Comment #28867

Posted by steve on May 7, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

I was shocked to find out there’s a jury for this show trial. What exactly is the jury charged with determining?

Comment #28868

Posted by steve on May 7, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)

Dembski stated flat out, right there on his blog, “Kansas may well turn out to be the Waterloo for America’s [scientists].”

A mere typo. Turns out, Kansas is a water loo for America’s [scientists]

Comment #28869

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

It seems this has completely backfired on the ID movement and really has made them look like a complete farce to the entire country.

This is very amusing indeed.

Comment #28870

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 7, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

Great summary, Nick. And the graphic is PERFECT.

Comment #28872

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:54 PM (e) (s)

Haha, I just saw this which they posted earlier that day:

he Darwinists think that by bringing it up they can somehow make this about ID. It’s not. Did Mr. Igrigonegaray read the standards? One wonders.

Haha.

Oh how this turned to bite them in the rear end.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=318&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Comment #28875

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 7, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

I wonder about Dembski’s grasp on reality. Can he possibly be surprised that the ID folks sound like creationists? Was he expecting the witnesses to suddenly transcend their usual sectarian agendas and present cogent scientific arguments?

His comment about subpoenas warns that the ID movement is modeling its means of ascent on that of Lysenkoism. The more they appear as fakes and liars, the more they will resort to naked political power in pursuit of their goals.

Comment #28876

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 7, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

D*mbski writes ““The hearings were intended to allow both evolutionists as well as critics of evolution to have their say, but the evolutionists decided to boycott the event, so only the critics of evolution are having their say. But there’s an added twist: given the way the hearings are set up, an evolutionist lawyer (Pedro Irigonegaray) gets to interrogate the evolution critics and an evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert) gets to interrogate the evolutionists. Yet given that the evolutionists are boycotting the event, only the evolution critics are being interrogated.”

1 - 2 - 3  AAAAwwwwwwwwww

Comment #28881

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 04:51 PM (e) (s)

It certainly does seem that the ID movement now regard this whole trial as a loss, maybe not in Kansas, but certainly to the remainder of the world and other states.

Comment #28883

Posted by bill on May 7, 2005 05:31 PM (e) (s)

Dembski made a comment recently that his “career was in ruins.”

I’d like to ask, what career? 

Is he a scientist?  No, he conducts no research.

Is he a teacher?  No, he didn’t teach at Baylor or anywhere else to my knowledge.  Baylor simply let his contract run out.

Is he a self-promoter?  Well, if you admit that self-promoting is a “career” then I think you’re getting close.

Dembski makes his living off of the generosity of others.  (apologies to Tennessee Williams) 

Therefore, I think he’s irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter what he says or what he does because he has no track record, no credibility and no contribution to make.

I hate to admit it but at least Behe, who in my opinion is just a notch above Dembski, conducts science in his spare time.  Dembski doesn’t even do that.

So the bottom line is that we should cast old Bill into the pit with the likes of John Davison and Salvador and all the other trolls who frequent the PandasThumb.

Sorry, Dembski, but you’ve Waterloo’d one time too many.  Nobody believes your hysterical whines.  My advice to you is to move to California.  I heard they discovered a Quote Mine there and you can get plots for cheap.

Comment #28884

Posted by Person on May 7, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)

Kansas isn’t evolution’s Waterloo…rather, it’s shaping up to be it’s Austerlitz.

Comment #28886

Posted by Sean Foley on May 7, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

Everyone please get out their violins for the poor, oppressed critics of evolution.

Hey, look: it’s the world’s smallest, most irreducibly complex violin.

And it’s playing just for William Dembski.

Comment #28887

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 7, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

Dembski really said this? 

“I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”

That day already occurred, in Arkansas, in 1981.  “Evolutionists” were deposed, under oath.  It was impressive, but it just touched the surface of science.

On the other hand, in that case in Arkansas, Dembski’s side was deposed, too — under oath.  Having sworn an oath to tell the truth, most of them having ended that oath “so help me God,” each and every creationist deposed said that there is no science behind their creationist claims, and that creationism is based on their reading of scripture.

Be careful what you hope for, Dr. Dembski!  You could get it. 

In fact, isn’t Dembski listed as one of the “expert” witnesses for the Dover case?  Under oath, will Dembski deny his faith, or admit the religious underpinnings of his claims? 

I predict that, before the gavel raps three times in Pennsylvania, Dembski will deny his faith to keep his career.  Which will win?

Comment #28888

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 7, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)

“I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”

He’ll get his chance in Dover.

Alas for him, though, the ID kooks will ALSO be “deposed at length on their views”.  And as Kansas has already demonstrated, their views are, uh, pretty nutty.

Dembski seems to be a big fan of the “Saddam Hussein defense” —- get your ass kicked thoroughly, then declare victory.  <shrug>

Comment #28890

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 7, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

I was shocked to find out there’s a jury for this show trial. What exactly is the jury charged with determining?

I haven’t heard anything about a jury, I’m not sure what you are talking about.

Comment #28891

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 7, 2005 06:09 PM (e) (s)

I followed Nick’s link to the DI media whine, and scrolled through a lot of B.S. until a post about searching the web for “behe” plus “the profanity of choice” caught my eye.

So I gave it a try. The obvious scatological term to use was “bullshit.”

Wow!

And then I tried names like Dembski, Johnson, Wells, and even the more general term “intelligent design.”  The results were spectacular.  As a control I tried Darwin, Dawkins, and Hurd (Hey, it was a negative control OK?).

I might blog this tomorrow.

Comment #28892

Posted by Ben on May 7, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

It certainly does seem that the ID movement now regard this whole trial as a loss, maybe not in Kansas, but certainly to the remainder of the world and other states.

They may certainly look ridiculous in the extreme, but I wouldn’t take it as a given just yet that they’ll just throw in the towel on forcing creationism into science classes. After all, don’t they thrive on perceived adversity and victimisation?

Comment #28893

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 06:12 PM (e) (s)

Dembski seems to be a big fan of the “Saddam Hussein defense” —- get your ass kicked thoroughly, then declare victory.  <shrug>

I can just imagine Dembski saying something like this:

There are no evolutionists in America, ID is perfectly secure and the atheists are converting to Christianity in droves

Even though general newspapers and others observing said trials notice the complete incompetency of the ID proponents, which has occured already with this trial.

Comment #28894

Posted by Fernmonkey on May 7, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)

>> “I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”  <<

It’s sad, isn’t it?  Scientific debates are not won and lost in court - they’re won and lost in the lab, in the field, in peer-reviewed journals.

If the IDers have anything really good supporting their theory, why haven’t they taken it to Nature?  Being able to knock down one of the big theories underpinning biology would be really something, wouldn’t it?  Surely they’d be better off trying to convince real proper grown-up scientists rather than Kansas school board members - and once the scientific community has accepted that the wonderful ID theory has bested Darwin once and for all, the textbooks will all reflect that as sure as night follows day.

Comment #28898

Posted by Flint on May 7, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

As they say, even cripple bleeder singles look like line drives in the next day’s box scores. What we’re watching is the ID contestant taking a sound licking. We get to watch for what, three days? At the end of which, the judges scrape the losing candidate off the canvas and hold his unconscious arm in the air in victory, and the fight results are duly recorded that way.

And tomorrow’s box score, written by the winners, indicates that in a fair fight with both sides presenting their best cases, the ID proponents won a unanimous victory. And any whiners who try to bring up the details of the “trial” itself are just bitter over sour grapes. The RESULT is what matters.

Anyone can look up the gold medal winner from any Olympic event in any past Olympics. The winner’s name somehow doesn’t link to such little details as which countries the judges were from, or which countries boycotted the entire Olympics for long-forgotten peeves. So our local scientifical types still think the content matters. PR opportunities don’t work that way.

Comment #28901

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 7, 2005 07:09 PM (e) (s)

Did I hear somebody call for depositions?

Comment #28903

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 7, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

After all, don’t they thrive on perceived adversity and victimisation?

But, you see, the problem with always being a martyr is that you keep getting killed … …

Comment #28904

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 7, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)

Now, Nick, in HHGttG, the prediction was verified by a copy of the HHGttG from the far future.

I’d be interested to know what lines of questioning Dembski thinks are going to be a problem for scientists in a deposition. Pointing out that not everything is known about evolutionary biology is no problem for scientists. If Dembski is thinking about trying to apply his rhetorical stuff from Citizen Magazine last year, I think he will find that his fantasy victories are hard to convert into reality.

Comment #28906

Posted by NelC on May 7, 2005 07:45 PM (e) (s)

OMG, I just saw the HHGttG movie tonight, and it struck me on the way home who the Intelligent Designer is: Slaartibartfast!

That’s why IDers don’t want to say his name, they know how embarrassed he gets about it….

Comment #28909

Posted by St. McHinx on May 7, 2005 08:29 PM (e) (s)

Matt said:

I wonder about Dembski’s grasp on reality. Can he possibly be surprised that the ID folks sound like creationists? …

Now there you go, sounding like someone rational.  Actually I’ve wondered about this “grasp on reality” about religious people in general.  I still struggle with: what do, as Salvador would say, “the leadership” of ID believe?  Are they truly Faithful(tm) and have noble intentions?  Are they deluded?  Are they manipulative con artists trying to sell books, gain power, or crave attention?  [Aside: as my wife once asked an overly verbal friend, “Did your mom breast feed you?” — It shut him up for about 2 minutes.]  I can’t see how believing in ID can possibly help someone in life, or help humanity overall (except maybe to make an individual more comfortable with his mortality and fears).  To me, the whole thing (ID/evolution) is a non-argument.  Unfortunately, in the theater of culture and politics, it’s not.  Much as I’d like to dismiss this whole thing as simply the agitations of the indoctrinated, their machinations are a threat to the future of this country.  And so the devoted people of Pandas Thumb and others step up to answer the challenge, and do a mighty fine job in my opinion.

As Richard Bach once said, “Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they’re yours.”  Problem is, IDist’s are arguing for the limitations of others, and I don’t like that.

Comment #28911

Posted by Joe McFaul on May 7, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

I’ve got news for Mr. Dembski, lusting for the cross examination of scientists.

I prepare *hundreds* of witnesses every year for their cross examinations. Hundreds.

I rehearse their testimony with them.

I show them all the documents and exhibits they may have to deal with.

I even will run them through a mock cross exam of my own. 

But none of this will really allow them to survive cross examination.

This is what works: I whisper a secret something to each of my witnesses. If they follow my whispered advice, I gurantee they will be impervious to any cross examination by any attorney.

Here’s my whipsered secret advice:

“Tell the truth.”

And that’s why ID will fail in court. They won’t tell the truth. Ed Darrell is right. They will deny their faith three times before telling the truth.

Comment #28917

Posted by Don Sheffler on May 7, 2005 09:55 PM (e) (s)

Flint’s comment #28898 is, alas, right on.  This Kansas Kangaroo Kourt is made up of members who have intentionally run for their positions in order to stack the decision-making body with proponents of Creationi- err, Intelligent Design.

This is a political fight and nothing else.  Details don’t matter.  This is why the science community is boycotting.  It’s a show trial.

Perhaps what the IDers are most annoyed about is that the accused decided not to show up.  Not only that, the cross examination of the IDers alone still seems to be strong enough to make the ID argument almost too silly for the Kourt to justify making the proposed changes to the curriculum, even if the DESPERATELY WANT TO.

Interesting.

Comment #28919

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 7, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

But the Board will make the changes - this just made them dig in their heels deeper, I think.  We may have (and I’m not sure this is completely true) turned the tables on them with these hearings, but round two will start when the standards are adopted.  We’ll just have to wait and see what the Board does, but they have the votes and the resolve to do whatever they want to, irrespective of how the hearings turned out in the eyes of the world’s press.

Comment #28923

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 7, 2005 10:25 PM (e) (s)

Jack,

After the creationists confessed they didn’t bother to read the standards, and after the witnesses have laid the groundwork for an overwhelming summary judgment on establishment clause issues, can the governor, attorney general and legislature afford to let the board screw up the standards enough to get sued? 

I mean, politically.  Can the conservative agenda in Kansas afford such a crushing courtroom loss?

Comment #28924

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 7, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

Hey, look: it’s the world’s smallest, most irreducibly complex violin.

And it’s playing just for William Dembski.

Bwahahaha.

I guess the IDers now know what it feels like to actually have to put forward and defend a positive position, while their opponents sit back and knock holes in it without presenting an alternative. (Of course, the relevant difference is that evolutionary theory actually has a positive scenario it can defend if need be, while ID clearly has nothing comparable, other than old-style young-earth creationism.) It’s about time the tables were turned.

It’s ironic how this event, intended to be a show trial of evolution, has instead turned into a very effective media trial of ID. Dembski’s griping about how he wishes he could have forced scientists to testify, thus getting his own pet ideas out from under the spotlight, is more than a little chilling - but clearly no more than sour grapes, in this context.

Comment #28928

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:01 PM (e) (s)

“His comment about subpoenas warns that the ID movement is modeling its means of ascent on that of Lysenkoism. The more they appear as fakes and liars, the more they will resort to naked political power in pursuit of their goals.”

politically, self professed creationists lead both the house and the senate.

this, combined with the “heels digging in” attitude of this bunch does not preclude a repeat of the McCarthy era, imo.

If the fillibuster is repealed in the senate…. look out.

Comment #28929

Posted by David Duncan on May 7, 2005 11:07 PM (e) (s)

There are many possible positions that the term “intelligent design” can cover, from creationism to the belief that some kind of intelligence had to be involved with the origin of life, and even to the THEORY that some kind of intelligence might have been involved with the origin of life.

I hope you all noticed the difference between the last two, and do not have the problem of conflating them.

Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does.  “Proof” is not that with which you begin an investigation, but that with which you end the investigation if it ends successfully with regard to the theory proposed.

What is it that you expect?  That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first?  Where else does science insist on such an extreme standard?  It’s absurd even to suggest such a thing.

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself.  It makes me think some of you fear the questions that ID asks.  But what have you to fear?  If a signature of intelligence is found, it was there all along, and is simply part of the truth of existence.  If it is not found, eventually the movement will die from lack of results.

But what I sense is that some of you don’t even want the questions that ID asks posed at all.  You simply want everyone to fall in line and not ask questions.

I hope you can all get over it.  The questions will keep coming until they are answered.  I sincerely hope that in 10 or 20 years molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum ARE explained fully, without the mere unsubstantiated imaginations of how they evolved that is forced the fill the factual gaps today.  At least we will then know.

Until then, however, ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise.  In fact, you should think of it as pressure that ID is applying to force Darwinism either to evolve or to collapse as a comprehensive theory. : )

Comment #28930

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:12 PM (e) (s)

“That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first?  “

why not?  you have had thousands of years to gather evidence in support.

I would settle for even reasonable evidence, let alone any “proof”.

“Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does”

NO.  if you truly think that, then you haven’t a clue what science is or does.

” The questions will keep coming until they are answered”

uh, i have a bit of news for you, the questions ID’ists ask HAVE been answered.  over and over and over again.

You just won’t listen.

Comment #28931

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:17 PM (e) (s)

I was watching a program on Nat Geo this morning, that examined the “evidence” that anti-moon landing folks have presented in their support of a “government conspiracy” that faked the moon landing.

ALL of the evidence they presented, every single shred of it, was summary dealt with and shredded beyond reasonable doubt, over the hour long program.

The funny thing was, at the end, the anti-lunar landing folks didn’t change one bit of their story, even when the direct refutation of their evidence was presented right to them.

It’s apparently a mental defect that creationists share.

pathetic, really.  maybe we will have a cure for it someday, and they will thank us.

Comment #28932

Posted by afarensis on May 7, 2005 11:35 PM (e) (s)

What is it that you expect?  That before one should look for the signature of intelligence, we should have absolute proof of it first?  Where else does science insist on such an extreme standard?  It’s absurd even to suggest such a thing.

No, we expect experiments and fieldwork that might support any part of ID. This is the same standard we hold evolutionary theory to - there are literally millions of experiments that have been performed since Darwin first ennunciated the theory. How many experiments have ID proponents performed? How much fieldwork have they done? I would argue that before we look for “the signature of intelligence” we at least have some experimental evidence that would indicate the search isn’t a big waste of time and resources. Although one does not begin an investigation with proof, one does start looking for it after one comes up with a new theory. You would also have the results of some experimentation or fieldwork which leads you to come up with the new theory in the first place. What prior research did the ID proponets have that led them to ID? Other than the Bible?

Comment #28933

Posted by Randall Wald on May 7, 2005 11:42 PM (e) (s)

Is it just me, or does Dembski’s comment about scientists being subpoenaed and forced to testify remind you guys of the Crackpot Index rule #34:

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

Comment #28935

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 7, 2005 11:54 PM (e) (s)

70 points.

Comment #28938

Posted by colleen on May 8, 2005 12:50 AM (e) (s)

I wrote a e-mail to Mr Crowther (at Media Complaints):
Mr Crowther,
  You are right when you say reporters are irresponsible in not reading all of both reports.
  How can they do a fair and balanced article?
  Unless they had already made their minds!
  This kind of bias is inexcusable!!!
Napoleon would have won if he’d  read  the majority report-last sentence not sent.  But I really really wanted to.
Kind hard to leave a comment there.

Comment #28939

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:09 AM (e) (s)

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself.

Ummm, your ID heros have already admitted that *there is no scientific theory of ID*.

Do try and keep up, would you?

Comment #28940

Posted by Fernmonkey on May 8, 2005 01:28 AM (e) (s)

Until then, however, ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise.

You really believe that research into, say, bacterial flagella and the blood clotting cascade only happens because some neo-creationists use these things as examples?

Comment #28941

Posted by Matt Inlay on May 8, 2005 01:38 AM (e) (s)

David Duncan, you wrote:

Where ID means the THEORY, it IS science, doing what science does.

Your comments are those of someone who has never really investigated the “theory” of ID.  Those who have immediately recognize it as fake science.  ID makes no testable predictions, is not based on any positive evidence, and has no proposed research program.  It has done NOTHING that science “does”.

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the theory itself.

I agree that most who comment here have an overt hatred of ID, but that’s because of how awful it is as science.  It’s not even trying to be science.  It’s just trying to look like science.

But what I sense is that some of you don’t even want the questions that ID asks posed at all.  You simply want everyone to fall in line and not ask questions.

No, that’s absolutely wrong.  There’s no question that ID has asked that scientists fear answering.  The problem is that the answers can get extremely technical, and to really understand those kinds of answers might require more background information that can be taught in a high school biology class.

ID is actually pushing Darwinists to look at these areas which they might have neglected otherwise.

Not really.  I thought that way regarding Darwin’s Black Box at first.  I thought maybe irreducible complexity was a problem that biology needed to solve.  However, biologists had asked and answered those questions before DBB was published, and they continue to answer them now.  The only point of that book was to create the appearance of a controversy.

Comment #28943

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 8, 2005 02:08 AM (e) (s)

Schiavo backfired on the religious extremists.  Now the Kansas Kreationist Kooks are roasting on a spit.

I am digging it heavily.

evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert)

John Calvert is a moron.

Any of us here could argue the living crap out of him on this intelligent design bullcrap in ten seconds.  Defending the anti-science agenda of Disclaimery Institute bigots and liars is more contemptible than trying to free Charlie Manson.

Comment #28955

Posted by shiva on May 8, 2005 08:04 AM (e) (s)

Scientists (like well minded serious debaters everywhere) in this case lack the political savvy and have wisely kept out of this farce. But what an unexpected stroke of fortune it has been! As ID/C is the theory that seeks to overturn the accepted synthesis it must open itself up for questions. Instead it has been the other way round. Thanks are due to Pedro Irigonegaray Esq. for clearly explaining his role to the press and sticking to the script. In fact this is quite different from the Scopes trial where the pro-science counsel made quite a mess of things and it was left to the Judiciary to prevent a Lysenkoist denunciation. Bill of course is lucky to have not been there at Kansas. There is so much of his prattling archived on the web that can be put together and shot back at him to make him look like a know nothing. Bill, Wells and Behe are past the stage of debates as all three have been roundly defeated time and again. Which is why you see these leaders using their misled factotums like cannon fodder. As a matter of policy scientists should turn down debate invitations every now and then and leave the ID/C cranks to stew in their own juice and bile. The debacle at Kansas could lead to a new and unexpected setback for ID (not IDC pseudoscience). Seeing how these cranks have fared in the depositions; there must be many ID supporters who feel terribly let down by the ID farce and choose to return to good old fashioned Creationism, as ID offers neither the openness of science nor the comfort of a misguided view of faith. Religious scientists would be happy that dishonest pamphleteers don’t become representatives of faith. This could become a Win-Win for the science and people of faith and a Lose-Lose for the IDwallahs.

Comment #28967

Posted by GT(N)T on May 8, 2005 09:49 AM (e) (s)

When will people like Mr. Duncan realize that ID isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis, and an untestable one at that.

Comment #28971

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 10:22 AM (e) (s)

However, specific forms of ID have been suggested which are testable. Dembski’s EF was tested, and it failed by detecting false positives. While ID in general consists of vague untestable statements, occasionally it is used to mean testable, and false, statements.

Comment #28975

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 10:54 AM (e) (s)

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

As another poster commented at another site, at least the scientists supportive of the proposed changes had the backbone to get on the stand and submit to evolutionist Irigonegaray’s public cross-examination, letting the chips fall where they may.

Some of us are still waiting for these alleged “professional scientists” to evolve a backbone (btw, would that be an example of “micro” or “macro” evolution?), stop whining from the sidelines, and join the non-Darwinist scientists in letting THEIR positions be equally subject to public cross-examination. 

In principle, I could agree with Joe McFaul’s whispered advice to his witnesses, 

“Tell the truth”

but unlike McClean vs Arkansas, evolutionists are clearly too scared this time around to take their turn on the witness stand at all.  Just plain Fear Factor.  (Maybe it’s a new hox gene or something that somehow mutated in the evo-population in the intervening years since McClean.)

But I can understand.  They’re okay with an evolutionist lawyer interrogating non-Darwinists, but they know that if they were to submit their pro-evolution positions to a non-Darwinist cross-examination likewise, the “world’s press” might wind up writing a few things stuff they don’t want written by the time cross-ex ended.

Safety first, y’know!  (Even if more than a little hypocrisy is the price tag thereof.)

On another issue, another poster wrote,

What I find alarming is the obvious sneering hatred of the (ID) theory itself.

I would say that there’s something rather ~unscientific~ about such hatred, very much so, but then again, the evolutionists have a lot to lose, worldview-wise. 
A lot of pure personal ~faith~ has been invested in Darwinism, naturalism, materialism.  Like any church-goer, this Darwinist faith has been carefully cultivated and reinforced in their lives.  A major investment, natch.

Somebody’s core beliefs (about the nature of science, about Christianity, about reality itself) are thus threatened by the ID hypothesis, regardless of anything else.  Been that way for a long time.
Hence the obvious sneering hatred. 

But rather than be ‘alarmed’ by this fact, I try to use it as a personal motivator.
 
Regardless of the hearings, regardless of the Board’s future actions on this matter pro or con, there’s a ~lot~ of opportunity out there to sow the seeds of a scientific Paradigm-Shift.  There’s a lot of work that can be accomplished by anyone willing to put in the time and effort.  I hope to be among those who do so.

FL

Comment #28976

Posted by David Duncan on May 8, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

Fernmonkey, you misunderstood what I said.  No, research into bacterial flaggella does not ONLY happen because ID is using it as an example.  I think ID has caused a step up into research in the area of bacterial flagella because the example of such molecular machines is striking.

In addition, the answer is NO, we do NOT know how they evolved, no more than we know how life began from lifelessness.  But their are plenty of hypotheses.  None of which have been…uh…well…tested. : )  But that doesn’t seem to stop the ardent and faithful Darwinist from believing one or more of them must have been true.  I myself have proposed a theory of what to LOOK for and what would constitute strong evidence of design.  You can read it here:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=…

But you see, finding that kind of evidence may range from very difficult to impossible.  But it is something to look for, so whether or not ID is testable depends on whether or not evidence of this type can be found.  However, if sneering hatred of the question is all one can expect to be greeted with, that is a very efective way of discouraging the question.  I suspect that is what many of you intend, and if so, I suggest you look inward at the source of the problem which makes you need such a thing.

Matt, thanks for your temperance.  It shows character on your part.

However, regarding the bacterial flagellum, we do NOT know how it was put together by natural selection.  We might figure it out in 10 to 20 years with all the genomic sequencing going on of bacteria, but we do not know it today.  What we do have today are HYPOTHESES of how it was put together, but that isn’t enough.

It isn’t enough for ID and it isn’t enough for natural selection. 

Now, I have a question, sort of an informal poll question, I am curious to know the answer.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?  That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

Comment #28977

Posted by Flint on May 8, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?  That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

This is two entirely different and distinct questions. Your implication that they are the same is highly illuminating.

To answer your second question first, I don’t think there is any incompatibility, and I doubt you’d find a single scientist (even Dawkins) who would disagree.

However, back to your first question, I suspect Dawkins and many others would point out that religious doctrines are not required to understand natural processes. They are entirely possible (natural processes may have been designed and implemented by Divine fiat. There is no evidence either in favor or against this position), but science regards supernatural explanations as irrelevant because if there ARE any supernatural processes, they have never been observed to interfere with explanations based on leaving them out.

So theistic scientists regard the operations of the objective universe as how God (the god(s) of their choice, depending on their backgrounds) decided to do things. Science in this view is simply understanding their gods’ methods and intentions. To the non-theistic scientist, the objective universe is what it is, the question of how it got that way is just one more thing to investigate.

However, ID and other “happened by means forever beyond possible investigation” are not science because they basically substitute worship for observation and experiment. Saying “some unnamed, undefined designer did it” isn’t an explanation of anything. At best, it’s an excuse to stop looking because no answer can be found by mortal men. And “give up, it’s hopeless” is as far from the spirit of science as it’s possible to get.

Comment #28980

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

John Calvert is a moron.

Any of us here could argue the living crap out of him on this intelligent design bullcrap in ten seconds.

Now ~this~ is some good stuff here.  Classic PT.
Only one tiny microscopic problem.

It seems that “Any Of Us” has yet to actually ~show up~ on the witness stand and allow Mr. Calvert to publicly cross-examine our mondo superior scientific evolutionist positions, so that “Any Of Us” can argue the living crap out of him in 10 seconds (because after all, he is in your words, a moron.)

Where is “Any Of Us” hiding?  Why hide in the first place? 
Why not back up all the bravado with a little actual backbone for a change?

FL

Comment #28981

Posted by Art on May 8, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

FL,

Do you think that the board of education members should be held accountable for being informed on these matters?  I do, and if these members (the antievolution minority or the entire board, makes no difference to me) would agree to:

1.  Listen to my remarks and statements;

2.  Take an exam based solely on my remarks (and not requiring acceptance of any particular POV);

and 3.  Agree to recuse themselves from all subsequent proceedings if they failed the exam.

then I would be glad to lend the good people of KS a hand.

Second question - do you think there is a snowman’s chance in hell that the board members would agree to this (reasonable, IMO) standard of accountability?  I don’t.  (Not a specific slam against the KS board - precious few politicans anywhere would agree to direct, immediate accountability for their actions.)

Comment #28982

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 8, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s)

Excellent statement.  I have added it to my notes on how to describe this issue in next week’s summation.

Comment #28983

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

evolutionists are clearly too scared this time around to take their turn on the witness stand at all.

How right you are, FL. You have us dead to rights. If we take the witness stand we will easily be exposed as frauds. We’ve only made it this far by enforcing a multinational embargo on any criticism of evolution. Editors at dozens of journals scour submissions, looking for blasphemy. But as soon as a philosopher like Meyer or a lawyer like Johnson nobly asserts the truth, the worthless edifice of biology will fall apart. Across the country, whole university biology departments will resign in shame. Charlie Wagner will get the Nobel Prize. PZ and Reed will commit seppuku. Harvard will hire Kathy Martin. MIT gets Ken Ham. Dembski will be named to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Trinity. And god himself will descend from heaven to personally thank you and give you a Lamborghini.

Comment #28984

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

but unlike McClean vs Arkansas, evolutionists are clearly too scared this time around to take their turn on the witness stand at all.

Umm, may I remind you that your side LOST in Arkansas?  Just like it has LOST every single Federal court case it has ever been involved with?  Every single solitary one?

Why is that, I wonder … . .

Comment #28985

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

Somebody’s core beliefs (about the nature of science, about Christianity, about reality itself) are thus threatened by the ID hypothesis

I’m curious —- the IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with religion.  Nothing AT ALL.

Given that, there should be no reaosn at all whatsoever for you (or any other IDer) to yammer on about Christianity or God or religion or worldviews or whatever.

So why are you?

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim their crap isn’t religiously motivated … . .

Comment #28987

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 8, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)

Oops - intervening posts made by comment about excellent statement confusing.  I was referring to Flint about when he wrote

This is two entirely different and distinct questions. Your implication that they are the same is highly illuminating.

To answer your second question first, I don’t think there is any incompatibility, and I doubt you’d find a single scientist (even Dawkins) who would disagree.

However, back to your first question, I suspect Dawkins and many others would point out that religious doctrines are not required to understand natural processes. They are entirely possible (natural processes may have been designed and implemented by Divine fiat. There is no evidence either in favor or against this position), but science regards supernatural explanations as irrelevant because if there ARE any supernatural processes, they have never been observed to interfere with explanations based on leaving them out.

So theistic scientists regard the operations of the objective universe as how God (the god(s) of their choice, depending on their backgrounds) decided to do things. Science in this view is simply understanding their gods’ methods and intentions. To the non-theistic scientist, the objective universe is what it is, the question of how it got that way is just one more thing to investigate.

However, ID and other “happened by means forever beyond possible investigation” are not science because they basically substitute worship for observation and experiment. Saying “some unnamed, undefined designer did it” isn’t an explanation of anything. At best, it’s an excuse to stop looking because no answer can be found by mortal men. And “give up, it’s hopeless” is as far from the spirit of science as it’s possible to get.

I was not referring to the posts about Calvert and the state BOE.  Hope that clears up, for the record, any confusion.

Comment #28988

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?  That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

I’m curious —- the IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with religion.  Nothing AT ALL.

Given that, there should be no reaosn at all whatsoever for you (or any other IDer) to yammer on about Christianity or God or religion or worldviews or whatever.

So why are you?

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim their crap isn’t religiously motivated … . .

Comment #28989

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:45 AM (e) (s)

Why not back up all the bravado with a little actual backbone for a change?

<sniffle>  <sob>  Boo hoo hoo.

Your side got beaten to a bloody pulp in Kansas, and the much-vaunted “Waterloo of evolution” didn’t happen.

Man up, learn to live with it, and quit your damn whining.

Jeez.

Comment #28990

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)

Art,

Would you be willing to have every scientist who has so far taken the stand (unlike yourself and your fellow evolutionists)
to go back and impose the very same constraints likewise on the pro-evolution board members or the entire board (makes no difference) as you are now suggesting as a condition of you showing up on the witness stand? 

Fair is fair, you know.  So, yes or no?

FL

Comment #28991

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 11:48 AM (e) (s)

They’re okay with an evolutionist lawyer interrogating non-Darwinists, but they know that if they were to submit their pro-evolution positions to a non-Darwinist cross-examination likewise, the “world’s press” might wind up writing a few things stuff they don’t want written by the time cross-ex ended.

I’m curious —- how many of ID’s best and brightest submitted their “alternative scientific theory of Intelligent Design” to a “darwinist” (whatever the hell THAT is) cross-examination during the Kansas hearings?

Oh, that’s right.  NONE of them did.

<snicker>  <giggle>  <howls of laughter>

Hypocrite, thy name is “creationist”.

Comment #28992

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

@david duncan

“I think ID has caused a step up into research in the area of bacterial flagella because the example of such molecular machines is striking”

oh?  why do you think this?  have any evidence to support your “theory”, or is it just unsubstantiated drivel, like the rest of “creation science”?

“In addition, the answer is NO, we do NOT know how they evolved, no more than we know how life began from lifelessness.  But their are plenty of hypotheses. “

well, not so many hypotheses, but many studies testing the one that works to actually explain it:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=flagella&sitesearch=www.talko…

pick one, and you will see that ALL of them have empiracle support, unlike yours.

“None of which have been…uh…well…tested. : )”

again, i suggest you stop talking from points you read on a website somewhere, and more from your actual knowledge of the literature.

Can you even cite one published scientific journal article you have read and understand on the subject?

I get really tired of all of you ID supporters saying how bad science is, when you haven’t even read what you are criticizing, or understand it.  hmmmm.  just like the fundies on the Kansas BOE. 

Wearisome.

Comment #28993

Posted by JRQ on May 8, 2005 11:56 AM (e) (s)

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?

Unnecessary for what?  Do you mean accounting empirically for the origin and diversificaton life?  If so, My answer is that an unspecified god that exhibits no empirically-tractable properties already makes itself unneccessary in any sort of empirical inquiry — “Darwinism” has nothing to do with it.

That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

Only a god who created and diversified life through some empirically-tractable means OTHER than evolution would be incompatable with evolution.  When such a god pecolates up through the data, I’ll be happy to discard evolution.  Other kind of gods are perfectly compatible, but are unnecessary by definition.

What are you expecting to hear in response to these questions?  Some kind of knee-jerk godlessness in reaction to having accepted the evolution of species as fact?

Comment #28994

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)

I’m curious —- the IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with religion.  Nothing AT ALL.

I think everyone knows the IDiots talk out of both sides of their mouths. (And Lenny, you need a new keyboard, you keep accidently hitting the Caps Lock)

“Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts.”—Kathy Martin

Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation,” said Martin. “Our country is made up of Christian conservatives.”…”This country was founded on Christianity—not science.”

Comment #28995

Posted by Art on May 8, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

Art,

Would you be willing to have every scientist who has so far taken the stand (unlike yourself and your fellow evolutionists)
to go back and impose the very same constraints likewise on the pro-evolution board members or the entire board (makes no difference) as you are now suggesting as a condition of you showing up on the witness stand?

Fair is fair, you know.  So, yes or no?

FL

FL,

Briefly, sure.  Of course, that would have scuttled things from the get-go.  Because it is highly doubtful that even the three inquisitors who held these proceedings would agree to be quizzed by those friendly to their cause. 

Why should a serious scientist participate in a proceeding, ostensibly a gathering and dispersing of information, in which the intended audience not only is not expected to pay attention, but is on record as having no interest in paying attention? 

I don’t know about KS, it must be a pretty wealthy state.  Where I live, this sort of waste of tax dollars would be frowned upon, to say the least.

Comment #28997

Posted by Raven on May 8, 2005 12:59 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan writes:

Now, I have a question, sort of an informal poll question, I am curious to know the answer.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?  That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

But your “question” is really two different questions: the first sentence asks only whether natural selection and theism are orthogonal. By introducing “incompatible” in the second sentence, you are then switching from “orthogonal” to “negates”, which is not at all the same thing. In other words, “X does not have to exist” is not equivalent to “X must not exist”. You can’t really ask for “the answer” until the question is clearer, because it introduces ambiguity as it is formed.

Comment #28999

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)

Would you be willing to have every scientist who has so far taken the stand (unlike yourself and your fellow evolutionists)
to go back and impose the very same constraints likewise on the pro-evolution board members or the entire board (makes no difference) as you are now suggesting as a condition of you showing up on the witness stand?

Fair is fair, you know.  So, yes or no?

I see.  So you’re thinking is that in a, uh, “fair hearing” (I thought that *Kansas* was supposed to be a “fair hearing”), the evil godless scientists would all be beaten?

And this, after your ID heros were pounded into a bloody unconscious mass on the floor in a hearing at which the opposition, uh, *did not even show up*?

<snicker>  <giggle>  BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am completely thoroughly amused to no end by the frantic ID efforts to avoid recognizing that Kansas was not only a mortal wound, but was *entirely self-inflicted* since the other side *wasn’t even there*.  <falls of seat laughing>

As I’ve always said, let the fundies talk long enough, and they will shoot *themselves* in the head every single time.  They are, by far, their *own* worst enemies. 

No caps that time —— OK?  :>

Comment #29000

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Well, here’s another question then.

The scientists who took the witness stand on the side of the proposed changes and submitted to public cross-examination, did so without asking for special conditions or constraints. 

They showed up, took the stand as scientists, explained their position as best they could, underwent the cross-examination from the opposing side, (and without prior conditions or constraints, btw), and that was that.

As a scientist, (assuming that you were given sufficient opportunity and means to come to T-town for the hearings) why would you not be willing to do the same thing, Art? 

**********************

I have to wonder about these pro-evolution “professional scientists” who call themselves “monitoring” these hearings.  Gotta be kidding.

Look at these alleged “scientists”: 

Offering free pro-Darwinist soundbites and spins to the media homies on a daily basis, fully approving of non-Darwinist scientists being publicly cross-examined by a very Darwinist lawyer, but yet scared stiff to actually walk two or three dozen feet ~themselves~ to the witness stand and, (as the “professional scientists” they want the media to think they are), undergo the same critical, rational public questioning of their pro-evolution positions  as what the non-Darwinist professional scientists are willing to undergo. 
Cowards.

Not accusing you of this behavior, Art. 
I would think, I want to believe, that your standards would be higher. 

Such behavior is not pro-science, not pro-education.  It’s more like……well, I better stop right here for now.

FL

Comment #29001

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

Some of us are still waiting for these alleged “professional scientists” to evolve a backbone (btw, would that be an example of “micro” or “macro” evolution?), stop whining from the sidelines, and join the non-Darwinist scientists in letting THEIR positions be equally subject to public cross-examination.

What a curious inversion of reality. Evolutionary biologists have been showing their work for public cross-examination in the form of tens of thousands of published peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. The public has had the benefit of being presented with background information pertinent to each study, methods used in testing a particular hypothesis, a summary of the resulting data, discussion of the results, and citations of relevant work and criticism. The public has been able to respond to this presentation at any time. Of course, this option is only open to those willing to read what the scientists have to say, which apparently is a difficulty for “intelligent design” advocates.

Comment #29002

Posted by Joe McFaul on May 8, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s)

David Duncan matches his infantile understanding of science with an equally infantile understanding of theology:

Now, I have a question, sort of an informal poll question, I am curious to know the answer.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?  That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

Yes, indeed two different questions. Shocking to you may just be the number of scientists  and theologians who believe that  evolution is a sign of God’s creative immanence.  Read Denis Lamorouex, Howard Van Till, Kenneth Miller’s, “Finding Darwin’s God, any of Johh Haught’s several books on the theology of evolution, Edward Oakes’s articles in “First Things, and of course, Teilhard de Chardin, theologian, Jesuit and scientist.

There’s no sense in trying to create a cartoon caricature of a dogmatic atheist as proponents of evolution.  Some scientists would answer your first question, “Yes.”  They could be either atheists or deists who believe God created the universe and all in it but did not have to do anything special to create life.  Even atheists, and all religous believers in evolution would would have no problem answering the second question, “No.” Therefore, the answers to your questions will tell you nothing about the religious background of those who believe in evolution.

The  vast literature discussing the theology of evolution correctly understood cannot be quickly summarized in a comments box. A person aware of that literature would not have asked such a question.

Comment #29005

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)

“I am completely thoroughly amused to no end by the frantic ID efforts to avoid recognizing that Kansas was not only a mortal wound, but was *entirely self-inflicted* since the other side *wasn’t even there*.  <falls of seat laughing>”

From Python’s Life of Brian:

Suicide Squad Leader: “We are the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!” [they all stab themselves]

“That showed ‘em, huh?”

Comment #29007

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)

They showed up, took the stand as scientists, explained their position as best they could, underwent the cross-examination from the opposing side, (and without prior conditions or constraints, btw), and that was that.

How many IDers did this in Kansas?  How many presented their, uh, “scientific theory of ID” as best they could, underwent the cross-examination from the opposing side, (and without prior conditions or constraints, btw), and that was that?

That’s right —- none.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Not a one.

I guess their mouth is bigger than their balls, huh.

<snicker> <giggle>

Gee, just IMAGINE how badly the IDiots will be beaten in Dover, where the other side will actually *bother to show up*.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #29010

Posted by Matt Inlay on May 8, 2005 02:01 PM (e) (s)

Hi David Duncan, you wrote:

However, regarding the bacterial flagellum, we do NOT know how it was put together by natural selection.  We might figure it out in 10 to 20 years with all the genomic sequencing going on of bacteria, but we do not know it today.  What we do have today are HYPOTHESES of how it was put together, but that isn’t enough.

1.  The difference here is that evolution’s hypotheses about flagellar evolution are testable, and are being tested.  PT’s Nick Matzke wrote a great article summarizing the evidence from the evolution side.  Maybe you don’t think it’s enough evidence, but compare that to the ID side.  There has never been a single hypothesis put forth by the IDists other than “the IDer did it”.  There’s no way to test or study that kind of a hypothesis.  That’s why ID isn’t science.

2.  To people on the evolution side, there’s no qualitative difference between the bacterial flagellum and any other IC system. The only difference is the number of parts.  So when evolution supporters look at the evidence for the evolution of irreducible complexity, they look at all the evidence for all IC systems.  There’s a ton of evidence out there.  The IDist’s singular focus on the flagellum is so that they can deny that other evidence.  Think about it.  Why the fixation on the flagellum?  Why is that the cornerstone of intelligent design?  It’s not even required for bacteria, let alone all of life.  The reason why IDists focus on the flagellum is because it’s the most complicated system they could find, with the shortest evolutionary trail.  Two other IC systems mentioned by Behe in DBB, Blood clotting and the adaptive immune system evolved much later, and therefore have way more precursors.  You don’t see the IDists talking about those two much anymore.  So maybe we haven’t “solved” the flagellum, but we’ve solved a lot of other IC systems.

How many of you here think that Darwinism and Natural Selection theory makes belief in God unnecessary with respect to the creation of life?  That is, how many of you think God and the origin and evolution of life are incompatible?

A hesistant ‘yes’ to the first one, and an absolute ‘no’ to the 2nd.

Here’s a question for you.  Can you think of a way to test the idea that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed?  By test, I mean something that an aspiring ID researcher could actually do.

Comment #29011

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

One more item.  Art says,

Why should a serious scientist participate in a proceeding, ostensibly a gathering and dispersing of information, in which the intended audience not only is not expected to pay attention, but is on record as having no interest in paying attention?

The answer to your question, Art, is that “professional scientists” from the pro-evolution side are ALREADY participating in these proceedings, only they’re doing so from the safety of “press conferences” and “soundbites” and “monitoring”, where they can attack and snipe from the sidelines WITHOUT having to show a modicum of fairness and undergo the same rational, critical-analysis public questioning that their non-Darwinist scientific peers have underwent.

You see, this really is NOT just about what the KBOE does or doesn’t do regarding state science standards, Art. 

The evolutionist advocacy groups knew, and know even today, that if evolutionists had REALLY boycotted these hearings, (not merely pretended to boycott while showing up and then sniping from the sidelines), the public really would come to understand (regardless of the Board outcome) that there are some problems with Darwinism and that changes were needed to allow teachers who would like to, to offer a more accurate, critical-thinking approach to understanding origins and evolution INSTEAD OF the usual sanitized spoonfeeding of Darwin Dogma. 

Moreover, if evolutionists had REALLY done a boycott, the public would better understand for themselves that the 2005 proposal does NOT call for teaching ID at all, does NOT call for removing evolution from classrooms at all, does NOT call for teaching religion at all. 
But instead offers science students BETTER awareness of important, vital scientific considerations like the difference between data and interpretation, the importance of understanding philosophical presuppositons, and more accurate understanding of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.

And that’s why, despite some of the rhetoric, “serious scientists” and others from the pro-evolution side really DO believe the public (not just the Board) is paying attention to all this.
They do believe, correctly, that these hearings will have some public impact, especially with parents of schoolchildren and with the voters.

It’s just that while evolutionists ~want~ to participate, they don’t want to take any risks that will expose things less than 100% favorable to the Darwinist Status Quo, in the eyes of the media.  Don’t want John Calvert to ask them some potentially tough questions or even TO FOCUS THE ISSUE ON EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSED SCIENCE STANDARDS THEMSELVES instead of side issues.

Can’t allow the public (and their kids) to sprout or nurture any doubts about the holy omnipotence of the First Church of Darwin, you know.

Hence the “safety first” gig, the cowardice, the hypocrisy.

Okay, now I really will stop for awhile.
Just wanted to answer your question there, Art.
Now it is answered.

FL

Comment #29013

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 02:16 PM (e) (s)

matt asked:

“Why the fixation on the flagellum?  Why is that the cornerstone of intelligent design?”

uh, just to stay on theme…

“Because

Every sp*rm is sacred”

Comment #29014

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

in case you wanted to sing along:

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/everyspe.htm…

Comment #29016

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)

Lenny, did you give your defective keyboard to FL?

Anyway, I’ve got to get back to reading my Blogger’s Edition of Hamlet. “To BE, or NOT to be…THAT is the question. Whether tis nobler IN THE MIND to suffer the slings and arrows of OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE,….”

Comment #29017

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 8, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

70 points to FL as well…

Comment #29018

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)

FL ranted incoherently:

” TO FOCUS THE ISSUE ON EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSED SCIENCE STANDARDS THEMSELVES instead of side issues.”

ROFL!  er, you mean to compare standards against the current ones that none of the board or the participants actually even read?

FL, you should take a cue from america’s favorite pres:

“It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and thus remove all doubt.” — Abraham Lincoln

Comment #29020

Posted by FL on May 8, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

One-liners and presidential quotes are nice, but if you have a ~substantive~ response concerning the particular situation I’ve discussed, feel free to offer it.  No hurry.

FL

Comment #29022

Posted by PvM on May 8, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

There is nothing substantive to respond to… ID proponents have set themselves up for ridicule when the cards where turned on them.
Ironic isn’t it :-)

Comment #29023

Posted by guthrie on May 8, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

You know, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d say the “darwinists” are following a well coordinated plan of suckering the “ID” people into a longer term trap, via a sense of false superiority caused by people like FL wondering why they havnt bothered to turn up to the “hearing”.

On the other hand, I find quotes like this quite entertaining:

Saith FL
“You see, this really is NOT just about what the KBOE does or doesn’t do regarding state science standards, Art. “

No? What is it about?  Is it about some religiously motivated people trying to sneak their religion in the back door, by bypassing standard scientific curriculum procedure? 

Then there statements such as:
“But instead offers science students BETTER awareness of important, vital scientific considerations like the difference between data and interpretation, the importance of understanding philosophical presuppositons, and more accurate understanding of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.”

Precisely how does it do this?  How exactly do the supposed new standards do this?  and more importnatly, what has philosophy got to do with it?  We’re in science class, man. 

Actually, I think we need to try and organise a show down somewhere.  Is there any serious chance of getting a proper debate organised on this topic?  You know, half a dozen representatives from each side, the ID and Evolutionary biology sides, to have an argument over the merits of their respective positions?  It would be quite entertaining, though the moderator would have to be very good at their job.  It would of course start with asking scientific questions, like what evidence do you have for ID?

Comment #29026

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 8, 2005 04:03 PM (e) (s)

Is there any serious chance of getting a proper debate organised