Comment #29625

Posted by jeffw on May 12, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

Wedges, Vices, what’s next? Screwdrivers? Or maybe some medieval torture devices and Inquisition fantasies.

Comment #29627

Posted by Evil(tm) Evolutionist on May 12, 2005 03:05 PM (e) (s)

Indeed we should subpoenae the evolutionists too!  We could have a show trial and require everyone to testify.  We could call it something flashy like “Epperson vs. Arkansas”.

-Evil(tm) Evolutionist

Comment #29628

Posted by colleen on May 12, 2005 03:07 PM (e) (s)

Darwin is cross eyed.  This proves his theory is just a theory. 
Also, crossed eyes are irreducibley complex.

  M Behe

Comment #29629

Posted by Chet on May 12, 2005 03:09 PM (e) (s)

I used to think the only people making money off of this were the lawyers.  Now apparently it includes the Mattel Toy Company.

Comment #29630

Posted by pough on May 12, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

I’m sorry, but that’s just far too silly to be taken seriously. I have to assume that he’s just joking. There’s no way he can mean the things he’s saying. He’s second only to Ann Coulter, the greatest living comedian.

Comment #29631

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

Actually the vise is irreducibly complex.  But if you remove just one part it can’t catch mice.

Comment #29635

Posted by DonS on May 12, 2005 03:29 PM (e) (s)

Dembski:

“What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them. For a glimpse of what I have in mind, see the examination of Eugenie Scott by Robert George before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.”

Well, I followed his subsequent link to Eugenie Scott’s testimony, and frankly, I don’t know what the heck Dembski’s proposing.  Ms. Scott in every way made it clear that ID isn’t real science and shouldn’t be in a science classroom.  When pressed on the Metaphysical Philosophies of various individuals she held firm that her opinion on curricula was the same, regardless of those individuals’ religious or non-religious leanings.

What “truth” did Dembski hallucinate was squeezed out of her?

Comment #29636

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 12, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

Dembski thinks that his picture of a Darwin doll with its head in a vise was funny enough to print twice in the same entry.

It’s hard to tell what’s more disturbing: the casual sadism itself or the fact that a leader in the ID movement reacts to setbacks by torturing voodoo doll representations of his opponents (might this behavior be rightly called “petulant”, Bill?).

I think this entry might reveal more about Dembski’s character than he realizes.

Comment #29637

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

Big Bill Dembski

There are ways for this to happen, and the wheels are in motion

Oh, Bill, we’re shaking in our boots here.

When will you stop behaving like a hypocritical idiot? 

When are going to strip down and stand naked in the street and pray to your deity for edible objects and fresh water to fall into your mouth? 

Isn’t that the “logically consistent” way for you to behave, Bill?

Can you tell us, Bill, whether you or your hero Phil Johnson are taking any medication?  Was the medicine synthesized and tested by scientists using the scientific method?  Or did you simply pray for the knowledge of that medicine to magically appear in your brains?

Can you answer honestly, Bill?  Do you really want to throw the scientific method out the window?  Have humans outgrown the utility of science, in your opinion?

On a weekly basis you smear science and you smear scientists.  You mock the livelihood of your fellow human beings on this planet who work hard to improve the lives of men, women, children and unborn children by contributing to our knowledge of the natural world.

And meanwhile what do you do, Bill?  What new facts do you have to share?  What have you contributed to our understanding of the planet we inhabit?

Nothing.  Put it all together and there’s only conclusion for reasonably people to draw: you;re a sleazy charlatan.

Comment #29640

Posted by Lamuella on May 12, 2005 03:42 PM (e) (s)

slight technical point:

It might be an idea to host that picture somewhere else.  By hotlinking it from uncommondescent.org, you’re leaving yourself wide open for someone to play a dirty trick and switch the image.

Comment #29643

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 12, 2005 03:49 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, Genie Scott’s 1998 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was superb, and far better than I can imagine almost anyone else doing with the range of complex scientific/religious/legal/political issues involved.  Stephen Meyer, who was there, appeared to be flailing just to get a word in edgewise.

Comment #29644

Posted by bill on May 12, 2005 03:51 PM (e) (s)

Poor Darwin doll!  He didn’t expect the Dembski Inquisition.

*pause for dramatic effect.  door bursts open!  enter Dembski wearing red cape and tights*

“Nobody expects the Dembski Inquisition!  We have ways to make you confess that Evilution is Wrong.  Two ways, no, three.  Three ways to make you confess…four!  Yes, four ways.”

“One, we will make your Cambrium explode.  That’s gonna hurt!”
“Two, we’ll whip you with an irreducably complex flagellum!”
“Three, we’ll read you chapter 12 of my book Infinite Improbability Driven Improvisation until your ears bleed.”

“Finally, the most diabolical torture of all!  Brother Behe will show you 10,000 slides of his vacation to Mount Rushmore!”

“Bwwaaahahahahahahahaha!”  <—maniacal laughter.

Comment #29646

Posted by SteveF on May 12, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

The recent writings of Bill Dembski strongly suggest the following question.  Are they handing out PhDs to anyone these days in the US?

PS, for those of you who are slightly worried by what Dembski wants (did I hear someone mention theocracy?), then you are more than welcome to cross the pond and live in the UK.  We don’t suffer fools quite as gladly.

Comment #29648

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 12, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)

lol.  *wipes a tear away*  thanks for the python reference, bill.  couldn’t have said it better myself.

I find python’s brand of intelligent sarcasm never seems to be out of place when talking about IDiots.

cheers

Comment #29649

Posted by Mark Paris on May 12, 2005 04:11 PM (e) (s)

Dembski’s post is not just fantasy, it is factually incorrect in its recounting of the Scopes trial. Dembski says that immediately after Clarence Darrow’s examination of WJ Bryan, Darrow asked the judge to declare Scopes guilty, thereby avoiding examination by Darrow on his own beliefs. Wrong. The trial was adjourned until the next day immediately after Darrow’s examination of Bryan. Darrow never asked the judge to declare his client guilty. He did, in his summary, tell the jury that they must find his client guilty because the court would not allow him to present all of the evidence he wanted to, and because the issue would have to be settled by an appeal to a higher court. This is a substantive difference. Dembski’s use of this incorrect statement must stem either from ignorance or from an intentional misrepresentation of the facts to suit a point.

Comment #29650

Posted by mark on May 12, 2005 04:11 PM (e) (s)

Serves us scientists right for thinking that “Dumbski” was the height of subtle wit!  But I wonder, will the Grand Inquisitor have read the charges? 

But seriously, doesn’t Dembski realize that scientific theory is already constantly on trial—in the court of scientific review and discourse?  Would he convene a special court of intellectually-challenged ID choirboys to judge science from a theological basis?

Comment #29651

Posted by guthrie on May 12, 2005 04:14 PM (e) (s)

I find it entertaining that the first poster on Demsbkis article seems to be SCordova who says:

“They know their theory will not be seen favorably once it is examined by the standards of real science. Phil Johnson was right, we need “Darwin on Trial”. He foreswaw what must be done.”

So, does that mean that courts are actually scientific laboratories?  I guess so.  That explains where the ID research budget is going. 

As an aside, is Dembski substantially correct in his telling of what happened at the Scopes trial?

Comment #29652

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

Honest question from someone with absolutely no axe to grind on any of these issues:  I’ve noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc.  I’m fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski’s scientific or mathematical claims.  But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?  Just asking.  The asides about the innocuous little picture on his blog seem a particularly stark example.  I know they are tangential to the main point, but that just makes it all the more clearer a case of what I’m asking about.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rudolf Carnap

Comment #29653

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 12, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)

Does anyone else find it vaguely surreal that someone who is supposedly posting a serious blog and who wishes to be taken seriously from an intellectual point of view would include these odd pictures?  I’m seriously starting to wonder about Dembski’s sanity.

Comment #29654

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 04:21 PM (e) (s)

mark

Would he convene a special court of intellectually-challenged ID choirboys to judge science from a theological basis?

I think that sort of judging is the job of the “high priests.”

Comment #29655

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

Does anyone else find it vaguely surreal that someone who is supposedly posting a serious blog and who wishes to be taken seriously from an intellectual point of view would include these odd pictures?  I’m seriously starting to wonder about Dembski’s sanity.

Perhaps it’s a response to our cute little panda bear, Professor Steve Steve.

The question is: where is the plush Bill Dembksi doll?  Young religious extremists everywhere are begging to sleep with one.

Comment #29657

Posted by freelunch on May 12, 2005 04:26 PM (e) (s)

I’m glad you folks explained that this was a Darwin Doll, because this lovely plush doll looked like he must be an obscure South Park character, and I could not for the life of me figure why Dembski was trying to drag South Park into this.

Comment #29658

Posted by Man with No Personality on May 12, 2005 04:31 PM (e) (s)

Honest question from someone with absolutely no axe to grind on any of these issues:  I’ve noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc.  I’m fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski’s scientific or mathematical claims.  But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?  Just asking.

You know, Mr. Carnap, I have no definite ideas or proof as to what your beliefs are, so if you find this insulting, my apologies—are you planning on following that whopper of a question with asking us if we’ve stopped beating our spouses?  Just asking.

Comment #29659

Posted by NelC on May 12, 2005 04:33 PM (e) (s)

Does anyone else find it annoying that crypto-creationists still post to this blog claiming to be completely neutral with regard to ID vs evolution?

Comment #29660

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 12, 2005 04:35 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Carnap.  Unfortunately, Dr. Dembski has forfeited whatever amount of credibility he originally possessed - a brief review of the incident of the quote from Ward should be sufficient to establish that it is not unreasonable to react the way most posters here react.

Comment #29661

Posted by FitzRoy on May 12, 2005 04:35 PM (e) (s)

When I first read this thread, my initial reaction was that Dembski must be engaging in satire, and that some folks were missing what surely must have been some sort of attempt at humor.

But when I read Dembski’s original post, I had the distinct impression that he was indeed serious — at least at the time when it was written.  The recent hearings in Kansas must have really stung him.

It’s kind of sad, in an odd sort of way.

Comment #29662

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 12, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

I think that the “Prof. Steve Steve” suggestion could be correct.  Dembski wants a hand puppet.

Comment #29664

Posted by steve on May 12, 2005 04:46 PM (e) (s)

It’s hard to tell what’s more disturbing: the casual sadism itself or the fact that a leader in the ID movement reacts to setbacks by torturing voodoo doll representations of his opponents (might this behavior be rightly called “petulant”, Bill?).

I’d be petulant too, if I’d been embarrassed on a national stage, while my less-sophisticated peers ensured our legal failure.

Comment #29667

Posted by Chet on May 12, 2005 05:12 PM (e) (s)

Mark Paris tells us that Dembski:
“… is factually incorrect in its recounting of the Scopes trial… “

Dembski says:
“… a little known fact that … “

No wonder it’s so ‘little known’, it was wrong.

Comment #29670

Posted by Greg Peterson on May 12, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)

I think Carnap asks a pretty good question.  Look, ID folks like Dembski are wrong, and theocracy is toxic.  We must do everything in our power to resist the cloud of unknowing that threatens our land.  Except stoop to their level.  If we do a really good job of pointing out how factually wrong ID is, I don’t think we’ll ever have to resort to ridicule the way some of them seem willing to.  It’s a luxury of being right that one does not have to act childish.

Comment #29672

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 05:29 PM (e) (s)

I take no offense to your response at all, Mr. Personality.  I disagree with you, though, that my question was loaded.  I’m just asking whether there could be any merit to the point I was asking about.  If not, you can respond in good conscience that no, the response is appropriate; a similar graphic posted by, say, a Richard Dawkins or another person with better scientific views would receive comparable ridicule; etc.

I would only respond to Rilke’s Granddaughter that Dembski’s (conceded for present purposes) scientific incompeetence or even his (let’s grant) intentional quote-mining does nothing to “forfeit” the right to a dispassionate and objective response to other things one says.  If you disagree with that, then you should candidly admit that you are not judging the current statement putatively under discussion, but rather are responding merely to a past history of other statements.

In any event, thanks to both for the response.

Rufolf C.

Comment #29674

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 12, 2005 05:40 PM (e) (s)

William Dembski, in a post entitled “The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists,” is now fantasizing about “the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views.”

Alas for Dumbski, we already HAVE had such things.  We call them “Federal Court Cases”.  And the creation “scientists”/IDers have lost every single one they have ever been involved with.  Every single solitary one.  All of them.  Without exception.

I wonder why that would be … .

Face it, Bill —- your side got clobbered in Kansas.  Even when the other side refused to show up.

(snicker)  (giggle)  (howls of laughter)

Comment #29675

Posted by Michael I on May 12, 2005 05:42 PM (e) (s)

People like Dembski who have repeatedly demonstrated both their ignorance and dishonesty are not going to be treated the same as people who have demonstrated both intellectual honesty and knowledge.

If Dembski wishes his statements to be treated with the respect that statements from an honest, well-informed person get, then he needs to show that he has become an honest, well-informed person.

Of course, this would require him to abandon his current ID obsession, since it is impossible to be a supporter of ID and still be both honest and knowledgeable.

Comment #29676

Posted by tytlal on May 12, 2005 05:43 PM (e) (s)

Truth hurts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7832407/…

During a two-hour attack on language proposed by intelligent-design advocates, Irigonegaray lectured presiding members, telling them they are damaging science education and the state’s reputation.

“You have a responsibility to the children and the future of this state that you have sadly — sadly — failed,” Irigonegaray told them.

But board members didn’t let Irigonegaray’s comments go unanswered, saying that he and other evolution defenders had engaged in character assassinations.

“I believe your behavior here was abusive,” said Board Member Connie Morris. “I want you to know I forgive you.”

Comment #29680

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 05:53 PM (e) (s)

“I believe your behavior here was abusive,” said Board Member Connie Morris. “I want you to know I forgive you.”

Ms. Morris later admitted that she was inspired to pardon Irigonegary after watching “Schindler’s List”.

Comment #29681

Posted by Man with No Personality on May 12, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

Carnap—

Asking us if we should insult people like Dembski is one thing.  However, the hyperbolic, rather leading version of the question…

But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?

Well, it set off my paranoia alarms.  That question is set up so that almost any conscientious purpose would answer ‘yes’ (albeit hesitantly and with qualifications in many cases).  And that ‘yes answer’ may be the set up to bushwack the person who gives it.  Now, I have no way of knowing your intent, and am sorry if I got it wrong, but as I said, the way you asked the question raised my suspicions.

Comment #29682

Posted by jeff-perado on May 12, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

RGd wrote:
Does anyone else find it vaguely surreal that someone who is supposedly posting a serious blog and who wishes to be taken seriously from an intellectual point of view would include these odd pictures?  I’m seriously starting to wonder about Dembski’s sanity.

(sarcasm)
I seem to recall another mathematician-gone-mad… Ted Kaczinski.  My thought is that we should start paying attention to bizarre news stories where biologists are found dead with their heads crushed.  For if that comes to pass, we need to point the authorities towards Dembski.
(/sacasm)

Comment #29683

Posted by harold on May 12, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

Rudolph C.

I am confused.  I didn’t see this…

“I’ve noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc.  I’m fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski’s scientific or mathematical claims.  But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?”

Rather, I saw that Dembski has been making rather disturbing, if not disturbed, remarks, insinuating that scientists should literally be subpoenaed and forced to defend themselves in court.  What would the charge be, I wonder?  The image is fairly humorous (its inclusion on this page is a tacit acknowledgement of that), but it also shows, how can I put this, a lot of hostility, and suggests at some very unhealthy fantasies.  Richard Dawkins can be needlessly undiplomatic, but I can damn well guarantee you that if he started suggesting that people who disagree with him be dragged into “court” and forced to “testify”, and publishing images of them being tortured in effigy, humorous or not, it would meet with strong criticism from the pro-science posters here.

Sadly, my experience with creationist arguments has made me cynical.  With apologies, do you really not have a “bone to pick”?  It seems to me that you’re trying to paint a false picture of Dembski being “persecuted”, when in fact, the criticism is fair and well-warranted.

As an aside, I’ve noticed that the pro-science posters always make their views clear, whereas creationists sometimes try to disguise their true views, in a vain attempt to “trick” others into making “admissions”.  If that doesn’t apply to you, I apologize for even bringing it up.

Comment #29684

Posted by Jim Foley on May 12, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)

Dembski thinks that his picture of a Darwin doll with its head in a vise was funny enough to print twice in the same entry.

Ah, but they’re different pictures! The screw is being tightened on the second one. Fortunately they spared us the pictures of needles being forced under his fingernails.

Comment #29686

Posted by Man with No Personality on May 12, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

Followed of course, by ones with him wearing a dunce cap and being set on fire…

Comment #29688

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s)

Harold, I can assure you I’m not tyring to “trick” you into making an “admission.”  I have no sinister agenda, and have never posted to Panda’s Thumb before today.  Honest to God, I’m happy to defer to experts on scientific questions in the absence of strong reasons not to do so, and I’m not a biologist.  My question was motivated simply by having read a bunch of “threads” or whatever they’re called in internet parlance, and having come to the conclusion that wholly apart from the merits of the science, the tone of many of these discussions is pointlessly abusive, particularly on issues (like this) that have nothing to do with the underlying scientific issues.  So I asked a straightforward question about it.

As to your (rhetorical?) question about the legal procedure Dembski was proposing, I frankly don’t understand the details, but I believe he was not discussing procedures involving “charges” against anybody, but rather some sort of hearings involving compulsory testimony.  Generally, the subpoena power is not restricted to testimony from one against whom charges have been made.

Comment #29694

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 12, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)

Carnap,

There are hundreds of serious responses to Dembski’s stuff on this blog — look around. 

In fact, there are several hundred serious responses that were posted at Dembski’s own blog — but he routinely deletes anything that doesn’t fawn over him.  He runs a blog as Caligula would run a blog, if Caligula had been an accountant.

Do you think the ridicule of this one thread might be prompted by the incredible, towering hubris Dembski presents?

And, thinking I hear just a hint of sympathy for Dembski in your post, do YOU think life is analogous to a telephone signal in a telephone wire?  Do you think we can determine whether life is divinely inspired by applying telephone statistical measures to it?

Comment #29697

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 12, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

Oh, and Carnap, the ID folks are doing everything they can to avoid a real hearing with subpoenas.  They’ve taken that route before — and lost every time.  Go check it out on NCSE’s site.
[url]http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8_major_court…[url]

Comment #29699

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on May 12, 2005 06:57 PM (e) (s)

The heroic efforts of the defenders good science, those who believe in the power of the wedge of truth, inspired a defection from the National Academy of Sciences:

May 12, 2005

Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933

Dear Dr. Abrams:

I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution—-it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html…).

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

Comment #29700

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 06:59 PM (e) (s)

Hi, Ed.  Thanks for the response.  I have already conceded that I do have sympathy for Dembski in the sense that I believe he is subjected to excessive verbal abuse here — but in only that sense.  I recognize that Dembski has been critiqued on the merits, and nothing I have said should be taken as any sort of criticism of such responses (except to the extent that they are accompanied by needlessly abusive comments).

I don’t know why everyone is so interested in my views on the merits of these scientific issues.  As I’ve said, I have no competence in this area, so I can’t form an independent evaluation whether Dembski is right or not.  I guess the way I see the state of the merits situation is basically that (1) Dembski has proposed certain methods he claims can detect design.  I have no ability to assess the merits of these methods.  (2)  These methods have been vigorously critiqued by people who I assume are qualified to do so, and I’m happy to assume that the critiques are valid.  My only hesitation here is that my observation about the excessively heated rhetoric makes me wonder whether the treatment of his ideas is fully dispassionate.  (3) Even if Dembski’s methods are wholly without merit, I see nothing in principle wrong with trying to come up with formal methods for explicating our intuitive sense that we can (at least sometimes) separate designed artifacts from artifacts resulting from natural processes.  But the fact that natural selection can simulate design would presumably place serious obstacles on such a task in its application to realms in which natural selection operates (such as biological systems).  So rather than demonizing people who are trying to do such things, I see no reason why that endeavor should not be encouraged, even if initial attempts are faulty.  None of this has anything to do with whether the basic evolutionary history of life on Earth is exactly as set out in modern scientific theories (e.g., common descent from a biologically simple ancestor).

If that assessment is wrong, I apologize — I’m not an expert in this area, and I never claimed any merits expertise.  It has nothing to do with my point about the tone of discussions on this forum.  If you think those views disqualify me from discussion, you’re welcome not to engage in discussion with me.

Regards,

Rudolf C.

Comment #29701

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)

Carnap

Honest to God, I’m happy to defer to experts on scientific questions in the absence of strong reasons not to do so

What are some examples of “strong reasons” where it would be reasonable for a person without any background in a particular area to defer to scientific experts?

Comment #29702

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 07:02 PM (e) (s)

Correct that question to Carnap:

What are some examples of “strong reasons” where it would be reasonable for a person without any background in a particular area to NOT defer to scientific experts?

Comment #29704

Posted by bill on May 12, 2005 07:03 PM (e) (s)

I think Dembski would be great to have for dinner.  (Check out my postings about the newly discovered rat (sorry, biologists) and you’ll get my drift.) 

But, I digress, as usual.

Dembski in a nutshell (how appropriate), my view:  smart guy, articulate, loves a good debate, cool under fire, good conversationalist, committed to his faith.  I would not rate him evil nor stupid.

Dembski is not a scientist (imho) nor does he understand the ethics of science, and possibly ethics in general.  I believe he’s an “end justifies the means” sort of guy and a shameless self-promoter.  Who else would boast that he writes books because it takes too long to get peer-reviewed articles published?  Please, Dembski, we’re not stupid!

Since I gave up debating creationists for the next 100 Lents, my job is to lampoon them and Dembski is the Great White Whale in my view.  Open season.  You can’t reason with a creationist.  All you can do in the end is laugh at them.  Dembski is the Alfred E. Neuman of the Whatever.  What, me worry?  The only thing Dembski contributes is entertainment value, and we’re grateful for that mainly because it’s free and we’re cheap bastards, speaking for myself and possibly Sir_Toejam.

Dembski, like Garner Ted Armstrong before him, will enjoy a long, if sordid, career hawking his snake oil creationism from one rural town to another.  At some point he will end up in the monkey cage with Davison and I’m sure they’ll find each other great company.

Meanwhile, mainstream science will move forward, with or without Kansas biologists, which may become an oxymoron if Steve Abrams and his creationist cronies have their way, and Dembski, the Discovery Institute and all the other creationist loonies will find themselves in the toxic waste dump of History under the label:  Mostly Harmless.

Comment #29705

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 07:16 PM (e) (s)

Great White, I included that hedge precisely because I hadn’t thought through all the permutations, and I wouldn’t want to commit myself to a blanket statement.  I don’t have a grand unified theory of expert deference, but it certainly should be a strong default position in my view.  In the meantime, I have set out my views on the merits in an intervening post so there shouldn’t be any lingering concern about where I stand on these things.  I’m not a “lurking biblical creationist” or whatever you’re worried about.

Best,

Rudolf C.

Comment #29706

Posted by Brian Andrews on May 12, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

Dembski is proposing something like the McCarthy Hearings and we’re supposed to be polite. A suggestion like that doesn’t deserve a polite responce.

Comment #29707

Posted by Dave Cerutti on May 12, 2005 07:25 PM (e) (s)

Salvador,

What exactly are those debates about neo-Darwinism in the scientific community?  How do the attempts by creationists in Kansas to cast evolution as a less-powerful theory and offer a shoehorn for religiously-motivated theories encourage the students to learn properly and prepare them to do better science?

Comment #29708

Posted by Dave Cerutti on May 12, 2005 07:34 PM (e) (s)

Salvador,

Let me recast my questions in as plain and open-ended a light as possible.

What exactly are the debates that Skell alludes to about neo-Darwinism in the scientific community? 

How does the recent events in Kansas encourage students to learn properly and prepare them to do better science?

There.  I await your answers.

Comment #29709

Posted by colleen on May 12, 2005 07:38 PM (e) (s)

Does Dembski even have a sense a humor?  Has anyone actually seen it?

Comment #29710

Posted by Russell on May 12, 2005 07:43 PM (e) (s)

Carnap: You only see the comments of some small minority of readers who are exasperated enough by this particular Dembski stunt to want to express their exasperation, distaste, disdain, etc. My guess is that most of us see the doll silliness as just that, and not worth commenting on. 

The asides about the innocuous little picture on his blog seem a particularly stark example.  I know they are tangential to the main point, but that just makes it all the more clearer a case of what I’m asking about.

So, what about the main point? How does Carnap feel about Dembski’s thoughts on congressional hearings? (See, if there’s anything I find less comment-worthy than Dembski’s Darwin doll, it’s someone else’s opinion about comments on Dembski’s Darwin doll.)

Comment #29711

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 07:43 PM (e) (s)

Carnap

My only hesitation here is that my observation about the excessively heated rhetoric makes me wonder whether the treatment of his ideas is fully dispassionate.

The treatment of his “ideas” is not “fully dispassionate” because Dembski’s “ideas” are not meant to advance our understanding of biology.  Primarily, they are meant to inspire religious extremist footsoldiers.

Moreover, Dembski’s ideas and the ideas of his fellow peddlers have been debunked a thousand times over.  But someone keeps pasting the script back together again. 

So rather than demonizing people who are trying to do such things …

Without addressing the accuracy of the “things” you listed, Dembksi and Co. are trying to accomplish quite a bit more than those “things.”

Or are you not aware of the agenda of the organization that Dembski shills for?

Comment #29714

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 08:01 PM (e) (s)

Great White, I have indeed read things about the alleged sinister intent of the “Wedge” crowd (indeed, I even read the whole book coauthored by Gross cataloguing the evidence for it), and, to be honest, I was underwhelmed.  Clearly, religious crackpots will latch onto these things, and some supporters may have politically questionable designs, such as improper changes in the public school curricula.  But in my opinion, nothing about that changes the need to be “fully dispassionate” in discussing and evaluating the underlying ideas if we want to get at the truth.  Indeed, to me, this just calls for an even greater need to bend over backward to be evenhanded with the ideas where there are a lot of genuine concerns about the political repurcussions, because it is in just those areas that our objectivity could conceivably be obscured by our passions about the implications (again, even where those passions are fully justified).  Again, I appreciate your letting me know your views on these things, and I suspect that you and I come out the same way at the end of the day on most of these questions.

Russell, I appreciate your comments.  I realize that there is a sort of selection bias at work here, and also that the problem tends to be exacerbated in these internet fora.  To answer your question, I really can’t give you a view on the merits of what Dembski is proposing, because I have no idea what it is.

Rudolf C.

Comment #29715

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 12, 2005 08:02 PM (e) (s)

The heroic efforts of the defenders good science, those who believe in the power of the wedge of truth, inspired a defection from the National Academy of Sciences:

That’s nice.

Does he have a scientific theory of ID to offer?

Do you?

Why not?

Comment #29716

Posted by Russell on May 12, 2005 08:04 PM (e) (s)

Cordova wrote:

The heroic efforts of the defenders good science, those who believe in the power of the wedge of truth, inspired a defection from the National Academy of Sciences:
[followed by a letter from retired chemist - not biologist - Philip Skell]

Honestly, I can’t tell whether Cordova is caricaturing his own reputation as pom-pom waving ID cheerleader. Is he honestly trying to suggest that the recent farce in Topeka actually “inspired a defection”? That Philip Skell, who gave the DI’s propaganda film “Unlocking the Mystery…” rave reviews, was something other than  another out-of-his-field religious-right evophobe until the Kansas crusaders came along?

Comment #29717

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 12, 2005 08:10 PM (e) (s)

I don’t know why everyone is so interested in my views on the merits of these scientific issues.

Don’t flatter yourself.

Comment #29719

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 12, 2005 08:14 PM (e) (s)

To answer your question, I really can’t give you a view on the merits of what Dembski is proposing, because I have no idea what it is.

Neither does Dembski.

Mostly, that’s because ID says nothing.  Nothing at all.

Comment #29720

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 08:21 PM (e) (s)

Carnap

Indeed, to me, this just calls for an even greater need to bend over backward to be evenhanded with the ideas where there are a lot of genuine concerns about the political repurcussions, because it is in just those areas that our objectivity could conceivably be obscured by our passions about the implications (again, even where those passions are fully justified).

So if the Disclaimery Institute shifts gears and spends millions of dollars promoting the idea that the holocaust never occurred, promoting the teaching of that view of history as a valid view in public school history classes, presses ever onward regardless of the fact that the view has been publicly and formally debunked, in fact manages to convince quite a few rubes that the holocaust didn’t happen, then your opinion is sort of situation for “calls for an even greater need to bend over backward to be evenhanded with the ideas” that the Holocaust never occurred?

What about if it’s the idea that black people are intrinsically stupider than white people?  Does that make a difference?

What about if it’s the idea that if you believe in Christ you’re going to heaven, but everyone else is a lost soul doomed to eternal torment?

If I’m misunderstanding the extent of your zest for “dispassion”, let me know.

Frankly, I find little to admire in your “dispassionate” attitude, regardless where we stand “at the end of the day”.  From where I’m standing now, in fact, you seem more than a little bit stuck on yourself.

Comment #29722

Posted by caerbannog on May 12, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

And for another sign that the hearings didn’t go as well as the ID proponents had hoped…

A few minutes ago, I saw “See BS” News run a news segment that showed John Calvert pointedly refusing to shake hands with Pedro Irigonegaray.  Ol’ Calvert sure looked cranky….

Comment #29723

Posted by kwickcode on May 12, 2005 08:25 PM (e) (s)

Salvador,

Skell wrote:

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence).

As a graduate student, I spent a lot of time determining the structure of a protein that, had I paid any attention to Russell Doolittle, would have been much shorter. He had already shown that my protein was likely a product of gene duplication and hence, what was already known about its relatives would likely extend to my protein of study. Perhaps I am once again mistaken, but I don’t think I was trying to address a “question of biological history”. In this case I had ignored those stones.

Sometimes months in the laboratory can save a few hours in the library! (or internet)

Comment #29724

Posted by Dave Cerutti on May 12, 2005 08:34 PM (e) (s)

kwickcode, don’t you mean that the other way around?

Salvador, let me also extend my line of questions, now that Russell has asked a similar one.  Skell is on the list of “Scientists who dissent from Darwin” and he is not a terribly recent signatory.  What actions, certainly not last week’s hearings in Kansas, by the authors of the Wedge document do you believe contributed to his “defection?” Do you think that the Wedge authors convinced Skell against his previous thinking, or did they merely provide a big enough tent for him to get underneath?

I note that his letter, despite its length, can be summed up by the “Dissent from Darwin” statement, particularly because he maeks no specific claims as to the alleged weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.

Comment #29725

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 08:39 PM (e) (s)

I saw “See BS” News run a news segment that showed John Calvert pointedly refusing to shake hands with Pedro Irigonegaray.  Ol’ Calvert sure looked cranky….

Please, please, please someone provide a link to that segment!

Comment #29727

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 09:02 PM (e) (s)

Look, Great White.  I have no clue what I might have said to lead you to believe that I am “stuck on [my]self.”  I have bent over backward to emphasize again not only that I have no standing to discuss the merits of the scientific issues, but that I defer to those who do.  I’m happy to converse with anyone who treats me with respect, as I believe I have consistently done with you, but if you’re going to be rude, I’m happy to let the discussion stand where it is.

Thanks again for your time,

RC

Comment #29730

Posted by steve on May 12, 2005 09:16 PM (e) (s)

Dave, it’s obviously a joke. Several missed jokes around here lately.

Comment #29731

Posted by bill on May 12, 2005 09:17 PM (e) (s)

re:  Dembski’s Sense of Humor

Yeah, his last book.

Comment #29733

Posted by steve on May 12, 2005 09:25 PM (e) (s)

Dembski tried to create an ID theory and failed so badly that ID sympathizers like del Ratzch and Nelson admit it. Rather than slink away and try again, he’s really going out of his way to be public. I wondered why, but I think I know now. He craves attention. “But,” you say, “it’s such negative attention, people making fun of his absurd claims, surely he wouldn’t encourage that.” While that makes common sense, psychologists say that to receive negative attention is better than to receive no attention at all. Dembski knows he’ll never get attention for any legitimate contributions to science. He doesn’t have any, and he’s on the other side of the hill. But he’s getting a hell of a lot of attention this way, isn’t he?

Comment #29734

Posted by JRQ on May 12, 2005 09:30 PM (e) (s)

Dave, it’s obviously a joke. Several missed jokes around here lately.

I think what we’re seeing is a byproduct of wiped out irony meters throughout the PT community — it seems we have an irreducibly complex irony-sarcasm system in play here. 

The irony meters, unbeknownst to thier owners, have co-opted a sarcasm detection function after several years of dealings with ID-ers in which sarcastic responses were made to ironic ID propaganda.  The precurser modules of the current sarcasm detection system were a sort of “scaffolding” that has since been lost or modified so that it no longer supports the function it used to.

Comment #29735

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 12, 2005 09:45 PM (e) (s)

Rudolph Carnap wrote,

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

Honest question from someone with absolutely no axe to grind on any of these issues:  I’ve noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc.  I’m fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski’s scientific or mathematical claims.  But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?  Just asking.  The asides about the innocuous little picture on his blog seem a particularly stark example.  I know they are tangential to the main point, but that just makes it all the more clearer a case of what I’m asking about.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rudolf Carnap

I can’t speak for all of the blog commenters, but I would note that in the opening post I responded to the Darwin-doll-torture with mirth, citing our own distinguished Professor Steve Steve.

As for “proof of his stupidity and evil character”, I alleged neither, but I did note that the idea of hauling evolutionists before Congress for hearings was pretty crazy.  It is an especially strange idea for someone who regularly rails against the Inherit the Wind stereotype of creationists.  In case you didn’t “get it”:

1. Hauling people before Congress and having them badgered by demagogues is commonly known as 1950’s-style McCarthyism, widely recognized as stain on America’s usually good record of support for freedom of thought and speech.

2. Inherit the Wind was a play written to critique McCarthyism, with the historical Scopes Trial used as the vehicle.

Suggesting McCarthyism-style hearings for evolutionists — whether or not stuffed animals are used as visual aides — is definitely something worthy of criticism, particularly for someone at the core of national movement that (1) claims to be scientific, (2) is pushing their agenda in the political arena rather while failing in the scientific arena, and (3) is promoting their “science” on the national media — e.g., Dembski was on Nightline last Monday. 

I submit that you might reasonably expect such people to not say ludicrous things.

As for serious, sober consideration of Dembski and intelligent design on the scientific merits, see the book Why Intelligent Design Fails, TalkDesign.org, or the “Must Read Entries” listed on the front page of this blog.  Then look for the responses from ID advocates and see if you are impressed.  Then come back and tell us about how we should refrain from humor and always give IDists completely sober, sincere treatment, no matter how ridiculous they get.

Believe me, after you’ve followed the claims of ID advocates for a year or two, sometimes your only options are (a) humor or (b) banging your head on the desk.  Option (b) is painful, so we usually chose (a).

Comment #29736

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 09:51 PM (e) (s)

As a farewell (I promise!) message to you guys, I can’t resist giving a tip of the hat to JRQ for the excellent “unspinning” of the irreducibly complex irony meters.  Very nice.

RC

Comment #29739

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 12, 2005 10:13 PM (e) (s)

Point of interest: Dembski has edited out the trackback link on the article in question.

I guess he really doesn’t want our opinions that badly after all!

Comment #29741

Posted by Les Lane on May 12, 2005 10:17 PM (e) (s)

I think the guy with his head in the vice is Santa Claus.

Comment #29742

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 12, 2005 10:20 PM (e) (s)

“psychologists say that to receive negative attention is better than to receive no attention at all”

this would explain JAD as well.

Comment #29743

Posted by freelunch on May 12, 2005 10:22 PM (e) (s)

Dembski banned me. I am so <s>hurt</s> proud. My comment was barely critical, merely mentioning that scientists might take ID seriously if ID proponents took science seriously. Oh, yeah. I also mentioned that legal proceedings were incapable of determining scientific truths.

I didn’t realize that he was so thin skinned.

Comment #29744

Posted by PvM on May 12, 2005 10:30 PM (e) (s)

The funny part is that Darwinism has withstood much of the scrutiny in the last century or so and has remained unscathed. Compare this to the Explanatory Filter, CSI or IC, which as ID concepts did not even outlast a decade, although the do remain ‘powerful’ as a religious tool.
I am not sure why Dembski believes ID would do a better job in courts showing Darwinism to be wrong when they have miserably failed to do so so far.
And I am even more surprised why Dembski references Scott’s testimony as an example. Scott did quite well… Not surprisingly.
Imagine Dembski in court. Mr Dembski, do you believe that an explanatory filter which ran the risk of false positives would be useless?… Let me remind you that you are under oath…

Comment #29745

Posted by fh on May 12, 2005 10:31 PM (e) (s)

freelunch —

so on Dembski’s site there is no freelunch. Now is that just an economic theory, or is it a fact?

Comment #29746

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 10:32 PM (e) (s)

Carnap

I’m happy to converse with anyone who treats me with respect, as I believe I have consistently done with you, but if you’re going to be rude, I’m happy to let the discussion stand where it is.

Rude?  Please.  I was fully dispassionate, my friend.

What is rude, Carnap, is ignoring my questions, which were logical and obvious requests for clarification of some of your curious statements.

Comment #29747

Posted by steve on May 12, 2005 10:33 PM (e) (s)

Dembski has edited out the trackback link on the article in question.

The point of the site is not to have an honest discussion. It’s to give ID the appearance of legitimacy. Evidence of scientists mocking ID acts against that purpose.

Comment #29748

Posted by KansasPhysicsTeacher on May 12, 2005 10:39 PM (e) (s)

I may be wrong as it has been a long time since I studied the Scopes’ Trial but I seem to remember that the biologists that Darrow had brought to testify on evolution were not allowed to testify.  Bryan would have had a chance to cross examine them except that he objected to their opportunity to testify.  That may only be an artifact of my memory or a piece from Inherit the Wind that wasn’t in the trial.  Anyone remember better than I do?

Comment #29749

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 12, 2005 10:46 PM (e) (s)

“Generally, the subpoena power is not restricted to testimony from one against whom charges have been made.”

indeed, and Dembski and his ID sycophants have now made it very clear that should they get the power to utilize subpoenas, they would abuse that power just as the McCarthyites did.

Comment #29750

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 12, 2005 10:47 PM (e) (s)

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml…

Fifth story down, takes RealPlayer or Windows Media Player, for story on hearings today.

See www.coalitionforscience.org for a PDF of Pedro Irigonegaray’s slides.

Comment #29751

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 12, 2005 10:52 PM (e) (s)

On above link, then go to CBS Evening News

Also http://coalitionforscience.org/newsblog-archives/Summation_k… will get you Pedro’s summary

Comment #29752

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 12, 2005 11:00 PM (e) (s)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scop…

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/SCO_…

anybody who wants answers about what happened in the scopes trial could check out the links above.

complete transcripts are available from various places for less than 10.00.

cheers

Comment #29753

Posted by Nullifidian on May 12, 2005 11:01 PM (e) (s)

Too funny.

“Do you expect me to recant?”

“No, Mr. Darwin. I expect you to die!”

Comment #29754

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 12, 2005 11:02 PM (e) (s)

Professor Skell at “http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20010125edlets6.asp_…”

The science related to origins of life is negligible and totally irrelevant to the education of students in preparation for careers in modern biology, or for understanding the current status of the field.

The theory posits that an ancient soup of organic chemicals (for which there is no geological evidence), self-assembled, by chance alone, into living matter. Proteins are some of the essential ingredients required for cellular activity. The simplest bacteria require 300 to 500 different proteins for minimal function, made from the required 20 different amino acids. It has been reliably demonstrated that self-assembly by chance, of a single small functional protein, of 100 amino acids length, could occur in one chance out of 1,000,000,0 — (500 zeros); for 300 different proteins, one chance out of a number with a million zeros. It is ludicrous to give this scenario serious consideration — counting all the atoms in the entire universe, the number has only 80 zeros! Of what value is this theory for the education of our children?

It amazes me that a chemist is willing to trot out such moldy creationist nonsense.  And since he posted this letter in 2001, we must conclude that Sal is - once again - lying for his faith.

Comment #29755

Posted by PvM on May 12, 2005 11:07 PM (e) (s)

It would not be the first time that Dembski’s impatience and sense of superiority has gotten him into trouble. If I recall correctly, he lost the much fought for position as the director of Baylor’s Center for Complexity, Information and Design after he claimed ‘victory’ in an email. I wonder how the Southern Baptist Seminary feels about Dembski’s lack of science as well as what I see a lack of Christian attitude here. Reasonable people may disagree of course but as a Christian myself, I find Dembski’s comments quite disconcerning.

Comment #29756

Posted by freelunch on May 12, 2005 11:08 PM (e) (s)

fh,

Maybe Dembski thought I was mocking his book, rather than mocking Laffer and the loons who think that government can get rich by cutting taxes with my nick. I would have, but I don’t actually give Dembski enough thought to actually bother to mock him. For someone who appears to have been to college, he doesn’t seem to be particularly capable of informed discussion.

It’s not as if nobody’s noticed that it is the ID/creationist crowd that have proposed the free lunch of the (deus ex machina) intelligent designer that solves all problems and resolves all inconvenient facts when invoked.

Comment #29757

Posted by PvM on May 12, 2005 11:09 PM (e) (s)

Dembski surely is making life easier for those who want to expose ID for being scientifically vacuous and theologically risky. No wonder Dembski wants to return to teaching theology…

But Dembski himself may get his wish to be interrogated as a witness in court soon, if I understand the proceedings in Dover correctly. It may have been a costly tactical and strategic mistake to get involved. After all he is ‘on the record’…

Comment #29760

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 12, 2005 11:40 PM (e) (s)

Jack thanks for the excellent links.

With respect to the video — Calvert is a heel.  I can’t recall the last time I saw such classless behavior in a public venue.

A couple notable entries on the PDF

Some Board subcommittee members acted at times like cheerleaders for the witnesses, giving them two thumbs up or solitary high-fives.

Oy.

This is beautiful however, from the Wisconsin clergy.

We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity  precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

Amen, brothers and sisters.

Comment #29763

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 12, 2005 11:51 PM (e) (s)

@gww

just one more thing to indicate that this battle has nothing to do with really promoting religion; it’s the culture war, pure and simple, spilled over into the political arena because of the right’s usage of the evangelicals as a power base.  All we need to do is get rid of bush and company, and folks like Frist, and get some moderates with some actual intelligence in the administration and the congress, and i bet this shit will die down again.

i could be wrong, of course.

:p

Comment #29766

Posted by Chris Brockett on May 13, 2005 12:10 AM (e) (s)

Lou Dobbs tonight ran a segment on the Kansas schools fiasco, with Michael Ruse, Michael Wells, and John Morris. The choice line comes from Dobbs:

DOBBS: …The fact is, that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous and defined science that has testable results within it. Like a…

RUSE: Now, who says that? Is that you?

DOBBS: I do. I do.

I’m going to write to CNN management complaining about that one! As a news organization it should not be promoting ignorance. The transcript is at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/12/ldt.01.html…

The one encouraging result was the usual unscientific user poll: asked what should be taught in schools: the vote went:

Creationism: 8%
Evolution: 63%
ID: 2%
All of the above: 29%

There must have been a helluva lot of us hitting the vote button. :-)

Comment #29769

Posted by Michael Rathbun on May 13, 2005 12:19 AM (e) (s)

Nick wrote:

2. Inherit the Wind was a play written to critique McCarthyism, with the historical Scopes Trial used as the vehicle.

And, it is interesting to note, this year is the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the said play, in the perhaps unlikely locale of Dallas, Texas.

It is also worthy of notice that one day in the midst of the KKK, 05/05/05, was the eightieth anniversary of the arrest of John Scopes.

Comment #29770

Posted by Nullifidian on May 13, 2005 12:23 AM (e) (s)

Phillip Skell is hardly a new “convert” to the creationist side. In fact, he pestered PZ Myers with some sadly typical creationist fare.