Comment #20754

Posted by Frank Schmidt on March 17, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)

It’s March 17. This site is two weeks and one day early, right?

Comment #20755

Posted by Ginger Yellow on March 17, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)

I don’t know if it’s the silliest, but it’s very silly. Follow the link through to the Stock Market Compass site they run, and it hits you smack between the eyes:

“TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL ASTROLOGY IS DISAPPOINTING”

You don’t say. Apparently, this is because true financial astrology must take into account:

Planetary Geometry including the declinations
Heliocentric Astrology including the latitudes
Chiron
The four major asteroids
Planetary Synchronization

Otherwise you’re just mucking about, obviously.

That said, I  think their currency birth charts take the biscuit.

Comment #20756

Posted by Garrett on March 17, 2005 10:36 AM (e) (s)

Hmm…reminds me of the “jesussave.us” site, which most of you took to be a real site when it was an obvious hoax. I think you folks should do a write-up of this site

http://www.geocities.com/dickieattenborough/…

…because it is obviously true. Or maybe the DI should write a nice satirical piece on it to show just how idiotic Darwinism can be!

Comment #20757

Posted by Nate Smith on March 17, 2005 10:40 AM (e) (s)

The REALLY good stuff is the financial analysis software they offer through one of the links they provide. The thought that anyone would invest a penny, much less their savings, on the advice of these wackos makes my stomach turn.

Comment #20759

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 17, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

Garret wrote:

Hmm…reminds me of the “jesussave.us” site, which most of you took to be a real site when it was an obvious hoax.

Um, these people aren’t joking.  They sell books.  If it’s a hoax, it’s the most expensive, elaborate, and subtle one ever.

I think you folks should do a write-up of this site

http://www.geocities.com/dickieattenborough/……

…because it is obviously true.

Well it’s obviously not true, nor is it particulary funny or clever.

Comment #20761

Posted by Russell on March 17, 2005 11:04 AM (e) (s)

Creationism has long since passed the point where I can be sure of the difference between satire and sincerity. Do I infer correctly that Garrett is saying Magi Science is an obvious hoax?

Comment #20764

Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 11:29 AM (e) (s)

I think the correct inference is that Garrett is saying that “Darwinism” is idiotic because sometimes some people guess wrong about whether creationists are being satirized deliberately by others, or inadvertently by themselves. Or whatever, it doesn’t matter, “Darwinism” is idiotic.

But then again, maybe Garrett is writing a brief parody of creationists, and learning just how impossible this is to do.

Comment #20765

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

I agree that Magi Astrology is an improvement on Intelligent Design creationism, in the same way that Superman was improved when his creators allowed him to fly instead of merely jumping great distances.

Comment #20767

Posted by Les Lane on March 17, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

IDers may bristle at some comparisons, but I think comparison to vitalism is spot on.

Comment #20771

Posted by steve on March 17, 2005 12:11 PM (e) (s)

This highlights the fundamental error behind the concept of the Discovery Institute. The DI is based on the idea that a sophisticated presentation which hides the obvious religion can disguise christianity enough to sneak past the constitutional guards. The flaw is that the loud entourage of scientifically daft people proclaiming jesus will certainly tip off the guards off. For this reason, it’s only a matter of time before a case establishes that ID is creationism combined with jargon and evasion, and impermissible in science class.

Comment #20778

Posted by Monty Zoom on March 17, 2005 01:03 PM (e) (s)

[blockquote]If Magi Astrology really works, then Darwinism does not work.[/blockquote]

Since we know p -> q also means that ~q -> ~p we know that this site at least got one thing logically right.  Since “Darwinism” works, therefore Magi Astrology does not work.  That sounds correct and true to me.  It is amazing what you can prove when you don’t have to stick to science!

Comment #20779

Posted by EricJP on March 17, 2005 01:03 PM (e) (s)

I think that one of the problems is that these lunatics have to be dealt with.  If you ignore them then they are unopposed when they preach their garbage.  if you deal with them you infer ligitimacy to their argument.

I am at a loss as to what we can do.  The evidence exists.  This is not like the ‘does god exist’ argument.  Evolution is FACT, and it has been proven over and over again, and reinforced over and over again.  From what I have seen and read there is no room for argument over the ligitimacy of evolution.

Yet here we have supposedly educated individuals spewing garbage.  It really makes me worry about the survivability of our species.

Comment #20783

Posted by Evolving Apeman on March 17, 2005 01:38 PM (e) (s)

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?  As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric. 

No I will not reveal my identity.  Your “scorched earth” policy discourages a civil discourse as you seek to ruin the careers of your critics.  I’m not ready to be a martyr for truth yet.

Comment #20784

Posted by Descent & Dissent on March 17, 2005 01:45 PM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman wrote:

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?  As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

Since the bulk of the immature rhetoric comes from Creationist trolls I’m not sure I see your point.

No I will not reveal my identity.  Your “scorched earth” policy discourages a civil discourse as you seek to ruin the careers of your critics.  I’m not ready to be a martyr for truth yet.

You should put “truth” in quotation marks when you lie like that.

Comment #20785

Posted by Joe McFaul on March 17, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

Not with integrity.  I’ve looked.

Feel free to start your own-they’re free and you can maintain a pseudonym.  I’ll link to any site of intergrity from mine.

Comment #20786

Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution

To the best of my knowledge, there is active debate and investigation (the two are closely related in science!) about the mechanisms of evolution. Morphological analyses sometimes disagree with molecular analyses, there is debate as to the levels where selection might take place (from genes up to clades) and what sort of contribution each level might involve, there’s disagreement about the meaning of nearly every new finding and experimental result.

But of course, all of this is legitimate science. It’s how progress is made. No scientists are making claims known to be wrong, because they have no reason to do so. If you wish to read NON-scientists making claims known to be wrong for the excellent reason that their faith cannot tolerate facts, the internet will cheerfully provide you thousands of these. Have fun!

Comment #20787

Posted by chingachook on March 17, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

<i>Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?  As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.</i>

I would have thought that a “well published scientist” such as yourself would know the correct spelling of “illegitimate.” I guess that shows what I know …

Comment #20788

Posted by Michael Finley on March 17, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)

As worthy of ridicule as these “ID advocates” are, isn’t this post unfair to the real ID advocates.

Take someone like Behe. He’s a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he’s of a different stripe than these fellows.

Comment #20789

Posted by Jones Alley on March 17, 2005 02:02 PM (e) (s)

“…we have discovered a way to disprove Darwinism by using good astrology.”

What’s wrong with you people?  It’s GOOD astrology.  I will be studying it in depth so I can introduce my Astronomy students to GOOD astrology next semester!

Comment #20790

Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley:

If you read here long enough, you’ll see that Behe and Dembski get a great deal of column inches, while the likes of Gish and Hovind get almost none. And this is the case because Behe (and to some degree Dembski) ARE legitimate scientists or related (math), presumably know how to search and understand the literature (though Behe has claimed not to be able to find any of the many thousands of articles that existed at the time he said he couldn’t find them). They are also considered dangerous because they are the tip of the Wedge, people with actual degrees out there at the state of the art fighting with desperation (and tons of obfuscational jargon) to force scientific reality to meet the requirements of their faith.

And the disturbing thing these people illustrate is that knowledge and education are not necessarily proof against sheer blinding faith. Knowledge and education in the hands of the faithful are used just as any other tool, to justify and support the faith whatever it takes. In this regard, they are no different stripe. Creationism is the ineradicable sine qua non for ALL these people, the only difference is their chosen targets of distortion and misrepresentation.

Comment #20791

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 17, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

As worthy of ridicule as these “ID advocates” are, isn’t this post unfair to the real ID advocates.

Take someone like Behe. He’s a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he’s of a different stripe than these fellows.

Sure, I wouldn’t want anyone to think that these Magi people represent “normal” IDists.  But when the term “ID” gets hijacked by weirdos, the “normals” have only themselves to blame.  This sort of thing is a direct consequence of the “Big Tent” strategy, in which the ID movement tries to gather all anti-evolutionists, no matter how different, together under one banner for political clout.  If you pursue a strategy like that, there’s no way to keep the real freakazoids from joining in.  (The Raelians, for example, have come out in favor of ID, much to our amusement and the irritation of the DI.)  Part of getting things right is being clear on what’s not right.  If your attitude is “anything goes”, then just look at who you’ll attract.

It appears that ID is starting to become the catch-all for any crazy anti-evolution idea that one comes up with.  It’s the term of choice for cranks of all stripes.  And it’s the fault of people like Behe for running a PR campaign like they have yet failing to be clear on just what ID is and isn’t.

Comment #20796

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 02:45 PM (e) (s)

And the disturbing thing these people [allegedly ‘legitimate’ scientists] illustrate is that knowledge and education are not necessarily proof against sheer blinding faith.

‘Those people’ only illustrate this claim if (if! if! if!) you assume that they behave the way they do because they have blind faith.  I question that assumption.

Personally I am convinced they are merely small-time fame whores who crave attention and an easy way to get that attention is to  peddle pleasing lies to frightened and ignorant people with a well-documented penchant for gobbling those lies up.  It’s a way of making a little bit of money, too.

People with blind faith don’t run around trying to present matheamtical proofs that their deity exists.  That’s what people with crises of faith do.

The intellectual difference between Behe and Dembski and creationist trolls like DaveScot and Charlie Wagner (a self-proclaimed agnostic) is not readily discernable.  In fact, the latter are arguably more dedicated to their cause than Behe and Dembski.  Certainly they are less cowardly when it comes to throwing their ideas into the crucible.

Comment #20798

Posted by Mike Hopkins on March 17, 2005 02:48 PM (e) (s)

I am confused.

The linked to site on BENEVOLENT DESIGN says:

This is a website of the Christian Guardians Fellowship.

The Christian Guardians Fellowship is a worldwide organization of Christians who have joined together to protect Christianity against all who assault it, especially atheists who believe in Darwinism.

However at the bottom of the page:

© 2005 by The Magi Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Magi Astrology is a trademark and service mark of THE MAGI ASSOCIATES, INC.
Magi Society is a registered trademark of THE MAGI ASSOCIATES, INC.

Follow the page’s Link to our magisociety.com website link and one goes to the Magi Society’s page on “magi astrology.”  This appears to be a rather extensive website selling booking and computer programs with astrological “explanations” of a great many major news stories of the last few years.  And for any who claim that this is not a real site, the books appear on Amazon complete with claims to be from this society. 

Now here is the strange bit:

The Magi Society was founded in 1625 by a small group of Shao Lin monks. The society is now a worldwide organization and has produced three of the most important books ever published on astrology. The primary purpose of the Magi Society is to continue to conduct scientific research to improve and expand our knowledge of astrology and to teach it to our members and the world. The Magi Society is also dedicated to helping bring about a universal acceptance of the validity of astrology. The Magi Society has taken on a leadership role in the battle against opponents of astrology.

Among astrological organizations, the Magi Society’s members are the best educated. At the present time, most of the society’s members are college graduates. The percentage of the Magi Society’s members that have post graduate degrees is more than three times that of the national average.

As evidenced by the extraordinary research that went into our first three books, and the vast new knowledge of astrology revealed in our books, it is obvious that all of the Members of the Board of Governors of the Magi Society are among the very best scientific astrologers in the world.

Now I have my doubt about their claim of the age of the organization.  But the thing that is confusing me is in the previous page they claim to be Christian and in this page they claim to be a centuries-old Chinese group formed by Shao Lin monks which is not exactly what one would expect from a “Christian” organization.  Is this some kind of “big tent” Christianity that includes people that almost no one would call “Christian”?

—
Anti-spam: Replace “user” with “harlequin2”

Comment #20799

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 17, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

I agree with Steve.  The issue is not that these guys are representative of ID in general, or that ID can be hijacked by this kind of cranks.  After all, darwinian principles have also been historically misinterpreted and misused by all sorts of nutjobs.  However, for anyone knowledgeable of evolutionary theory, it is usually easy to explain why a particularly cranky interpretation is erroneous, and reject it. 

ID, on the other hand, cannot do so, because they have painted themselves in a corner to appease their large Creationist constituency.  So, they can’t say “Magi Astrology is bunk, as there is no evidence for it”, because then they would have to apply the same standards to, say, the age of the Earth issue, and conclude YEC is bunk too.  Instead, they have to hilariously hedge their bets using “clarifying” statements like the following (from the IDEA Center site):

“Does IDEA take a position on the age of the earth?
The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of the Bible. For this reason, IDEA finds no reasons from its mission statement to make any statements about the age of the earth. This is an important question, however, and if you are struggling with it or are interested in learning more about this issue, we suggest you contact various authorities from various sides of the question, and come to your own conclusions. IDEA has resources which can provide information, and please feel free to contact us at “” for help. (IDEA Center FAQ at www.ideacenter.org)

Thus, the IDEA Center has always made it explicitly clear that the age of the earth is something that has nothing to do with our organization, so we make no statements about it. This adopted position has always been ultra-clear on our website, and we hope that there are no misconceptions about our position on the age of the earth from this point forward.”

It’s just a matter of standards. If the ID club can admit YEC as scientifically legitimate, so are Raelism and Magi Astrology.

Comment #20800

Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)

GWW:

You go to your church and I’ll go to mine. I’ve read too much of Dembski’s nonmathmatical preaching, his witnessing his faith in Christ, to think it’s all a put-on for the sheer adulation of it. I accept that he and Behe are sincere believers, who are using their own specialties like any other believer, as a tool to buttress their faith. People with blind faith in fact DO run around preaching that faith with whatever tools and knowledge they have to hand. That particular faith is a particularly pushy and intolerant flavor, and those pushing it hardest are not those having a crisis. On the contrary, doing so is inherent in the doctrine itself.

However, I do agree that the intellectual difference between these guys and our forum trolls is both insignificant and irrelevant. In fact that was my point — that knowledge makes no difference to faith. Otherwise competent scientists like Behe and knuckle-draggers like davescot share common ground in matters of faith, a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and (in the wonderful words of Russell’s lyrics) “lying’s a virtue when you’re lying for God.”

Comment #20801

Posted by David Heddle on March 17, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

chingachook

I would have thought that a “well published scientist” such as yourself would know the correct spelling of “illegitimate.” I guess that shows what I know …

If that sort of thing bugs you, go check out Dr. GHs post where he gets all misty over affronts on “seperation” of church and state.

Comment #20802

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of the Bible.

That is freaking hilarious. 

How do the morons at the IDEA center know that the age of the earth is not related to intelligent design theory?  Doesn’t at least one awesomely powerful alien being  have to be older than the first life forms on earth for intelligent design theory to work?

What if the earth and everything in it including our memories was created by an intelligent designer last week for the purpose of proving to another intelligent designer that it could be done?  If that were true, I think it would have some bearing on the validity of the Bible.  I wonder if Casey Luskin can prove to me that it isn’t true.  Actually, no I don’t.

Comment #20803

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on March 17, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, I was wondering if this page would come with a pitch for money.  Yes, indeedy, it’s the “members only” section spiel.  Kind of like porn pages.

Cheers,

Comment #20804

Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 03:03 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle makes a good point. Spelling on this site has been rather uniformly lousy. I suggest a hypothesis:  When the software doesn’t permit editing after posting, no amount of proofreading will permit errors to be noticed until after they are posted.

Comment #20805

Posted by Stephen Stralka on March 17, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman wrote:

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

If you’ve spent any time at all at this site, you should know it’s mostly devoted to critical examination of the illegitimate and unscientific claims of the anti-evolution movement.  The contributors go out of their way to read and analyze everything they can get their hands on from ID proponents and their ilk, and they have found nothing of merit in this entire body of work.  You may disagree with this conclusion, but The Panda’s Thumb is quite clearly dedicated to the defense of evolutionary theory against attacks that the contributors regard as entirely bogus.  So, forgive me if I sound immature here, but what on earth made you think this was the place to come to pick up recommendations for good anti-evolution blogs?

Comment #20806

Posted by steve on March 17, 2005 03:08 PM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman wrote:

  Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

I suggest Charlie Wagner’s blog. If you can’t tell science from crap, he’s your man.

Comment #20807

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on March 17, 2005 03:16 PM (e) (s)

It appears that ID is starting to become the catch-all for any crazy anti-evolution idea that one comes up with.  It’s the term of choice for cranks of all stripes.  And it’s the fault of people like Behe for running a PR campaign like they have yet failing to be clear on just what ID is and isn’t.

Actually, I think it’s an intrinsic flaw of ID itself.  Because it is at base simply an “I can’t believe that evolution (or *fill-in-the-blank*) did this”, it must allow any alterative explanation “equal time”, at least as far as the “merits” of the ID “argument” goes.

Cheers,

Comment #20809

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on March 17, 2005 03:24 PM (e) (s)

“Thus, the IDEA Center has always made it explicitly clear that the [law of gravity] is something that has nothing to do with our organization, so we make no statements about it. This adopted position has always been ultra-clear on our website, and we hope that there are no misconceptions about our position on the [law of gravity] from this point forward….”

“… and for my next step forward, watch me step off this building.”

Cheers,

Comment #20810

Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 03:27 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote,

[quote]Behe and knuckle-draggers like davescot share common ground in matters of faith, a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and (in the wonderful words of Russell’s lyrics) “lying’s a virtue when you’re lying for God.”/[quote]

I just need a clarification. Is all faith “a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and … ‘lying’s a virtue when your’e lying for God.’”? Or did you just mean Behe and DaveScot’s (and those like them) faith? I hope you meant the latter, because I don’t think the former kind of statement is respectful to people of faith, and would certainly repel anyone of faith who was browsing through the site. I really can’t see a reason anyone would want to do that.

Comment #20811

Posted by Joel on March 17, 2005 03:42 PM (e) (s)

This attachment to ID by the guardians is similiar to the attachment
to evolution by SETI, astrobiology, or panspermia.  Darwinists typically do not deny these ideas, just that they have nothing to do with evolution.

Comment #20812

Posted by Bill Ware on March 17, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)

From the site: “The Gospels tell us that before Christ was born, three wise men from the East…” Well, not exactly. No where does the Bible say how many Magi there were. So already they’re not off to a very good start.

Also: “That’s right, the Magi were astrologers.”  Well, at least astrology has a theory and testable hypotheses.

Nate said, “The thought that anyone would invest a penny, much less their savings, on the advice of these wackos makes my stomach turn.”  Well, since the choices are random, they might be no worse than your typical market analyist. Come to think of it, they might be better.

EricJP, you said, “Yet here we have supposedly educated individuals spewing garbage.  It really makes me worry about the survivability of our species.”  Well, don’t worry, the Chinese will save us.

Comment #20814

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 17, 2005 03:54 PM (e) (s)

May I suggest to everyone that we try to express ourselves in a more civil manner?  There is no need to call people morons, whores, etc.  There certainly are more subtle and effective ways to get a point across. 

As a general rule, we have tried to be quite liberal with issues of freedom of expression here, but the PT board is getting a little impatient with some characters.  Some people have already seen their posting privileges suspended, and post deletions/editing and further suspensions are not out of the questions. 

Thanks

Comment #20815

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 03:59 PM (e) (s)

Bill

No where does the Bible say how many Magi there were.

Interesting.

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/3wisemen.asp

But it’s clear from contemporaneous Greek writings that wise (basic meaning from the Greek, “practical”) people carried their gold, frankincense and myrhh on separate camels to avoid losing all of their gifts in the event that they were ambushed by thieves.  And modern scholars agree that people travelled one camel per person in those days.  Three gifts, three camels = three wise men.

I can’t believe anyone disputes this basic fact.  I suppose the leftists will want to re-write We Three Kings now so it’s “We Undefined Plurality of Wise Men”.  What a travesty.

Comment #20816

Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 04:02 PM (e) (s)

Katarina:

Good question. I’m not religious, but if I were, I think I’d be fascinated by how reality works because it would be an insight into how God actually did/does things. The very last thing I would wish would be to get my facts wrong or have any serious misunderstanding, because I would be undermining my own faith and doing God an injustice.

So I don’t regard faith in general as any kind of barrier to clear understanding and accurate knowledge. Instead, I’m talking about what I consider some people’s faith in the infallibility of their interpretation of scriptural material. And so I’d agree that I meant the latter, that our trolls and Behe and Dembski all share this requirement of personal infallibility, and this is what informs and drives their mendacity.

Comment #20817

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 17, 2005 04:12 PM (e) (s)

Joel:
This attachment to ID by the guardians is similiar to the attachment to evolution by SETI, astrobiology, or panspermia.  Darwinists typically do not deny these ideas, just that they have nothing to do with evolution.

Astrobiology is a legitimate scientific discipline - whether or not we will identify life on other planets, it is important to understand the conditions that may favor it (if anything, because sooner or later we’re going to go there, and we may want to get a sense of what we are going to find).
Panspermia is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis, quite far-fetched when it was first proposed, but less so after more recent findings.
SETI is an effort that may or may not pan out, but has already paid some dividends froma technological standpoint, for instance in term of development of parallel computing, and is based on scientific principles (and lots of hope!). 

Astrology, on the other hand, is utter bunk, and can be easily proved so empirically.  Anyone who still adheres to it does so by ignoring the scientific method.

Comment #20818

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 04:14 PM (e) (s)

As a general rule, we have tried to be quite liberal with issues of freedom of expression here, but the PT board is getting a little impatient with some characters.

Andrea, would you and the “impatient board members” mind sharing a list of the idioms that we aren’t allowed to use here?  Frankly I’m sorta stunned that “fame whore” is off-limits.

And am I the only person who comments here that is not allowed to refer to the people at the IDEA Center as “morons”?

That’s fine if it’s true (you can ban whoever you want, obviously) but it would be nice to have confirmation of that fact.

Otherwise let’s just be frank: this is easily the most prudish blog on the Internet that is not devoted to propogating a religion.  No offense intended — it’s just an observation.

And if you do ban me again — please please please no bogusness about there being “no discernable change” in my posts, like last time.

Thanks.

Comment #20819

Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 04:16 PM (e) (s)

To deny Intelligent Design is to deny evolution. Without the former there never could have been the latter and there very definitely WAS the latter.

To assume that macrevolution (true speciation and the formation of the higher categories) is in progress today is without foundation and is unsupported by any and all experimental and observational methods.

Phylogeny, like ontogeny, has been an auto-generated, front-loaded, self-terminating phenomenon which has, also like ontogeny, proceeded with no reference to the environment in which it has taken place, driven by purely endogenous forces which remain at present unknown. Phylogeny, like ontogeny, differentiated most rapidly in the beginning, slowed with time and ended with cessation and extinction comparable with the death of the individual.

Of course that is just my opinion.

John A. Davison

Comment #20820

Posted by David Heddle on March 17, 2005 04:23 PM (e) (s)

I feel GWW’s pain. I was banned from PZ’s blog for posting too much dogma on a thread where everyone kept asking me theological questions. (GWW applauded my ban, which was a bit sad, or maybe a bit ironic.) On PT, I sense the sword of Damocles about to fall.

Comment #20822

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 17, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

GWW:
You are not the only offender, other posters are being “followed”, and some have been permanently banned.

Now, as a general rule, I personally don’t mind a bit of “color”, but I think people should ask themselves whether their posts would still be worth posting after they are purged of statements that may reasonably be considered insulting by the people it refers to.  If they are, then it is often the case that the offensive language actually gets in the way of conveying the message, and getting rid of it would be an improvement.  If they aren’t, well then don’t post them.

There are several reasons for this, such as to maintain the discussions as substantive as possible (which is already an effort due to the various trolls), and to make the site “safe” enough to be used as a resource for younger students and their teachers.  These are some of the reasons this site exists for, and anyone who wants the site to succeed should understand it, and cooperate.

All of us may make “off” remarks, at times.  We just ask that people try to exert some restraint, whenever possible.

Comment #20824

Posted by David Heddle on March 17, 2005 04:59 PM (e) (s)

I feel GWW’s pain. I was banned from PZ’s blog for posting too much dogma on a thread where everyone kept asking me theological questions. (GWW applauded my ban, which was a bit sad, or maybe a bit ironic.) On PT, I sense the sword of Damocles about to fall.

— apologies if this is posted twice. I got the dreaded PT server hiccup.

Comment #20825

Posted by Jones Alley on March 17, 2005 05:03 PM (e) (s)

“I hope you meant the latter, because I don’t think the former kind of statement is respectful to people of faith, and would certainly repel anyone of faith who was browsing through the site. I really can’t see a reason anyone would want to do that.”

Speaking only for myself, I don’t care in the slightest if “people of faith” are repelled by criticism of their faith.  You are welcome to believe any foolish superstitions you wish, just don’t expect me to respect your folly as a valid point of view.

Comment #20826

Posted by Evolving Apeman on March 17, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)

John Davison and David Heddle,

Unlike most of the trolls here, you two seem to be intelligent, reasonable folk. 

Can either of you tell me of any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illEgitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

Surely the ID movement has something out there.  The trolls at this forum won’t tell me cause they are afraid.

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

Comment #20827

Posted by Evolved Apeman on March 17, 2005 05:12 PM (e) (s)

John Davison and David Heddle,

Unlike most of the trolls here, you two seem to be intelligent, reasonable folk. 

Can either of you tell me of any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illEgitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

Surely the ID movement has something out there.  The trolls at this forum won’t tell me cause they are afraid.

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

Comment #20828

Posted by Steve F on March 17, 2005 05:16 PM (e) (s)

Thought the following from IDEA was rather amusing, r.e. age of the earth:

“This is an important question, however, and if you are struggling with it or are interested in learning more about this issue, we suggest you contact various authorities from various sides of the question, and come to your own conclusions.”

Who would the YEC authorities be?  A couple of blokes who happen to have PhDs but are not trained geochronologists and have signed up to a manifesto stating that any evidence contradicting a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong.  Great. 

To not have a position on this issue (non issue actually) is blatant intellectual dishonesty, moreover anyone who believes the earth is young is by default scientifically clueless.  Therefore to be afforded even a basic level of respect, they need to state acceptance of an old earth - its the only game in town.

Comment #20829

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 05:18 PM (e) (s)

David

GWW applauded my ban, which was a bit sad, or maybe a bit ironic

Neither, actually.  It would only be ironic if we were both trolls making earnest, repetitive and non-scientific arguments about why alien beings likely created the universe.

If this were my blog, you and DaveScot and the former host of “That’s Incredible” would be allowed to post only on the Bathroom Wall.

Comment #20830

Posted by Russell on March 17, 2005 05:19 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

I just need a clarification. Is all faith “a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and … ‘lying’s a virtue when your’e lying for God.’”?

I assure you, the song lyrics refer specifically to the Intelligent Design scam, not to religious faith in general.

Comment #20831

Posted by Russell on March 17, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)

John Davison …,
Unlike most of the trolls here, you … seem to be intelligent, reasonable folk.

Now that’s really funny!

Comment #20832

Posted by David Heddle on March 17, 2005 05:26 PM (e) (s)

Evolved Apeman,

In my opinion the best ID site is Hugh Ross’s.

Comment #20835

Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 05:42 PM (e) (s)

Russell,

Great song!

Jones Alley’

Speaking only for myself, I don’t care in the slightest if “people of faith” are repelled by criticism of their faith.  You are welcome to believe any foolish superstitions you wish, just don’t expect me to respect your folly as a valid point of view.

I think you are taking a rather selfish stand. Think about the purpose of this website. Think about the kind of people that accept Intelligent Design, and why. Also, think about the many people of faith who are respectful of agnostics and atheists, and have no objections to the consensus of peer-reviewed science.

I respect atheists, but I always find it irritating when they use this site to comment on why people who believe in something that cannot be proven empirically are foolish, childish, or worse. I just think a general criticism of faith is unfounded, and unproductive.

Besides, if you only want to talk to people who think exactly like you, that is pretty darn boring. I was an atheist, and an agnostic. Heck, I was raised by an atheist, with no church at all. If I choose to find comfort in something, what business is it of yours?

Comment #20836

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Andrea

Trust me — I want to cooperate but surely this

people should ask themselves whether their posts would still be worth posting after they are purged of statements that may reasonably be considered insulting by the people it refers to.

cannot be the standard.  It can’t be the standard because many of the posts which initiate these threads don’t pass the test.

Have you been reading Pharyngula lately?  He has some interesting posts and links to other blogs which discuss the tendency of certain political groups to internalize the opposition’s spin and engage in self-censorship.

The opening post of this thread (as are many posts on PT) is a blatant mockery of the Christians at the Discovery Institute.  If I was in their shoes and I sincerely believed that I was saving the world from secular humanism I’d be really damn offended by Steve Reuland’s description of my science.  I’d also see it as a mockery of my religion, which looks down on astrology.

On the other hand, if I was a sort of scummy liar trying to make a few bucks and taste a little fame in the Christian underworld, I might just be annoyed that I was being called on my garbage, sort of like Ashley Simpson was annoyed when her lip synching got screwed up on Saturday Night Live and she ran weeping off the stage.

I don’t know Dembski, Behe, Wells, Cordova et al.  I don’t want to know them.  I have lots of friends.  I don’t need people like that as friends.  Really.  Those folks make me want to vomit (note: I didn’t say “puke”, which was the first word that popped into my head — a word that high school kids enjoy and use themselves, by the way, all the time).

No, Flint will not convince me that the charlatans at the Discovery Institute are sincere and deeply religious believers in their “intelligent design” creationism garbage. 

And I would urge everyone who reads this blog to remain open to (1) question such conclusions about the “convictions” of the Discovery Institute folks and (2) question whether it is useful to suppress alternate conclusions such as the one I proferred.

Just so I’m perfectly clear: I think those people at the Discovery Institute are corrupt rotten liars who would sell their religion down the river in a second if another religion came along that was equally amenable to manipulation and provided them with more political power.

I’m not sure how to express that opinion “nicely” in a way that wouldn’t offend the DI crowd.  And I’m not sure why I’d want to.

Comment #20837

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

Just so I’m clear Andrea: I’m not brushing your last post off.

I’m just wondering if a more internally consistent clarification of the standards for commenting can be articulated.  I realize that such a standard may be nearly impossible to formulate in a group-run blog, as a practical matter.

Comment #20839

Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)

GWW,

May I make a suggestion? Just be friendly, as a general rule. You know, politeness, good manners, and all. It is not Andrea’s job to teach you the specifics. You are smart. You can figure it out.

Comment #20841

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 17, 2005 06:34 PM (e) (s)

Evolved Apeman wrote:

Surely the ID movement has something out there.  The trolls at this forum won’t tell me cause they are afraid.

More like no one is dumb enough to think that you’re asking your question in good faith.

You’re obviously capable of typing a message into a blog, so you’re capable of using Google.  If that’s too complex for you, we have a long list of ID sites in our blogroll.  Did you even think to look?

You know, if you wanted to find a way to insult us by making blanket accusations without backing them up, and without saying anything of substance, I’m sure you could have found a more creative way.

Comment #20842

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 17, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)

GWW: Please just use common sense.  There is no need for us to draw a line in the sand so that you can see how close you can get without crossing over it.  The vast majority of people here don’t have a problem with not being offensive; try to be one of them.

Comment #20857

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 08:00 PM (e) (s)

There is no need for us to draw a line in the sand so that you can see how close you can get without crossing over it. The vast majority of people here don’t have a problem with not being offensive; try to be one of them.

Dude, I am trying!!!

The vast majority of people here simply play patty-cake with trolls.  And when they call the trolls “morons” they don’t get warnings about being banned from the comments.

I’m not asking for a “line in the sand to toe up to” (and yeah that is an insulting thing to say but guess what?  I’m not offended and I won’t hold it against you).

I’m asking for consistent treatment and reasonableness or better explanations of what’s going on here.  For example: “Person X and Person Y on the PT “board” are still really upset at the argument you got into six months ago” or “some of us don’t believe that you didn’t know about Johnson’s stroke when you made your drool cup comment and we simply hate you.”  That would be reasonable.  That would be within the realm of my experience with human beings.

But here I simply stated my opinion (which no one has argued is unreasonable) that the DI charlatans are “fame whores.”  And I referred to the IDEA center authors as “morons.”

How on earth could those comments elicit a smackdown on a pro-evolution blog?  It boggles the mind, frankly.

There’s more going on here than “schoolkids need to be able to read these comments”.  There has to be.  I’m guessing that the average school kid who can’t handle “fame whore” can’t understand 95% of what you guys write in your posts.  So there has to be another explanation and the most reasonable one is a personal grudge.

My understanding of the status quo is the following: I can’t say “moron”, I can’t say “fame whore”, I can’t say “crap”, I have to call Sandefur “Mister,” and I’m guessing a few people would love it if I stopped using the ‘L word’.

What else is going to get my banned?  “Charlatan”?  “Dissembling”?  “Peddler”?  “Scummy”? “Disgusting”? “Despicable”?  “Loathesome”?

Are any of those words “patently offensive” to a person with “common sense” surfing the Internet and looking for pro-science anti-creationist blog?  Seriously. 

Perhaps it’s a quantity issue?  But you can’t honestly claim that even half of my posts are contentless over-vitriolic assaults on the Rube Army and their vacuum-helmeted generals.  A great many of my comments are unambiguous praise of the fine work of both my fellow commenters and the PT “board.”

Jeebus, I just posted a really long and weepy comment.  For that, I do apologize.

Comment #20858

Posted by colleen on March 17, 2005 08:17 PM (e) (s)

Alas!  The Jesus Saves sight “has exceeded it’s allocated data transfer”, so I’m waiting for a miracle to restore it.

Comment #20860

Posted by turtleherd on March 17, 2005 08:21 PM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman wrote:

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

This comment clearly illustrates a difference between blind faith and reason.  My mother (now in her sixties) has volunteered at Planned Parenthood for years.  She feels strongly that the decision to keep or abort a child is an individual’s choice, but is very happy if a woman with an unexpected pregnancy chooses to keep her child.  I know there is no bias in any advice she would give.  On the other hand, a stridently pro-life person does NOT respect the woman’s right to choose and any advice would be full of bias.

Similarly, I believe that if God made his presence known in some explicit, undeniable and overt way (lets say a booming voice heard by the whole earth and understood by all) most atheists/agnostics would be relieved and a good deal comforted.  There is no bias against the presence of God in most scientists; they are just trying to understand how the world works.  The same can not be said for some people of dogmatic faith.  Undeniable evidence of an absence of God would not be happily received and clearly biases their worldview.

Comment #20862

Posted by Keanus on March 17, 2005 08:29 PM (e) (s)

I think the rules here are a mix of common sense and reason. Don’t let your language get in the way of your message, which is what happens all too often. One may think another a nefarious schemer, an evil menace, or just a simple dolt for the ideas they offer, but use those labels and no one will read the rest of what you write. Attack the words, not the person. Good practice is akin to the old rule that one is better off attacking what one does than what one says. Words are cheap and frequently worthless. Actions are just the opposite and that’s where attention belongs. Of course on a blog, words are all we have, so dissecting the ideas expressed is more effective than calling the writer “stupid.” Frankly, I’m turned off by any comment the minute I see personal pejoratives surface, whether from the worst of the trolls or PT’s own blogmasters.

This whole discussion reminds me of a news story I heard today or yesterday in the car (I googled for a URL but could find none). It seems that the City of London (UK) has decided to experiment with removing all road signs and markers for selected blocks or intersections in the center of London. The thesis they’re testing is that drivers and pedestrians have become so dependent on signage that everyone assumes a sign gives him or her the absolute right to some action and will charge ahead without regard for anyone who may not recognize the same sign. The notion is that drivers will be more civil and considerate of others, if they have to guess what their rights are. They seem to be assuming that everyone will recognize the public roads as a commons and use them accordingly, but, as Garrett Hardin argued in his classic essay, such an approach is unlikely to work. Rules are necessary, sometimes, even on the commons that PT represents.

Comment #20865

Posted by Keanus on March 17, 2005 08:49 PM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman’s statement…

…asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

reveals an ignorance of Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood, in fact, is a very good place to ask about adoption. I put in four to six hours a week as a volunteer escort at Planned Parenthood (shielding clients and their companions from strident picketers who harass them and/or attempt to block their access to the PP clinic), so I have some familiarity with PP’s services. One of them is making legal adoption, and the necessary prenatal care, available to clients who wish to carry their pregnancy to term. Planned Parenthood seeks to minimize abortions,—which is why its greatest efforts are devoted to preventing unwanted pregnancies, obviating the need for abortions, which involve around 5% of their clients—but PP will provide abortions during the first trimester, if a client wants one.

Comment #20866

Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 08:49 PM (e) (s)

Evolved Apeman has asked my opinion and so I now offer it without the prior approval of certain members of this forum.

Intelligent Design is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I regard it as a given, necessary to understand anything about the living or the non-living world. The universe was designed and preprogrammed by an intelligence far beyond our capacity to comprehend. All of evolution took place driven by internal preprogrammed blueprints which were in no way modified by the environment in which that evolution took place. Just as the development of a human being is predetermined entirely by the controlled release (derepression) of the information stored in the fertilized egg, so also evolution unfolded by the derepression of information stored in its original sources which were probably several in number. There is absolutely no reason to assume a single origin for life and many reasons to think otherwise. Leo Berg postulated thousands of primary forms. The simple truth is that no one knows for certain except of course the Darwinians who know everything for certain. If you don’t believe it, just watch the reaction to this post.

I have summarized this view of evolution in a paper in press in Rivista di Biologia, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.”

Thank you for your question Evolved Apeman. Asking questions is the sign of an inquiring mind. I hope you find my response to be of some value.

John A. Davison

Comment #20871

Posted by Gary Hurd on March 17, 2005 09:11 PM (e) (s)

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

This comment alone labels “Evolved Apeman” as factually deficit ideologue.

Comment #20873

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 09:15 PM (e) (s)

One may think another a nefarious schemer, an evil menace, or just a simple dolt for the ideas they offer, but use those labels and no one will read the rest of what you write.

Well, this is part of the problem I’m having.  You say “no one” will read those messages but, in fact, those are the messages that most look forward to reading here!!!  And I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.

The messages I don’t enjoy reading as much (but I still do when I have the time) are the messages that delve into lengthy discussions of “epistemiological paradigms,” various grad-level philosophical discussions about “logical fallacies,” and “Shannon entropy.” 

My view is that those messages are the messages which the often-invoked but rarely seen “people on the fence” see and scratch their heads and say “Man, this creationist must be pretty damn smart if he’s making that Darwinist write an explanation which is impossible for me to understand.”

dissecting the ideas expressed is more effective than calling the writer “stupid.”

What is meant by “effective”?  It takes two sentences to dissect most of the “ideas” in the drivel promulgated by the Discovery Institute.  Nevertheless, they keep on repeated the same garbage.  How is mere “dissection” effective?  At some point (and I think we’re long long past that point) it simply must be made crystal clear to anyone who is reading the “dissection” — and it doesn’t matter how long they’ve been paying attention — that the Discovery Institute is staffed by a pack of disengenuous [insert you favorite term here but for the love of dog don’t insert the term “scientist”].

That is what being effective is about.

If this blog is trying to teach ignorant people and kids about evolutionary biology, I think it’s not doing a good job because nearly all of the evolutionary biology discussed here will fly above the heads of the previously uninformed.

If it’s trying to teach ignorant people and kids about the disgusting charlatans at the Discovery Institute, then why all this beating around the bush?  Why all the smarminess and wink, wink sarcasm?  Death by a thousand cuts is one thing but death by a thousand civilized inuendos and dull gentlemenly barbs?  If there’s any truth to the creationist charge that scientists are elitists, it’s not effectively rebutted by uptight prissiness — not that there’s anything wrong with that, per se.

Comment #20879

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 17, 2005 09:39 PM (e) (s)

GWW wrote:

I’m asking for consistent treatment and reasonableness or better explanations of what’s going on here.

Here’s what’s going on here.  There are a limited number of us who run the blog, and dozens of comments for each post.  We want to keep the place relatively civil, but it’s damned hard, and we don’t like it when people make it harder.  You’re right that other people post quesitonable things and don’t get called on it.  We can’t call everyone on everything.  You get called down because you’ve been very persistent and voluminous in the past when it comes to questionable commentary.  It’s probably not fair, but our limited attention tends to go to people who stick out.  It’s nothing personal, so please don’t take it that way.

But here I simply stated my opinion (which no one has argued is unreasonable) that the DI charlatans are “fame whores.”  And I referred to the IDEA center authors as “morons.”

The word “whore” is the sort of word that probably shouldn’t use to describe people, even if it’s qualified with an adjective that makes it non-sexual.  Think about the emotions that that word evokes.  “Morons” isn’t nearly as bad, but generally the sort of thing you should avoid as well.  What’s the point of insults like that anyway? 

What else is going to get my banned?  “Charlatan”?  “Dissembling”?  “Peddler”?  “Scummy”? “Disgusting”? “Despicable”?  “Loathesome”?

How about you not use any of those words?  Why not just describe what’s wrong with someone’s ideas rather than resort to colorful labels? 

And please, quit arguing with us about this.  We are asking you nicely, as we did last time.  Why is it so difficult?

Comment #20882

Posted by notch on March 17, 2005 09:45 PM (e) (s)

John Davison writes:

Just as the development of a human being is predetermined entirely by the controlled release (derepression) of the information stored in the fertilized egg, so also evolution unfolded by the derepression of information stored in its original sources which were probably several in number.

A perfect example of why this guy can’t be trusted.  Human development is entirely predetermined?  I wonder how you get to be a professor in biology and still come up with that statement.

Comment #20884

Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 09:55 PM (e) (s)

Steve, thank you very much for the “here’s what’s going on.”  I appreciate it.

Let me just answer a few of your questions directly without arguing because I don’t want to argue about this any more than you do (believe it or not).

Why is it so difficult?

Because from my perspective it’s just another example of The Man slapping a guy down for whistling his own tune (one of the aspects of organized religion, in fact, that I find most troubling).

Why not just describe what’s wrong with someone’s ideas rather than resort to colorful labels?

Because that’s not me.  Because I don’t enjoy beating around the bush.  Because I love love love colorful writing and practice makes perfect.  Because I like entertainment that appeals to grown ups and kids.  That’s why.

That said, it’s clear to me what the solution is.  Less means more. 

And don’t forget: Persian New Year this Sunday!

Comment #20885

Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 09:59 PM (e) (s)

Maybe GWW is Scott Paige afterall.

For what it is worth, I have no connection with Discovery Institute or any other organization. I don’t believe in joining organizations as they tend to limit ones perspective and I sure wouldn’t want that to happen. Besides they want nothing to do with me which is just fine too. I’m checking out soon. What do I care?

John A. Davison

Comment #20889

Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Maybe GWW is Scott Paige afterall.

For what it is worth, I have no connection with Discovery Institute or any other organization. I don’t believe in joining organizations as they tend to limit ones perspective and I sure wouldn’t want that to happen. Besides they want nothing to do with me which is just fine too. I’m checking out soon. What do I care?

John A. Davison

Comment #20891

Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 10:16 PM (e) (s)

Maybe GWW is Scott Paige afterall.

For what it is worth, I have no connection with Discovery Institute or any other organization. I don’t believe in joining organizations as they tend to limit ones perspective and I sure wouldn’t want that to happen. Besides they want nothing to do with me which is just fine too. I’m checking out soon. What do I care?

John A. Davison

Comment #20899

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 17, 2005 11:38 PM (e) (s)

GWW said: 

But here I simply stated my opinion (which no one has argued is unreasonable) that the DI charlatans are “fame whores.”  And I referred to the IDEA center authors as “morons.”

I urge you to pick up a copy of Ben Franklin’s autobiography — heck, it’s probably available on line, for free.  Take a look at his list of 13 virtues.  And note especially what he said about persuading others away from their erroneous views.

Yes, it’s sometimes accurate to call a moron a moron.  But does it advance your case?

Read Franklin’s advice, and his personal experience.

Comment #20900

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 17, 2005 11:44 PM (e) (s)

Keanus, regarding signs on roads:  There is a Dutch fellow who advocates eliminating signs — among other things, they’re confusing.  He’s developed a system that is devised to make every driver responsible, and it seems to work.  There has been at least one story in the New York Times about this guy since October, and I think there may have been two.

The reporter describes the faith this guy has in the method.  In one town where he’s eliminated all signs and lane lines, to demonstrate, he got a busy roundabout (traffic circle) at rush hour, and walked backwards into traffic.  No screeching of brakes, no crunching of  fenders, no cursing and hefflefingers.  Cars went around him.  He was safe.

I suspect this has more to do with chaos theory than evolution theory.

Comment #20902

Posted by RBH on March 18, 2005 12:42 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote

I suspect this has more to do with chaos theory than evolution theory.

More likely, self-organization and/or swarm control.

RBH

Comment #20921

Posted by Joe Shelby on March 18, 2005 08:09 AM (e) (s)

(heading off-topic) I think the “no signs” thing will only work for a little while, but gradually, mistakes will happen.  it only takes 1 drunk driver, 1 person falling asleep at the wheel, 1 person talking on their cell phone, 1 teenager playing with the radio (I speak from personal experience on THAT one ;-) ), to totally miss what the others around you are doing and cause an accident.

Right now, its so “new” that people HAVE to pay attention.  Things change when people get comfortable with it.  get comfortable, get lazy, and carelessness will cause problems.  At least with the signs in the common situation, there’s usually a clear indication of who wasn’t paying attention and caused the accident.

As I see it, like good economic theory, it relies on “enlightened self-interest”, which is very good in the short-term.  However, the “enlightened” part disappears rather quickly in this country and unfettered self-interest causes problems for society.

Comment #20926

Posted by Craig T on March 18, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

Back to the original topic…
On a talks.origins thread, I almost asked what the chances were that dust particles floating in space would form the shape of a human face by random, natural forces alone. (See the Witch Head Nebula) It was meant as sarcasm. Now I see that not every ID group would have caught that.
And as an aside to the Apeman: After years of Planned Parenthood helping my wife and I avoid pregnancy, they gave us helpful hints on the quickest way to conceive when we were ready to start a family. We tried to explain this to the protesters we walked past, but they were too busy chanting. They even tried to convince us that Planned Parenthood wanted to harm our unborn daughter.

Comment #20939

Posted by gravitybear on March 18, 2005 12:24 PM (e) (s)

Back to the original question, finding the silliest claim on the magi site: I was going to look, but I couldn’t even get past where they asked why Michael Jordan’s parents were not great athletes.

Comment #20942

Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

I respect atheists, but I always find it irritating when they use this site to comment on why people who believe in something that cannot be proven empirically are foolish, childish, or worse. I just think a general criticism of faith is unfounded, and unproductive.

Why? I’m a Christian and I don’t think a criticism of faith is unfounded at all. And if you cannot prove something empirically, philosophically, etc it’s unlikely to be true or even exist. So I disagree I feel faith is as open to criticism as anything else. I have often wondered why it should be shielded from view.

I mean Scientology requires faith as do all religions.

Comment #20944

Posted by LeeFranke on March 18, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)

UFOlogy is good science!!!

I’ve got the probe to prove it ;-)

lee

Comment #20955

Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)

Uber wrote:

Why? I’m a Christian and I don’t think a criticism of faith is unfounded at all. And if you cannot prove something empirically, philosophically, etc it’s unlikely to be true or even exist. So I disagree I feel faith is as open to criticism as anything else. I have often wondered why it should be shielded from view.

When I talk about faith, I think of the following definition:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If you look it up under dictionary.com, it is definition under #2. Generally if you have faith, than you hope that your predictions about it will come true, but you don’t have the certainty they will.

Comment #20981

Posted by Air Bear on March 18, 2005 05:03 PM (e)