hood and labia.

It should also be pointed out that FGM is not a practice advocated, or even mentioned, anywhere in the religious texts of Islam. It went on in some locales where Islam later took hold and was continued and, just as Christianity adopted certain non-Christian festivals and practices, so too did the local Muslims.

My wife, who runs The Female Genital Cutting and Education Networking Project, has spent the better part of the last 20 years involved in this issue, particularly in north and eastern Africa, and one of the biggest obstacles she faces in working with refugees who come to the US from those regions is in convincing them precisely that it isn’t a violation of Islamic law to allow one’s daughter to remain intact (not to mention dispelling folkish notions that a clitoris can grow into a penis if left in situ, etc).

She was standing right behind me as I read through this thread, so I thought it best to put the word out there on her behalf lest I get whacked upside the head by the erstwhile medical anthropologist. ;)

Comment #188051

Posted by Justin Moretti on July 16, 2007 2:20 AM (e)

In my mind this Korn guy is, by his actions, a terrorist. In that case, he should be incarcerated or, depending on one’s preferences, shot.

He should also be made to divulge whether he is working alone, or with others. Because if he is not alone, then that’s definitely terrorism in the organized group sense.

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if he is caught and made to divulge what he knows.

I don’t know exactly what these creatures are, but everything I ever believed and almost everything I was taught when I was a practising Christian tells me that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Christ.

Comment #188084

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on July 16, 2007 7:20 AM (e)

Blair wrote:

Just another reason why no atheist is fit for political office.

Confusing possible death threats for differences in opinion? Extrapolating from a sample of one?

Ridiculous.

Comment #188102

Posted by Mike Z on July 16, 2007 9:09 AM (e)

Yes, and apparently the self-proclaimed religious types currently in office treat all suspected terrorists with great respect. Good thing their religious beliefs are keeping their actions in check.

Justin’s suggestions seem excessive to me, but Blair’s reply is just silly and indicates that he may not be paying very close attention.

Comment #188120

Posted by J. Biggs on July 16, 2007 10:55 AM (e)

Frank J wrote:

Not to downplay the seriousness of it though. And, contrary to the wishful thinking of anti-evolution activists, I’d be just as outraged if it were an “evolutionist” making “terroristic threats” to anti-evolutionists.

I couldn’t agree more. The very least that should be done is a restraining order keeping Mr. Korn off the CU campus. IMO, Mr. Korn should also be charged and if he is capable of reason and pleas out his case, probation and anger management would probably suffice as a fair punishment. No one was actually physically harmed but Mr. Korn’s threats of physical harm are still unacceptable. I would, as you, suggest a similar punishment for any “Darwinist” making similar overtures.

Dr. Bruce… wrote:

There is no rule 6.

I beg to differ, it is the rule disallowing posting under multiple identities. If you don’t believe me go to the comment integrity section on the main page.

Justin Moretti wrote:

In my mind this Korn guy is, by his actions, a terrorist. In that case, he should be incarcerated or, depending on one’s preferences, shot.

Mr. Korn made terroristic threats and as FrankJ pointed out, it is considered a lesser crime than acts of terrorism. Incarceration may be warranted depending on how Mr. Korn proceeds from here. Your comment about having Korn shot makes you sound unreasonable, however, I will assume that you are just joking.

He should also be made to divulge whether he is working alone, or with others. Because if he is not alone, then that’s definitely terrorism in the organized group sense.

I am sure if Mr. Korn is charged that he will be asked if he was acting alone, which is most likely the case. However, even if Korn is not acting alone how would you suggest he “be made to divulge” this. After all this is the USA and we all have the right to remain silent via the fifth amendment to the constitution.

I don’t know exactly what these creatures are, but everything I ever believed and almost everything I was taught when I was a practising Christian tells me that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Christ.

Agreed for the most part, however, the Bible can certainly be interpreted in many ways and there are parts of it that advocate violence and even killing. Rational Christians pay no attention to the parts of the Bible that are morally questionable.

Blair wrote:

So Justin is calling for people to be shot for e mails he does not like?

Hmmmm?

Just another reason why no atheist is fit for political office.

This is the sorriest use of induction I’ve seen in a while. (perhaps this is why so many creationists make bad scientists.)

Justin makes an unreasonable statement (most likely in a sarcastic way), Justin is probably an atheist, therefore all atheists are unreasonable.

Unreasonable people are unfit for political office, therefore Atheists are unfit for office.

Is that the gist of your logic based on one example of unreasonable behavior by someone who may be an atheist? If so just substitute Justin with Korn and atheist with Christian and you will come to the conclusion that all Christians are unfit for political office. Perhaps you can work through the consequences of your logic before impressing us with your ineptitude.

Comment #188123

Posted by Mike Z on July 16, 2007 11:11 AM (e)

J-Biggs
re: the existence of rule 6.

I was very close to correcting Prof. Bruce, but then I read his comment with a strong Aussie accent and realized it is from a Monty Python sketch. The line is something like “Rule #6: There is no rule 6”

Comment #188130

Posted by Moses on July 16, 2007 11:35 AM (e)

Comment #187929

Posted by David Stanton on July 15, 2007 8:35 AM (e)

Joe wrote:

“Perhaps there is room for us to be tolerant of those who have different beliefs than we do, since it is just the accident of our time of birth and our place of birth that gives us our “righteous” beliefs.”

Thanks for the excellent history of world religions. Given these observations, there are a few questions that could be asked:

Oh, goody!

1) Why is time and place of birth so important in determining beliefs?

Determines probability of being indoctrinated into a particular religion.

2) How many of these religions can be true?

None.

3) Assuming that one religion can be true, which religion is the one true religion and why can’t they convince anyone else?

Each religion shows why every other religion is wrong while rationalizing away it’s own errors, inconsistencies and plain, foolishness.

4) What do all these religions have in common?

They’re all the product of the human imagination.

5) Why does almost everyone feel such a strong need to have a religion?

Fear of death. Social acceptance. Inability to deal with the universe as it is. En-cultured narcissistic & nihilistic world view. A real monkey bag.

6) Why don’t scientists have these problems with scientific theories?

Higher threshold of cognitive dissonance which allows them to pursue questions. Those with a low threshold reject competing ideas very quickly to preserve their world view.

Comment #188135

Posted by J. Biggs on July 16, 2007 11:50 AM (e)

J-Biggs
re: the existence of rule 6.

I guess the joke is on me. Very funny indeed.

Comment #188744

Posted by Darwin Babelfish on July 18, 2007 9:35 PM (e)

Max Korn (and, yeah, I’m using that nickname because he seems foolish enough) appears to have sent letters calling on Christians to commit terrorism. What’s the point? All that does is cause persecution and censorship if successful, and arrest and shaming of the person who started this nonsense to begin with besides; if unsuccessful, it just reveals poor Max as a nut or some crazy person (ok, a person with nutty opinions and crazy talk).

I have also heard of one Harum Yahya who has been sending colorful “creation atlases” to professors around the world, attempting to debunk something that the targeted people obviously sincerely believe in (due to much evidence for it). Nice, but I think species have changed over time, Mr. Yahya, and your inclusion of the trilobite in your “atlas” should’ve pointed to that (after all, the trilobite is extinct, right?)

Furthermore, to the creationists who go about threatening people: Threats won’t get you anywhere. They’ll just stoke resistance and land you in jail. After all, the Jews killed by the Inquisition went to the grave believing in Judaism, and I doubt that threats and terrorism would change anyone’s mind either, except to make them more resistant to your theories. Morons.

Comment #188901

Posted by Jill on July 20, 2007 1:53 AM (e)

I would like to address the issue of “female circumcision”, a.k.a. female genital mutilation. I saw it mentioned on here and would like to add a few things. While the basic information is correct as presented, I have a reference to it from Mary Daly’s “Gyn/Ecology”. According to that reference on p.156, there are actually three types of “female circumcision” (read:FGM):

“1)Sunna Circumcision:removal of the prepuce and/or tip of the clitoris
2)Excision or Clitoridectomy: excision of the entire clitoris with the labia minora and some or most of the external genitalia.
3)Excision and Infibulation(Pharaonic Circumcision):This means excision of the entire clitoris, labia minora, and parts of the labia majora. The two sides of the vulva are then fastened together in some way either by thorns… or sewing with catgut.Alternatively, the vulva are scraped raw and the child’s limbs are tied together for several weeks until the wound heals(or she dies). The purpose is to close the vaginal orifice. Only a small opening is left(usually by inserting a[sic]slither of wood) so the urine or later the menstrual blood can be passed.”

The passage goes on in more detail about the kind of life she can look forward to when she is married, but it’s too lengthy to repeat here.

Comment #190074

Posted by Dave on July 25, 2007 2:11 PM (e)

[quote] Comment #187694
Posted by Jason P on July 13, 2007 5:07 PM (e)

The issue is not whether this man is mentally ill. The issue is that he poses a possible threat to the faculty and students of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado. If, as it appears, the university administration is not taking sufficient measures to protect faculty and students from Mr. Korn, this is a problem, and calls into question several decisions in recent years by the administration, most recently the arrest of a student for harmless social activism following the VT shootings, but also systematic tolerance of religious-motivated incidents on campus and systematic intolerance of certain idealogical perspectives.

CU has been aware of this man for several years now, and they’ve been aware of his specific antics, as Andrea stated earlier, since March. The fact that they have done absolutely nothing as of yet, and the fact that they are not seriously pursuing any sort of legal action in this incident is something that I find extremely worrisome.[/quote]

No legal action in several years? The man must surely be within the law.

Comment #190081

Posted by Dave on July 25, 2007 3:11 PM (e)

Act 19:23 About that time, serious trouble developed in Ephesus concerning the Way.
Act 19:24 It began with Demetrius, a silversmith who had a large business manufacturing silver shrines of the Greek goddess Artemis. He kept many craftsmen busy.
Act 19:25 He called them together, along with others employed in similar trades, and addressed them as follows: “Gentlemen, you know that our wealth comes from this business.
Act 19:26 But as you have seen and heard, this man Paul has persuaded many people that handmade gods aren’t really gods at all. And he’s done this not only here in Ephesus but throughout the entire province!
Act 19:27 Of course, I’m not just talking about the loss of public respect for our business. I’m also concerned that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will lose its influence and that Artemis—this magnificent goddess worshiped throughout the province of Asia and all around the world—will be robbed of her great prestige!”
Act 19:28 At this their anger boiled, and they began shouting, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
Act 19:29 Soon the whole city was filled with confusion. Everyone rushed to the amphitheater, dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, who were Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia.
Act 19:30 Paul wanted to go in, too, but the believers wouldn’t let him.
Act 19:31 Some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, also sent a message to him, begging him not to risk his life by entering the amphitheater.
Act 19:32 Inside, the people were all shouting, some one thing and some another. Everything was in confusion. In fact, most of them didn’t even know why they were there.
Act 19:33 The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander forward and told him to explain the situation. He motioned for silence and tried to speak.
Act 19:34 But when the crowd realized he was a Jew, they started shouting again and kept it up for two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians! Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
Act 19:35 At last the mayor was able to quiet them down enough to speak. “Citizens of Ephesus,” he said. “Everyone knows that Ephesus is the official guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, whose image fell down to us from heaven.
Act 19:36 Since this is an undeniable fact, you should stay calm and not do anything rash.
Act 19:37 You have brought these men here, but they have stolen nothing from the temple and have not spoken against our goddess.
Act 19:38 “If Demetrius and the craftsmen have a case against them, the courts are in session and the officials can hear the case at once. Let them make formal charges.
Act 19:39 And if there are complaints about other matters, they can be settled in a legal assembly.
Act 19:40 I am afraid we are in danger of being charged with rioting by the Roman government, since there is no cause for all this commotion. And if Rome demands an explanation, we won’t know what to say.”
Act 19:41 Then he dismissed them, and they dispersed.

Comment #190098

Posted by J. Biggs on July 25, 2007 4:11 PM (e)

Dave wrote

No legal action in several years? The man must surely be within the law.

Read the entire heading and the comments below it before you post next time. It also helps to read related updated headings. What Mr. Korn did was not within the law and he is currently (as of a later heading) on the lam.

And, Dave your posting of Acts 19:23-19:41 is not appreciated as it is completely off topic.

Comment #190127

Posted by Dave on July 25, 2007 7:25 PM (e)

RE Comment #190098

If you are able to show me the charging document(s) I will be impressed. I ask you to make a case better than the collection of unattached quotes so loosey collected in the posts you reference. How far would this web page go for securing an indictment? As to “on the lamb”, I wonder if Mr. Korn might be wise to move on from your neck of the woods. You have not exactly responded in any sense of civility toward him. What might be untold of the communities plans to deal with him?

And regarding the Scripture verses, there is a clear parallel between the goddess worshipers who made a living promoting their idolatry in Ephesus and the evolutionists who make a very fine living promoting their _________ . You tell me what to call it because it isn’t truth.

Comment #190137

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 25, 2007 8:15 PM (e)

Dave, you’re boring.

Though you have taught me one interesting fact. Heretofore, I had thought that “doron” started with an M.

Comment #190163

Posted by fnxtr on July 26, 2007 12:15 AM (e)

Dave:

What might be untold of the communities plans to deal with him?

Do you mean the community’s plans?

Why, we’ll tar and feather him, of course. And then eat his young.

You know where he is, don’t you!?

Bonehead.

Comment #190166

Posted by fnxtr on July 26, 2007 12:37 AM (e)

Dave:

You tell me what to call it because it isn’t truth.

Um… how about… actual research?

Information?

Facts?

Real-world observations?

Increasingly robust explanations that have survived 150 years or so of bible-thumping ignorami?

Comment #190250

Posted by Dave on July 26, 2007 7:26 AM (e)

I never !!! Called boring by a pinhead. Well !!! (At least he is reading my posts– and writing back!!!)

Any comments re the paralllel between the Ephesians (see scripture quote) and Evolutionists?

Comment #190253

Posted by Dave on July 26, 2007 7:28 AM (e)

I wish I did know where he is. I would buy him dinner, for a week!

Comment #190257

Posted by Dave on July 26, 2007 7:41 AM (e)

From fnxtr: Um… how about… actual research?

Information?

Facts?

Real-world observations?

Funny how some “scientists” used their “intelligence” to “design” experiments and conduct research to prove that there is no intelligent design. They create theory ex nihilo, and should we be surprised that THEY are not able provide any missing link boneheads? The definition of insanity is trying the same thing (evolutionary theory) over and over expecting different results (actual proof of ET).

“Wait til your Father gets home!” Mother Nature

Comment #190279

Posted by GuyeFaux on July 26, 2007 9:40 AM (e)

“Wait til your Father gets home!” Mother Nature

Not sure I’m familiar with this brand of polytheism.

Comment #190284

Posted by Dave on July 26, 2007 10:03 AM (e)

“Wait til your Father gets home!” Mother Nature

Call it cautionary humor.

Comment #190294

Posted by J. Biggs on July 26, 2007 11:01 AM (e)

Dave wrote:

Funny how some “scientists” used their “intelligence” to “design” experiments and conduct research to prove that there is no intelligent design.

First of all no one is trying to prove that “there is no intelligent design.” Intelligent Design has no theory and therefore can not be falsified. ID is Creationism in disguise which you so readily prove with your scripture quote. ID consists only of negative arguments against evolution which have been refuted over and over by the scientific community.

They create theory ex nihilo, and should we be surprised that THEY are not able provide any missing link boneheads?

A theory is created from an idea called a hypothesis which tries to explain objective data. Experiments are performed that could possibly falsify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis survives numerous experiments without being falsified it becomes a theory. Elementary school level science explains this all in great detail. Too bad you didn’t pay attention and instead went with your intuition that theories are created ex nihilo (similar to how God does things).

As for your missing links crap it is hardly worth addressing but there are many transitional fossils that map the evolution of extant and extinct organisms including humans. How about the recently discovered Tiktilaak, or the Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus afarensis. Your missing link statement has been so thoroughly refuted it is laughable that you would use it here.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing (evolutionary theory) over and over expecting different results (actual proof of ET).

It is hilarious that someone as completely out of touch with reality as you would make such an absurd statement. Although I would expect as much from a guy that thinks Mr. Korn is a hero for showing those evilutionists that he would be justified in killing them (the enemies of Christian society) because Pastor Jerry Gibson said so. If you were sane at all you would condemn what Mr. Korn and others like him are doing as un-Christian but instead you applaud it. Your God must surly be great. Good job.

Comment #190295

Posted by J. Biggs on July 26, 2007 11:12 AM (e)

Any comments re the paralllel[sic] between the Ephesians (see scripture quote) and Evolutionists?

Only a dolt like you would think that there is a parallel between “hand made gods” and the theory of evolution. IMO, more of a parallel could be drawn between Ephesians and the way creationists have reacted to any science that contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible (which in this case is the man made god).

Comment #190539

Posted by Dave on July 27, 2007 10:38 AM (e)

Calling folks dolts, and ignorami is in the end effective in communicating a lack of interest in their POV. We will be talking to God about you, knowing He will listen.

Comment #190545

Posted by Raging Bee on July 27, 2007 11:05 AM (e)

Calling folks dolts, and ignorami is in the end effective in communicating a lack of interest in their POV.

That’s why we took the time to debunk and refute your “POV” first.

We will be talking to God about you, knowing He will listen.

What, you think God doesn’t already know about this debate, and needs you losers to keep him posted? Please. At least we’re not arrogant enough to think we have to tell God about your efforts to make Christianity look like the Stoopidest Religion on Earth.

Comment #190571

Posted by J. Biggs on July 27, 2007 1:36 PM (e)

Calling folks dolts, and ignorami is in the end effective in communicating a lack of interest in their POV. We will be talking to God about you, knowing He will listen.

You’re right. I am totally disinterested in your POV about what constitutes truth and science. Not only are you wrong but you repeat the same old tired crapola that most of us here have seen and refuted a million times. You could be a little more interesting if you were willing to at least come up with a new argument against evolution, but alas you have already proved that you know next to nothing about science whatever and are not interested in learning anything that doesn’t fit your creationist presupposition. Anything I post in response to you is expressly for the lurkers and not for your benefit. I already know you are impervious to any knowledge that contradicts your perceived reality.

Comment #190858

Posted by Dave on July 28, 2007 7:12 PM (e)

You could be a little more interesting if you were willing to at least come up with a new argument against evolution…

It only took one “argument” to do the job.

Comment #190897

Posted by fnxtr on July 29, 2007 12:53 AM (e)

Sure, if the “job” was just annoying people.

Comment #190898

Posted by fnxtr on July 29, 2007 12:56 AM (e)

We will be talking to God about you, knowing He will listen.

Who’s ‘we’, you and your tapeworm?

Comment #191022

Posted by J. Biggs on July 29, 2007 4:34 PM (e)

Dave wrote:

It only took one “argument” to do the job.

You are obviously the wrong “tool” for the job if your think your pathetic “argument” did the the trick. You are however still a tool.

Comment #194065

Posted by Dave on August 8, 2007 10:58 PM (e)

No one believes the world is flat anymore. Copernicus was harried by the church for his scientific “heresy”. Odd how even yet today, when most people clearly understand that God made man and woman, you Darwinian scientists are the upholders of “the true faith”. There will come a new day when no one will be able to say “transitional forms” without wondering how such a lie was able to take hold of so very many people. I believe some of the young among you will see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/332/
Used by permission/Copyright © 1996-2007 by Koinonia House Inc., P.O. Box D, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83816

Darwinism vs. Design:
The Human Genome
by Carol Loeffler KHouse eNews Editor

The announcement of the completion of human genome mapping has brought some interesting - if not amusing and contradictory - responses from the scientific community about what the map tells us. These differences reveal the growing chasm in the scientific community over the subject of origins and the “end of science.” More and more, scientists are being confronted by the fact that science has failed to answer core questions regarding the origins of the universe and life, and the evidence is contradicting much of what has been traditionally believed about Darwinism.

Two articles, which appeared on February 16, 2001, were directly contradictory to each other. They both featured scientists reacting to the genome-mapping project.

The first article, entitled “Darwin Vindicated,” was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that “the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, ‘The proof is right here, in our genes.’” 1

From reading the article, one would be sure that science had once and for all proven the Bible wrong. However, Professor Caplan did not work on the genome project. On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, “Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine.” It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, “We’re deliciously complex at the molecular level…We don’t understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There’s still a metaphysical, magical element.” He went on to say, “What really astounds me is the architecture of life…the system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed.”2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.”

The contradiction between these two views is really a clash between two worldviews. Dr. Caplan seized upon the similarities in genetic code as proof that humans and so-called simpler life forms descended from a common ancestor. In his eagerness to affirm evolution, he excluded the possibility that an intelligent creator may have used the same functional coding system for more than one species.

Ironically, many of the same scientists who deny the complex coding system of the DNA molecule as evidence of intelligent design also support the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, which searches the far reaches of the galaxy for the signs of non-random, non-periodic radio signals as signs of alien intelligence. Their bias against God has blinded them to other possible explanations for the scientific data collected.

While the Human Genome Project has successfully produced a map of the human genome, it has yet to map the proteins encoded by our genes. Only one-third of the genes in the human body have been identified by function. 3 Furthermore, just over a third of the human genome contains repetitive sequences that scientists label “junk DNA” because, at the moment, they don’t appear to have any function.4 What we do know about the DNA code is that it is digital, error-correcting, redundant, and self-replicating. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. What has been called “the Book of Life” is more like a library.5 The field is so complex that President Bush is considering a proposal to hire a biotechnology coordinator to act as coordinator among government agencies and scientists in this rapidly changing field.6

The Battle for Minds

There are numerous admissions emerging in the technical literature about serious “problems” with random chance accounting for such complex DNA design, but it goes virtually untold by the gurus of the pop science culture of evolution and their publications.7 Few people outside the scientific disciplines read the actual literature, and the gurus aren’t about to tell the public that their prize theory is in real trouble. A new book by Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, is a bold exposé on the fraudulent support for evolution, which continues to be published in school textbooks and taught as fact. For example, “…evidence for Darwin’s theory: peppered moths. Before 1820, most peppered moths were light colored, but during the industrial revolution they became mostly dark colored. In theory, the shift occurred because light colored moths were more visible against pollution-darkened tree trunks and thus were eaten by predatory birds. Textbooks typically illustrate this story with photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks. In the 1980s, however, biologists discovered that peppered moths in the wild don’t rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs were staged-often by gluing or pinning dead moths in place.”8

In reality, the current battle of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design seems more a matter of philosophical debate than evaluation of scientific evidence. The Darwinists are beginning to show the classic, desperate signs of a failing philosophy as their arguments become more and more irrational in an attempt to prop up something that is quickly being refuted. As the dispute rages in the future, keep in mind that making those arguments are brilliant minds: minds capable of analyzing complex data, imagining, theorizing and extrapolating. Those minds are obviously a triumph of random chance…not!

This article was originally published in the
April 2001 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.

——————————————————————————–
**NOTES**

——————————————————————————–

Caplan, Arthur, “Darwin Vindicated!” MSNBC www.msnbc.com, February 21, 2001.
Abate, Tom, “Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine,” San Francisco Chronicle,www.sfgate.com February 19, 2001.
Patrizio, Andy, “Genome Effort Hits Home,” Wired News, February 17, 2001.
Belsie, Laurent, “The Short, Simple Human Gene Map,” Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2001.
Jasny, Barbara R. and Kennedy, Donald, “The Human Genome,” Science Magazine, February 16, 2001.
Rosenberg, Ronald, “Bush May Hire Biotech Coordinator,” The Boston Globe, February 21, 2001.
Meyers, Dr. Steve, Interview with Dr. Meyers, Director of the Center for Renewal in Science and Culture, Seattle, on the Steel on Steel Radio Program, www.steelonsteel.com, March 10, 2001.
Wells, Jonathan, “Let’s Change Science Standards And Let Students Do Real Science,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 11, 2000.

Comment #194066

Posted by Dave on August 8, 2007 11:01 PM (e)

No one believes the world is flat anymore. Copernicus was harried by the church for his scientific “heresy”. Odd how even yet today, when most people clearly understand that God made man and woman, you Darwinian scientists are the upholders of “the true faith”. There will come a new day when no one will be able to say “transitional forms” without wondering how such a lie was able to take hold of so very many people. I believe some of the young among you will see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/332/
Used by permission/Copyright © 1996-2007 by Koinonia House Inc., P.O. Box D, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83816

Darwinism vs. Design:
The Human Genome
by Carol Loeffler KHouse eNews Editor

The announcement of the completion of human genome mapping has brought some interesting - if not amusing and contradictory - responses from the scientific community about what the map tells us. These differences reveal the growing chasm in the scientific community over the subject of origins and the “end of science.” More and more, scientists are being confronted by the fact that science has failed to answer core questions regarding the origins of the universe and life, and the evidence is contradicting much of what has been traditionally believed about Darwinism.

Two articles, which appeared on February 16, 2001, were directly contradictory to each other. They both featured scientists reacting to the genome-mapping project.

The first article, entitled “Darwin Vindicated,” was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that “the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, ‘The proof is right here, in our genes.’” 1

From reading the article, one would be sure that science had once and for all proven the Bible wrong. However, Professor Caplan did not work on the genome project. On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, “Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine.” It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, “We’re deliciously complex at the molecular level…We don’t understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There’s still a metaphysical, magical element.” He went on to say, “What really astounds me is the architecture of life…the system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed.”2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.”

The contradiction between these two views is really a clash between two worldviews. Dr. Caplan seized upon the similarities in genetic code as proof that humans and so-called simpler life forms descended from a common ancestor. In his eagerness to affirm evolution, he excluded the possibility that an intelligent creator may have used the same functional coding system for more than one species.

Ironically, many of the same scientists who deny the complex coding system of the DNA molecule as evidence of intelligent design also support the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, which searches the far reaches of the galaxy for the signs of non-random, non-periodic radio signals as signs of alien intelligence. Their bias against God has blinded them to other possible explanations for the scientific data collected.

While the Human Genome Project has successfully produced a map of the human genome, it has yet to map the proteins encoded by our genes. Only one-third of the genes in the human body have been identified by function. 3 Furthermore, just over a third of the human genome contains repetitive sequences that scientists label “junk DNA” because, at the moment, they don’t appear to have any function.4 What we do know about the DNA code is that it is digital, error-correcting, redundant, and self-replicating. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. What has been called “the Book of Life” is more like a library.5 The field is so complex that President Bush is considering a proposal to hire a biotechnology coordinator to act as coordinator among government agencies and scientists in this rapidly changing field.6

The Battle for Minds

There are numerous admissions emerging in the technical literature about serious “problems” with random chance accounting for such complex DNA design, but it goes virtually untold by the gurus of the pop science culture of evolution and their publications.7 Few people outside the scientific disciplines read the actual literature, and the gurus aren’t about to tell the public that their prize theory is in real trouble. A new book by Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, is a bold exposé on the fraudulent support for evolution, which continues to be published in school textbooks and taught as fact. For example, “…evidence for Darwin’s theory: peppered moths. Before 1820, most peppered moths were light colored, but during the industrial revolution they became mostly dark colored. In theory, the shift occurred because light colored moths were more visible against pollution-darkened tree trunks and thus were eaten by predatory birds. Textbooks typically illustrate this story with photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks. In the 1980s, however, biologists discovered that peppered moths in the wild don’t rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs were staged-often by gluing or pinning dead moths in place.”8

In reality, the current battle of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design seems more a matter of philosophical debate than evaluation of scientific evidence. The Darwinists are beginning to show the classic, desperate signs of a failing philosophy as their arguments become more and more irrational in an attempt to prop up something that is quickly being refuted. As the dispute rages in the future, keep in mind that making those arguments are brilliant minds: minds capable of analyzing complex data, imagining, theorizing and extrapolating. Those minds are obviously a triumph of random chance…not!

This article was originally published in the
April 2001 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.

——————————————————————————–
**NOTES**

——————————————————————————–

Caplan, Arthur, “Darwin Vindicated!” MSNBC www.msnbc.com, February 21, 2001.
Abate, Tom, “Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine,” San Francisco Chronicle,www.sfgate.com February 19, 2001.
Patrizio, Andy, “Genome Effort Hits Home,” Wired News, February 17, 2001.
Belsie, Laurent, “The Short, Simple Human Gene Map,” Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2001.
Jasny, Barbara R. and Kennedy, Donald, “The Human Genome,” Science Magazine, February 16, 2001.
Rosenberg, Ronald, “Bush May Hire Biotech Coordinator,” The Boston Globe, February 21, 2001.
Meyers, Dr. Steve, Interview with Dr. Meyers, Director of the Center for Renewal in Science and Culture, Seattle, on the Steel on Steel Radio Program, www.steelonsteel.com, March 10, 2001.
Wells, Jonathan, “Let’s Change Science Standards And Let Students Do Real Science,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 11, 2000.

Comment #194320

Posted by J. Biggs on August 9, 2007 4:40 PM (e)

Dave wrote:

No one believes the world is flat anymore. Copernicus was harried by the church for his scientific “heresy”. Odd how even yet today, when most people clearly understand that God made man and woman, you Darwinian scientists are the upholders of “the true faith”.

Your example doesn’t even make since, and by the way posting your comment twice doesn’t make it any more valid. Copernicus was a scientist who discovered not only is the world not flat but that everything in the universe does not rotate around it and in fact the earth itself rotates around the sun. He of course knew that his new theory would be met with skepticism at first just as Darwin’s original theory of evolution was, but Heliocentrism made the most accurate predictions and was therefore adopted by later cosmologists and older theories of cosmology were abandoned. I might add that Copernican models have been altered quite a bit since his time.

Also, contrary to your comment which asserts that the church supported heliocentric cosmology, Galileo proved that they did not as he carried on the work of Copernicus. After Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he was asked by the church to compare heliocentric and geocentric theory (with strict instructions not to be an advocate for heliocentrism) the church became enraged that he so thoroughly refuted the commonly believed geocentric theory. He was later branded a heretic and imprisoned. The public was not allowed to own his book and Galileo was not allowed to publish any more of his life’s work.

Why did the church do this you ask? Because the church believed that heliocentric theory contradicted a literal interpretation of scripture (sound familiar). Fortunately, the Catholic church learned its lesson and no longer chooses to interfere with science. It seems that they understand that challenging objective reality with a literal interpretation of scripture is not wise, because people (academicians especially) will see that scripture doesn’t hold up to what is observed.

You really ought to do a little more research before you insert your foot in your mouth as you provided a perfect example to refute your own point.

There will come a new day when no one will be able to say “transitional forms” without wondering how such a lie was able to take hold of so very many people. I believe some of the young among you will see it.

How does this in any way refute the examples I gave, which were but a few. You sir, are the liar because you continue to propagate the same crap even after you are corrected. You are big on rhetoric but your substance is incredibly lacking.

You then post some crap that has nothing to do with transitional fossils whatever like somehow it supports your BS lie. Let’s take a look at that shall we.

Two articles, which appeared on February 16, 2001, were directly contradictory to each other. They both featured scientists reacting to the genome-mapping project.

The first article, entitled “Darwin Vindicated,” was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that “the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, ‘The proof is right here, in our genes.’” 1

I would point out that, while Arthur Caplan is not an evolutionary biologist, he is the author or editor of twenty-five books and over 500 papers in refereed scientific journals. Therefore, he seems to be qualified to have an opinion on the genome project. Of course the reason he holds his view is because of the incredible similarity in all of the genomes studied so far. (As high as 98% similarity with chimpanzees in the literature) This similarity shows relatedness which in turn supports common descent with modification. His opinion is mainstream and agrees with objective facts.

From reading the article, one would be sure that science had once and for all proven the Bible wrong. However, Professor Caplan did not work on the genome project. On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, “Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine.” It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, “We’re deliciously complex at the molecular level…We don’t understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There’s still a metaphysical, magical element.” He went on to say, “What really astounds me is the architecture of life…the system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed.”2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.”

Nice bit of quote mining there. Gene Myers is indeed well respected Computer scientist who has worked on and made many contributions to the human genome project. I suppose that I can respect his opinion, however, he is reportedly aware of this quote being taken out of context and has said he is not a proponent of intelligent design or creationism. Too bad, apparently both Gene Myers and Arthur Caplan agree that ID is pseudoscientific bunk.

Ironically, many of the same scientists who deny the complex coding system of the DNA molecule as evidence of intelligent design also support the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, which searches the far reaches of the galaxy for the signs of non-random, non-periodic radio signals as signs of alien intelligence. Their bias against God has blinded them to other possible explanations for the scientific data collected.

Ironically, creationists believe that they can pass off points refuted a thousand times as though they mean anything. When SETI scientists look for signals they aren’t looking for complexity, they are looking for regularity and simplicity because that is the true hallmark of intelligent design. Our genome, to take your example, is incredibly complex and has all the hallmarks of evolution because of hereditary constraints and jury rigged design. Take for example the defective Vitamin C gene found in both chimpanzees and humans. This gene is non-functional in both species and defective in the exact same way, evidence that we had a common ancestor. Why would a rational designer place the exact same defective gene in two separate species? The answer is they wouldn’t, however, this is exactly the type of thing we expect to see with evolution because even the no longer functional genes get passed on. This fact also explains vestigial structures such as tailbones, wisdom teeth and the appendix in humans.

While the Human Genome Project has successfully produced a map of the human genome, it has yet to map the proteins encoded by our genes. Only one-third of the genes in the human body have been identified by function. 3 Furthermore, just over a third of the human genome contains repetitive sequences that scientists label “junk DNA” because, at the moment, they don’t appear to have any function.4 What we do know about the DNA code is that it is digital, error-correcting, redundant, and self-replicating. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. What has been called “the Book of Life” is more like a library.5 The field is so complex that President Bush is considering a proposal to hire a biotechnology coordinator to act as coordinator among government agencies and scientists in this rapidly changing field.6

This is a nice summation of ID which I will paraphrase as, “Our ignorance of this incredible complexity is evidence for design.” It is funny how ID proponents are so quick to criticize those who actually research the areas that they themselves are to lazy to research. Our ignorance of a subject is only evidence of that ignorance and nothing else. I also find it ironic that out of all of these new discoveries being made roughly none of them support ID and roughly none of them have disproved evolution.

There are numerous admissions emerging in the technical literature about serious “problems” with random chance accounting for such complex DNA design, but it goes virtually untold by the gurus of the pop science culture of evolution and their publications.7 Few people outside the scientific disciplines read the actual literature, and the gurus aren’t about to tell the public that their prize theory is in real trouble. A new book by Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, is a bold exposé on the fraudulent support for evolution, which continues to be published in school textbooks and taught as fact. For example, “…evidence for Darwin’s theory: peppered moths. Before 1820, most peppered moths were light colored, but during the industrial revolution they became mostly dark colored. In theory, the shift occurred because light colored moths were more visible against pollution-darkened tree trunks and thus were eaten by predatory birds. Textbooks typically illustrate this story with photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks. In the 1980s, however, biologists discovered that peppered moths in the wild don’t rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs were staged-often by gluing or pinning dead moths in place.”8

It is meaningless to say that “problems” with evolution are noted in the literature and then neglect to site any of them. And excuse me if I don’t believe a very well known ID proponent, Jonathan Wells, when he reports this to be the case. Wells is biased to say the least. And the peppered moths crap is quite hilarious. This creationist claim is addressed here in great detail if your interested.

In reality, the current battle of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design seems more a matter of philosophical debate than evaluation of scientific evidence. The Darwinists are beginning to show the classic, desperate signs of a failing philosophy as their arguments become more and more irrational in an attempt to prop up something that is quickly being refuted. As the dispute rages in the future, keep in mind that making those arguments are brilliant minds: minds capable of analyzing complex data, imagining, theorizing and extrapolating. Those minds are obviously a triumph of random chance…not!

The ID/Creationist battle against evolution has always been political because there is literally no debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution occurred. This is about the pushers of pseudoscience trying to inject their religious persuasion into science class. Fortunately, they have lost every legal battle they have fought in court and have indeed gone to pushing their “teach the controversy” charade as a result. I’m sorry you believe the lies they tell you Dave, but I could expect no more from a moron like you.

By the way did they even mention transitional fossils in this sciency piece of crap you posted. Oh, that’s right, they didn’t.