Comment #35772

Posted by Flint on June 20, 2005 09:46 AM (e) (s)

To an interested outsider, it sounds like there are at least two and perhaps more strong preferences for how the “Official Truth” should be positioned. Perhaps the risk is that any ultimate court decision might explicitly rule against one perferred version of the Truth over another.

Who knows, maybe we’re seeing the symptoms of what might happen if ID were to win out and be presented in classrooms. Right now, the notion is so vague (“using unstated mechanisms, some unstated intelligence did something unspecified at some unspecified time(s) in the past”) that anyone trying to present this as “science” would face doctrinal difficulties as soon as they tried to answer any students’ questions at all. How WOULD the teacher field questions like: Who was the designer? Did the Designer create entire organisms or just tiny molecular substructures? If there was no Designer, how could we tell?

The teacher would have two choices: play dumb (“Nobody can answer any of these questions, now or ever”) or teach their own denomination’s religious position. Since neither one is suitable for public schools, perhaps schoolteachers should also ask to have a lawyer present.

Comment #35775

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on June 20, 2005 10:07 AM (e) (s)

I wouldn’t put too much stress on a reporter’s condensation of a phone interview with Dembski into a couple of sentences, nor assume that Dembski was privi to all the arguments between law firms.

Comment #35778

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 20, 2005 10:22 AM (e) (s)

Pete, that’s probably a fair point to make. There are inconsistencies here, but they may not be due to intentional deceit.

Comment #35779

Posted by bill on June 20, 2005 10:23 AM (e) (s)

I find this fascination with Dembski, well, fascinating!  I mean, really, who is Bill Dembski?

He’s a minor scholar, if that, who has written unremarkable books that have been discredited.  He was fired from Baylor, though to be accurate, Baylor did not have the wherewithall to actually fire Dembski, rather, they let him ferment for four years until his contract ran out.  Now, the Alfred E. Neuman of Intelligent Design, is employed at a minor Bible college.  Also, he edits the vacation Bible school level, scientifically discredited, coffee table picture book “Of Pandas and People” which is laughingly hawked as a “textbook”, although not even the most irrational school board has approved its use.

And, yet, amid all this mundaneness, he’s the focal point of scores if not hundreds of real scientists, engineers and educators who follow his every move.

Dembski has become the Paris Hilton of Intelligent Design;  unremarkable for anything he’s produced, but an object of intense curiosity nevertheless.  We’ll know I’m on the right track when Dembski starts toting around a little dog.  I’d suggest a Beagle.

Comment #35781

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on June 20, 2005 10:44 AM (e) (s)

So who’s the Nicole Richie of ID…Behe?  Meyers? Johnson?

Comment #35797

Posted by Unsympathetic reader on June 20, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)

Why do expert witnesses need lawyers?

Comment #35805

Posted by Mike Walker on June 20, 2005 01:49 PM (e) (s)

Dembski has become the Paris Hilton of Intelligent Design;  unremarkable for anything he’s produced, but an object of intense curiosity nevertheless.  We’ll know I’m on the right track when Dembski starts toting around a little dog.  I’d suggest a Beagle.

But I thought that Paris Hilton was seriously considering withdrawing from public life….

We should be so lucky.

Comment #35806

Posted by Henry J on June 20, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)

Re “Why do expert witnesses need lawyers?”

Maybe they’re afraid somebody else’s lawyer might want to ask them questions that they don’t want to have to answer? (Or was the question rhetorical?)

Henry

Comment #35809

Posted by EmmaPeel on June 20, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

neo-anti-luddite wrote:

So who’s the Nicole Richie of ID…Behe?  Meyers? Johnson?

Cordova?

Comment #35810

Posted by Rich on June 20, 2005 02:29 PM (e) (s)

Let’s try and unwind this mess:

1. TMLC (looks like they’re heading to the same place that Thomas More did) does not want separate legal representation.

2. The expert witnesses and the organizations which they are employed want lawyers representing said organizations at the deposition.

3. The witnesses are fired serially and not in parallel.

4. Apparently, at the time that Dembski was fired Meyer was still thinking he could be represented by DI.

Conclusion: TMLC tries to strip each of their witnesses of their personal representation one by one and tells them multiple stories. Dembski has two organizations that could represent him and when DI is stripped, he tries unsuccessfully to have FTE represent him.

If I was them I would want personal representation because of the following.

The opinions offered at trial by expert witnesses are running an increasingly greater gamut of scrutiny. First, they are subject to the judicial scientific reliability tests of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 507 U.S. 579 (1993). Once that hurdle is cleared and the opinion given, the experts can be sued by the party who hired them, both in tort and contract, if the opinion did not live up to the party’s expectations.

Comment #35816

Posted by Nomad on June 20, 2005 03:00 PM (e) (s)

Dembski has become the Paris Hilton of Intelligent Design;  unremarkable for anything he’s produced, but an object of intense curiosity nevertheless.  We’ll know I’m on the right track when Dembski starts toting around a little dog.  I’d suggest a Beagle.

Wouldn’t that beg the question of where the Beagle came from?

Comment #35817

Posted by Jeff S on June 20, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)

It seems clear that the religious right is quite comfortable with the unrestrained use of lies and deception to accomplish their goals.  Maybe TMLC was worried that independent counsel, whose duty it is to work in the best interest of their client, might remind them about, say, perjury ?

Finally, a testable version of the question :  “What happens to Christians who lie (under oath) ?”

Comment #35819

Posted by Sean Foley on June 20, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

“Looks like there’s an argument brewing on the Generals’ bench… Oh, my!  Dembski’s just taken a swing at Thompson!  You know, it’s funny to reflect that going into this game, the Generals said they really thought they could take the Globetrotters this time…”

Comment #35822

Posted by Henry J on June 20, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

Re “Wouldn’t that beg the question of where the Beagle came from?”

The boat that Darwin went on for his trip? Probably came from some shipyard someplace. ;)

Comment #35823

Posted by Gary Hurd on June 20, 2005 03:24 PM (e) (s)

But I thought that Paris Hilton was seriously considering withdrawing from public life…

That just means that she will try to cross her legs more often.

{I’m so bad.  I am a bad poster.  I should be seen to the ‘wall.}

Comment #35827

Posted by Henry J on June 20, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

Re “TMLC (looks like they’re heading to the same place that Thomas More did) “

Huh? I thought TMLC was Thomas More? (his organization, that is.)

Comment #35829

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on June 20, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

Mike Walker wrote:

But I thought that Paris Hilton was seriously considering withdrawing from public life…

Yes, but the withdrawl method is notoriously unreliable….

EmmaPeel wrote:

Cordova?

Very nicely done.  I second that nomination.

Comment #35832

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 20, 2005 03:57 PM (e) (s)

More than likely, the TMLC lawyers are not up to the task of defending ID with the obfuscating talking points the DI has developed over the years.  They seem to be honestly fanatic.  The professional IDists created the Kansas Kangroo Court because the honest fanatics were showing up at the public hearings.  Unfortunately, the professional IDists can’t control the TMLC and Dover school board and they’ve either jumped ship or walked the plank.

Comment #35833

Posted by Morris Minor on June 20, 2005 03:58 PM (e) (s)

Henry J:

I like your handle.

Comment #35834

Posted by steve on June 20, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

Why not? Under Daubert, Sal Cordova is as much a recognized expert in biology as is William Dembski.

Comment #35836

Posted by lurker on June 20, 2005 04:15 PM (e) (s)

last night, Dembski posted on his blog that it was not the Discovery Institute’s insistence on separate legal representation that was a problem at all. In fact, Dembski says that the TMLC would allow Stephen Meyer of the DI to have legal representation, but would not allow Dembski to have an attorney with him and that it was the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), for whom he works as an editor, who insisted on the separate representation

Someone already pointed out that this isn’t the only conflict in the story. Dembski says that he works for FTE, but that FTE has the same address has Dembski!  What a lying s.o.b.  At least Dembski has a great commute to work!

Follow the money. When Dembski says that the FTE demanded separate representation, that’s the same thing as saying that Dembski demanded separate representation.

The TMLC lawyers only fired Dembski after his publishing company FTE started interfering. TMLC knew that they couldn’t carry a case whose “expert witness” has a financial stake in the outcome of the trial.

Can Dembski open his mouth without telling a lie?

Comment #35843

Posted by harold on June 20, 2005 04:51 PM (e) (s)

This is, of course, exactly an example of what would happen if “ID won”, sleazy details notwithstanding.

There would be an immediate and viscious battle over whose specific dogma to falsely present as “science”, and nobody thinks that “unspecified ‘designer’ who had something to do with the details of the bacterial flagellum” is going to satisfy anybody for long.  Especially not anybody looking to make a lot of money selling officially sanctioned books.

This already happened before.  It was called “the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”.  It was also rerun as “Protestant prayer forced on Catholic students in US public schools”, and in many other versions.

This is why religion belongs in the Sunday School you choose, and public school, where all the kids are allowed to go, teaches mainstream science. 

Why can’t people get this?  Because of their faith?  No, their faith is better protected when everyone’s freedom of conscience is protected, and in their heart, they know that. 

Because of their desire to use power to force others, however grudgingly, to submit to them, and because of their greed.  Let’s just not mix those things up with the teachings of Jesus.

Comment #35846

Posted by Mike on June 20, 2005 05:36 PM (e) (s)

from a litigator’s perspective, the whole thing just doesn’t add up.  the experts are all supposed to be on the same side, and they all purport to place great importance on winning the case.  so, it’s simply hard to imagine a difference of opinion so severe it could not be easily resolved by negotiation within the ID camp. 

and anyway, what’s wrong with letting one or more experts have their own counsel present?  isn’t their testimony going to be consistent no matter who represents them?

Dembski’s view of events is doubtful, at best. instead, it would be reasonable to infer the disagreement was not a “technical” one over the legal representation as Dembski claims, but the substance of what was to be said.  so the lawyers decided to dump their experts. 

someone on PT will probably know the answer to this:  did any of the science experts who testified against the use of textbook disclaimers last year in Cobb County, Georgia (Selman case) bring their own lawyers to depositions or the court?  I would be surprised to hear that was the case.

Comment #35852

Posted by Rich on June 20, 2005 06:18 PM (e) (s)

Re “TMLC (looks like they’re heading to the same place that Thomas More did) “

Huh? I thought TMLC was Thomas More? (his organization, that is.)

Thomas More Law Center is named after Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor for Henry VIII. He ended up being executed for failing to take Henry’s Oath of Supremacy. Ironically, TMLC’s namesake was a victim of theocracy. First there was the wedge, then there was the vise, and now there is the axe.

Comment #35855

Posted by steve on June 20, 2005 06:24 PM (e) (s)

Eh, Dembski feels he needs two lawyers.

If I had called ID a mathematical restatement of a certain part of christian theology, and yet was in court alleging ID is science rather than religion, I’d want as many lawyers as I could get.

Comment #35856

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 20, 2005 06:25 PM (e) (s)

The opinions offered at trial by expert witnesses are running an increasingly greater gamut of scrutiny. First, they are subject to the judicial scientific reliability tests of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 507 U.S. 579 (1993). Once that hurdle is cleared and the opinion given, the experts can be sued by the party who hired them, both in tort and contract, if the opinion did not live up to the party’s expectations.

Indeed, the DI-ites have ample reason to fear BOTH of these potential problems.  None of their crap can pass ANY “scientific reliability” tests.  As for their opinions not living up to the party’s expectations, well heck, DI was blithering for YEARS that they had an “alternative scientific theory”.  NOW, after the Dover-ites took them at their word and tried to push this “alternative scientific theory” into classrooms, NOW the DI-ites are changing their tune to “well, you see, we don’t REALLY have any alternative scientific theory after all —- so sorry to give y’all the impression that we DID.”

Not to mention the fact that DI’s, uh, “fundraising appeal” (AKA The Wedge Document) explicitly stated that it had an alternative scientiifc theory that it wanted taught.  If, indeed, they DON’T, that sounds an awful lot like “raising money under false pretenses”, which is also known as “fraud”. 

Everyone who sent DI a check should sue them.

Comment #35862

Posted by Rich on June 20, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

To the lawyers out there: Am I making a misapplication since Daubert refers to product liability and toxic torts? The Ninth Circuit did have an intersting comment about Daubert concerning their role as gatekeepers, though:

Our responsibility, then, unless we badly misread the Supreme Court’s opinion,is to resolve disputes among respected, well-credentialed scientists about matters squarely within their expertise, in areas where there is no scientific consensus as to what is and what is not “good science,”and occasionally to reject such expert testimony because it was not “derived by the scientific method.”
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (9th Cir.1995) 43 F.3d 1311, 1316. [emphasis mine]

Comment #35868

Posted by Steviepinhead on June 20, 2005 07:10 PM (e) (s)

No, you’ve got it right.  Daubert IS the test that federal judges are to use when exercising their “gatekeeper” function over the admission of scientific testimony in ANY kind of case where such testimony is in issue.  It’s just that product liability and toxic torts are the kinds of cases that most frequesntly tend to raise those kinds of issues.  But the same thing can happen with DNA testing in criminal or paternity cases, or really in any kind of case where a less-than-well-settled issue of science somehow becomes involved.

Some state courts follow that test too, where others continue to follow an older test having to do with whether the testifying expert is appropriately qualified and whether the scientific opinion proffered is generally accepted by experts in the field.  The two tests can, at times, yield different results, but generally both tests are intended to ensure that “junk” science is kept out of the courts—of course, different experts can still reach differing conclusions starting with roughly the same set of facts…and unlike science, the courts don’t get to revisit the same observations and hypotheses again and again until they get them “right.”

Comment #35870

Posted by harold on June 20, 2005 07:22 PM (e) (s)

Rev Flank wrote:

“Everyone who sent DI a check should sue them.”

To which I add - I’m not an attorney, but it sounds to me as if even a small number of people who did so could initiate a class action law suit on behalf of everyone else who wanted to do so.

This is a highly reasonable suggestion, in terms of Dover County and any other place where the misleading claims of the DI have led to substantial waste of public money, as well as in terms of anyone who sent the DI money because they thought that DI REALLY DID have a scientific theory.

What happened in Kansas in 1999 was different - that was literally an effort to censor evolution out of the curriculum, without replacing it with anything.  It was probably legal, but proved unpopular when elections rolled around.  But in Dover County, they’ve bought the DI’s claims of a scientific theory, wasted a good deal of money and time as a result, and are about to be disappointed.

And it is indeed highly ironic, even offensive, that the name of Thomas More, who died because he refused to bend his conscience to the dictates of the official state religion, is being attached to efforts to force an “official religion” onto children in public schools, regardless of their families’ wishes.

Comment #35874

Posted by Jeff S on June 20, 2005 07:49 PM (e) (s)

Lenny wrote:

Everyone who sent DI a check should sue them.

If there really is a good legal basis here, this could be a very important opportunity for two reasons :

1) It would bring a lot of much-needed publicity to the fact that ID is scientifically vacuous, and

2) All the fundies who donated would get their money back to donate to other worthy causes.  Like the “Christian Nation” movement, perhaps…

Comment #35875

Posted by William Dembski on June 20, 2005 07:54 PM (e) (s)

To Ed Brayton:

Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I’m not in). I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

WmAD

Comment #35880

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 20, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

How about my questions — are you happy to answer those too?

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?  And please don’t give me more of your “the scientific theory of ID is that evolution is wrong” BS.  I want to know what your designer does, specifically.  I want to know what mechanism it uses to do whatever the heck you think it does.  I want to know where we can see these mechanisms in action.

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

5. Do you repudiate the dangerous lies of HIV/AIDS denial published in Crux Magazine on whose Editorial Advisory Board you serve? If so, why do you continue to serve on it?

Comment #35881

Posted by WCD on June 20, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Dembski,

Why not here????

Comment #35882

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 20, 2005 08:25 PM (e) (s)

Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I’m not in). I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

Is there any particular reason why you can’t answer them here, in writing, publicly?

Comment #35883

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 20, 2005 08:30 PM (e) (s)

Some state courts follow that test too, where others continue to follow an older test having to do with whether the testifying expert is appropriately qualified and whether the scientific opinion proffered is generally accepted by experts in the field.

Oh well, ID can’t pass that one either.  “Experts in the field” think their arguments are crap.  Every one of them.  Not to mention the fact that no ID argument exists that hadn’t already been made thirty years ago by the ICR-ites (and already ruled by the SOCUS to be religion and not science).

Comment #35885

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on June 20, 2005 08:40 PM (e) (s)

Wm A Dembski wrote:

I have nothing to hide in this matter.

I see no reason to doubt this at all.

Comment #35888

Posted by steve on June 20, 2005 09:25 PM (e) (s)

My question for Dembski is, what’s the plan for after the disaster? Whether it comes at Dover, or somewhere else, I’m sure you guys have seen the fate of ID. The sophisticated-sounding mumbo-jumbo math, and IC jibber-jabber, in the hands of the school board rubes inevitably turns into “let’s put Jesus back into the classroom!”. It’s a matter of time before ID is legally held to be creationism, and prohibited as high-school science.
  So what’s the plan for after? This has been a long contrivance, and it’s about to go down in flames. What are you guys going to do? Change the name again? Advocate private schools?

Comment #35889

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 20, 2005 09:29 PM (e) (s)

William Dembski wrote:

Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I’m not in). I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

I have no reason to doubt that you have nothing to hide in this matter, but I’d prefer to have that conversation here in public. I’m really not at all interested in playing the “gotcha” game wherein one strains to find some conflict in the story so I can say, “A ha, he’s lying!” But there are some inconsistencies at least in what is being reported, I think you’ll agree, and they raise some interesting questions. There are also ways that they can be reconciled or explained and I’m just curious to know what really happened here.

I think you’ll agree that it makes no sense for the TMLC to say that Meyer and Campbell can have their own or the DI’s attorneys, but you cannot. In claiming this was the case yesterday on your blog, you are essentially accusing the TMLC of being either irrationally inconsistent or dishonest in claiming that having outside counsel is a conflict of interest. It raises the question of what the real reason is for these dismissals. You’ve made the case that for you, it was simply a matter of them not allowing you to have outside counsel and you insisting on it. But in so doing, it makes the dismissals of Meyer and Campbell make far less sense because you also state that they were willing to allow them to have their own counsel.

Add to this the fact that Campbell was dismissed as a witness a week before you were and Meyer after you and the whole things seems rather confusing. It might have made sense if they had drawn a line with you first, leading to your dismissal, then they realized that they couldn’t allow anyone else to have outside counsel either and informing Meyer and Campbell of that, leading to their dismissal. But that’s not the order in which it happened. So given what you’ve said, and given the timing of it all, it makes the TMLC’s behavior and their explanation for that behavior seem quite convoluted. That doesn’t mean that you have to answer for them, of course, but if there is something here that I’m missing that might make sense out of it all or explain the inconsistencies, we’d certainly like to hear what it might be.

The larger reason for my post, of course, was to point out the clear friction that exists between the DI and the TMLC over this matter and the ID movement’s catch 22 regarding the Dover lawsuit. I certainly don’t expect you to comment on that, but I think it’s reasonable for someone who has been a close observer of your movement from the start to think that perhaps this is visible evidence of a much deeper rift under the surface in this matter.

Comment #35891

Posted by bill on June 20, 2005 09:36 PM (e) (s)

It was a refreshing surprise to rediscover this article written by Isaac Asimov over twenty years ago:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html

It’s like deja vu all over again.  The same arguments, the same plan, the same players.  Only the dance is “intelligent design” instead of “scientific creationism.”

The article is ripe for quote mining, so to save the IDiots some time, how about this:

Because the evolutionary view is not perfect and is not agreed upon by all scientists, creationists argue that evolution is false and that scientists, in supporting evolution, are basing their views on blind faith and dogmatism.

To an extent, the creationists are right here: The details of evolution are not perfectly known.

Nice nugget from the quote mine.

However, Asimov continues to say:

The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives.

And concludes the section with this:

However much scientists argue their differing beliefs in details of evolutionary theory, or in the interpretation of the necessarily imperfect fossil record, they firmly accept the evolutionary process itself.

So, check out what Asimov has to say.  In light of what’s happening in Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states you’ll find it very interesting.

Comment #35896

Posted by snaxalotl on June 21, 2005 12:16 AM (e) (s)

This is so much fun. Average creationists have taken DI spin at face value for years. Confident that evolution has been debunked for anybody who considered the evidence, they saw a profound tragedy in diehard ignoramuses continuing to teach it.

So when the indignant peasants finally march into town with their torches and pitchforks, it’s kind of like slogging all the way to the emerald city to find that the wizard is fake, or Life of Brian where Brian’s cult takes on a life of it’s own, or … someone help me out here … there’s got to be some famous old weepy where the kid talks up his father to all his friends only to find out at the worst possible moment that he was making it all up

Comment #35897

Posted by FL on June 21, 2005 12:37 AM (e) (s)

I don’t believe this.  Ed, you’re getting a straight shot at talking to Dr. Dembski one on one, even geting the phone number to dial up so you can get your particular concerns addressed, and you apparently want to turn it down?
 
If that’s the case, that doesn’t make sense. 
I honestly believe you should take advantage of the offer.  Not everyday a person gets an offer like that one. 

If you’re sincerely “just curious to know what really happened here”, the sensible thing to do is dial up the source, listen and learn, and then go from there.  Firsthand info always trumps 2nd and 3rd hand.

I can understand how some of the PT’ers want Dembski to open himself up for X number of questions, followup questions, and comments from X number of posters on the PT blog. (Notice that Rev has already sloshed five questions on the table, actually it’s 12 if you count the sub-questions.)

Let’s see.  Take just four or five PT’ers who each have a total of 12 questions (five plus followups, just like Rev) and suddenly Dembski has to make time for 48 to 60 questions, plus plenty more questions and comments generated therefrom. 
Not a time trap I’d want to get into.

And that’s only one issue.  I notice the contrast of the tone and wording of your particular piece, Ed, with the tone and the wording of some PT posters like steve and Rev and others here in this and other threads.  There is a respectful tone in your words there; it makes you sound sincere about wanting to get answers.

But I cannot imagine Dembski trying to spend a bunch of time here at PT, sloshing through what one PT’er correctly termed the “obvious sneering hatred” that is often present here towards Dembski and other ID advocates.  Can’t speak for Dembski, but it would seem like such a total waste of time.
 
Besides, the PT’ers really worth responding to, he’s responded to already, in print or online, and they’ve responded to him in print or online as well, so that’s that.

At any rate, Ed, you got a shot.  It’s your shot, not anyone else’s.
You’re wasting valuable time, imo, trying to get Dembski to throw aside his valuable time with other folks who may not have earned their shot, haven’t really done their homework either, but want to throw their questions and attitudes at him all the same.

So may I suggest?  Just take the shot and then do your postings.  This is how I’d do it whether I agreed or disagreed with ID and Dr. Dembski.

Maybe it’s just my journalism background, but if a source gives you a shot, you take the shot.  Gain the additional information while you can, then go from there.

FL

Comment #35898

Posted by RBH on June 21, 2005 12:40 AM (e) (s)

snaxalotl wrote

This is so much fun. Average creationists have taken DI spin at face value for years. Confident that evolution has been debunked for anybody who considered the evidence, they saw a profound tragedy in diehard ignoramuses continuing to teach it.

According to a couple of observers, in testimony before a Pennsylvania State Legislature committee today, Behe told the committee that the most recent evidence for ID that we have is about 200 million years old; and that humans are descended from apes (perhaps with ID help).  I’m trying to locate a recording or transcript of that testimony.  Any Pennsylvanians know of one?  PCN, the Pennsylvania public access channel, apparently video-taped it and showed it earlier this evening, so at least that exists.  It’d be great to get a copy or transcript before it’s taped over by a 4th of July parade in Harrisburg.

RBH

Comment #35903

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 21, 2005 03:35 AM (e) (s)

I wonder if this is a simple misunderstanding between TMLC and the three ID witnesses in question. It is possible that one of them thought they were going to be allowed representation but in reality weren’t going to. That could explain why William Dembski went for his own representation, probably thinking quite rightly that he should be allowed to as his colleages were (or so they thought). That miscommunication somewhere down the line probably led to a large internal dispute and them being fired out of spite.

I don’t think there is some evil conspiracy here, despite the ID movements past record.

Comment #35904

Posted by OFFTOPIC on June 21, 2005 04:11 AM (e) (s)

Jan Peczkis’ (aka “John Woodmorappe”) recent long reviews of the Holocaust books (such as Finkelstein’s “Holocaust Industry”) are quite interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3Q04XXGGED746/r…

Certain passages (e.g. “Ironically, Polish anti-Semitism festered and grew primarily because Polish Jews had been so successful in the first place-actually and perceptively at Polish expense”) really make one wonder about “Woodmorappe“‘s view of the Jews…

And - he defends “John Birch Society”.

Comment #35905

Posted by Paul King on June 21, 2005 04:17 AM (e) (s)

There certainly is a need for clarification and I am surprised that Dembski hasn’t done so on his blog.

It is possible that the TMLC were more averse to having lawyers representing FTE than lawyers representing DI

It is possible that TMLC only decided to allow DI lawyers in after Campbell walked or was dismissed.

It is possible that Dembski’s comment to the press was made before Meyer was allowed a lawyer (although that would seem to invovle some tight timing).

But if the solution is that simple, why isn’t it being explained publically rather than over the telephone ?  Indeed, why didn’t Dembski expain the differences between his account and the comments he is reported as making in the blog entry where both appear ?

Comment #35906

Posted by OFFTOPIC on June 21, 2005 04:29 AM (e) (s)

And here’s the whole page with his reviews:

http://www.glaukopis.gross.pl/?ids=7…

Comment #35907

Posted by OFFTOPIC on June 21, 2005 04:37 AM (e) (s)

Woody again: his review of Shahak’s book:

http://www.glaukopis.gross.pl/pdf/shahak.pdf…

“For instance, when Martin Luther wrote his infamous tract about Jews, he raised many of the same themes raised by the Jewish author Shahak: Jews taught to spit whenever they passed by a church, the Talmud misrepresenting and slurring the Christian religion, the use of the word Jesus as a curse word, Jews thanking God in prayer that they are not gentiles, Jewish males thanking God in prayer that they are not women, the overall condescending attitude Jews were imbued with against gentiles, etc. To this we can also add that Jews were taught that it is OK to cheat gentiles, as well as the aforementioned tendency for Jews to think that their suffering is to be exalted above the sufferings of all other peoples. Shahak is also skillful in pointing to ways that the Talmud had been deliberately mistranslated at times in order to soften or conceal these aspects from gentiles. Personally, whatever residual anti-Jewish feelings I have are weakened, rather than reinforced, by seeing a Jewish author willing to own up to the faults emanating from the Jewish side. Shahak, you have done a true mitzvah!”

Comment #35909

Posted by GCT on June 21, 2005 06:51 AM (e) (s)

RBH, it seems you can order tapes from PCN online.  Here is their website.

For the more legally minded among us, what are the chances that a judge decides that ID doesn’t meet the test of what is a science simply because it doesn’t pass the peer review test?  If that were to happen, could the IDers simply turn around and say, “Of course it doesn’t, yet.  That’s why we simply want to ‘teach the controversy.’  When ID is more mature, then we can mandate it in the schools.”

Also, if ID is ruled not science by the courts, what does that mean for other states that have ID as an optional lesson?  If the court doesn’t explicitly say that ID is religion, would the optional teaching of ID be legal?

Comment #35913

Posted by steve on June 21, 2005 08:44 AM (e) (s)

Hey, FL, here’s a quiz:

David Wolpert, author of the NFL theorems, says Dembski’s use of them is crap.

The biology community says he’s utterly wrong about biology. 

As we saw on here last year, real Information Theorists laugh at him.

Given those facts, under Daubert, is there any scientific topic in which Dembski would qualify as an expert, and be permitted to testify?

Comment #35916

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 21, 2005 10:20 AM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

I don’t believe this.  Ed, you’re getting a straight shot at talking to Dr. Dembski one on one, even geting the phone number to dial up so you can get your particular concerns addressed, and you apparently want to turn it down?

For crying out loud, you sound like something out Tiger Beat magazine - Justin Timberlake wants ME to call him! It’s not as though getting an opportunity to talk to Dembski on the phone is going to give me bragging rights on the junior high school playground or anything. Please get a grip. I asked him to address these concerns publicly becuase the inconsistencies have been made publicly. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

I notice the contrast of the tone and wording of your particular piece, Ed, with the tone and the wording of some PT posters like steve and Rev and others here in this and other threads.  There is a respectful tone in your words there; it makes you sound sincere about wanting to get answers.

But I cannot imagine Dembski trying to spend a bunch of time here at PT, sloshing through what one PT’er correctly termed the “obvious sneering hatred” that is often present here towards Dembski and other ID advocates.  Can’t speak for Dembski, but it would seem like such a total waste of time.

I agree with you that there is a lot of just random nastiness and juvenile one-upsmanship that goes on in the comments here. I’m sure that is just as annoying to Dembski as it is to me when I see the same things on ID message boards and blogs. We have our Great White Wonders, he has his DaveScots. They are best ignored (or in the case of both of those people on this site, banned). I would encourage Dembski to ignore the catcalls and poo-flinging comments and just address the serious questions seriously. He made a choice to reply here publicly in the first place when he could of course have emailed me his phone number in private, so asking him to address these questions publicly is hardly unreasonable or unwarranted.

Comment #35917

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 21, 2005 10:27 AM (e) (s)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

I wonder if this is a simple misunderstanding between TMLC and the three ID witnesses in question. It is possible that one of them thought they were going to be allowed representation but in reality weren’t going to. That could explain why William Dembski went for his own representation, probably thinking quite rightly that he should be allowed to as his colleages were (or so they thought). That miscommunication somewhere down the line probably led to a large internal dispute and them being fired out of spite.

This is certainly possible. One need not jump to a sinister conclusion about these things to point out that there are inconsistencies in the public stories. But to me, the far more interesting aspect of this is the obvious catch-22 that the DI is in regarding the Dover case and the obvious friction between them and the TMLC. I really do think they wish the TMLC would have not offered to defend the school board and the board had simply been forced to retract its policy under the threat of an ACLU lawsuit. That would have allowed them to point the finger at the Grand Darwinian Orthodoxy busily censoring ID from schools without having to defend the actual policy that was passed, and it would have allowed them to avoid a potential movement-ending Federal court ruling over which they have virtually no influence or control. And yes, our side would have felt the same way if the tables were turned.

I’m even more curious to see if the TMLC is reckless enough to file suit here in Gull Lake on behalf of the teachers.

Comment #35918

Posted by steve on June 21, 2005 10:46 AM (e) (s)

you’re getting a straight shot at talking to Dr. Dembski one on one…and you apparently want to turn it down?

Hey FL—if someone’s posting his phone number in the comments of a popular, public blog, talking with him is probably not the most exclusive opportunity in the world.

If I were Dembski, I wouldn’t post my phone number around the Lenny Flanks, but hey, I don’t need the attention.

Comment #35919

Posted by steve on June 21, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)

BTW, I don’t mind Lenny’s tone, I mind his wordiness. But tone or no tone, the fact is, IDers run from Lenny’s questions, because they have no good answers. Spin that however you want.

Comment #35920

Posted by steve on June 21, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

I want an answer to my question—after the rubes ruin the legal strategy, what will the IDers do? Change creationism’s name again, advocate for sectarian schools, a constitutional amendment, christian exodus(1), or what? Sadly, the Dembskis can’t answer that question, because if they admit the case is terminal, the checks would soon stop cashing.

Comment #35921

Posted by steve on June 21, 2005 11:02 AM (e) (s)

speaking of that site, check out the blog. I want someone to explain to me what the hell this means:

Before you spend four years and $75,000 to learn Charles Darwin’s philosophy of law, take four days to get the Founding Fathers’!

Charles Darwin’s philosophy of law? I feel an intemperate tone coming on…

Comment #35922

Posted by Ed Darrell on June 21, 2005 11:11 AM (e) (s)

GCT said: 

For the more legally minded among us, what are the chances that a judge decides that ID doesn’t meet the test of what is a science simply because it doesn’t pass the peer review test?  If that were to happen, could the IDers simply turn around and say, “Of course it doesn’t, yet.  That’s why we simply want to ‘teach the controversy.’  When ID is more mature, then we can mandate it in the schools.”

Also, if ID is ruled not science by the courts, what does that mean for other states that have ID as an optional lesson?  If the court doesn’t explicitly say that ID is religion, would the optional teaching of ID be legal?

Judge Overton offered a way by which creationism could get around peer review completely.  In the Arkansas trial, in 1981, Overton asked creationists to submit to the court, for the court record, several of the more important articles establishing creationism which had been submitted to scientific journals and rejected.  By putting them into the record it would have established that such a body of scientific literature existed, and it would have provided a basis for Judge Overton to rule that there was, indeed, scientific basis to creationism, and that consequently teaching creationism in science classes would not be prohibited as an illegal establishment of religion by teaching religious dogma that has no basis in science.

Creationists were unable to submit a single research article. 

Worse, creationist expert witnesses, to a person, all stated in sworn depositions that they knew of no such science backing for creationism, and that creationism is instead grounded in scripture.

If ID were established as science by actual research and publications in science journals, no judge would rule otherwise.  Were a judge to rule ID is not science, that ruling would be effectively vitiated were ID later to be established by research and publications.

Here is what you need to keep in mind:  Real science does not require an order from a school board to get into the textbooks.  Real science does not require an order from a court to be taught as real science.  Only pseudo-science, crank science and rank crackpottery need a court order or school board resolution or state law to require it be taught as science instead of what it is.  ID advocates ask for special privileges to rank ID as science when it cannot earn that rank in the laboratory and field.

Because ID is driven by religious belief and not science, it is illegal to teach it as science under the constitutions of all 50 states.  Whether those laws are enforced is a quite separate matter.

The easiest way to get ID into schools would be to devise experiments to test it, perform the experiments and write them up.  That would establish ID as science.  That would be entirely outside the purview of the courts, and it requires only dedication and real thinking on the parts of creationists.

And that is why I keep asking ID advocates when they will start on that project.  For more than 14 years they have avoided doing the work that would qualify their ideas as science.

I think I know why they avoid the work, but I could be persuaded otherwise, were ID advocates to do some real science work.

Comment #35923

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on June 21, 2005 11:12 AM (e) (s)

This is certainly possible. One need not jump to a sinister conclusion about these things to point out that there are inconsistencies in the public stories.

“Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity.” Molly Ryan

Comment #35924

Posted by FL on June 21, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

It’s not as though getting an opportunity to talk to Dembski on the phone is going to give me bragging rights on the junior high school playground or anything.

It’s not about “obtaining bragging rights”, it’s simply about obtaining the information you suggested you’d like to obtain concerning this topic. 

I know what my choice would be as an information-gatherer, but it’s up to you.

FL

Comment #35925

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 21, 2005 11:44 AM (e) (s)

I want an answer to my question—after the rubes ruin the legal strategy, what will the IDers do? Change creationism’s name again, advocate for sectarian schools, a constitutional amendment, christian exodus(1), or what? Sadly, the Dembskis can’t answer that question, because if they admit the case is terminal, the checks would soon stop cashing.

I think the answer to this has been pointed out here over the past several days. There are strong hints that some factions are already starting to bail on ‘Intelligent Design’, and pinning their hopes on ‘Teach the Controversy’. That seems to be how they’ve slimed into Ohio public schools. Plus, it’s so legally amorphous, it’s harder to fight.

However, time has shown us that abolutely nothing that gets used in the Creationist/ID arsenal ever gets totally thrown out, so expect to see people here and there still using the old terminology and old arguments forever.

If science has any hope, it’s that the Creationist/ID crowd can’t all stick to one story to save their lives.

Comment #35927

Posted by GCT on June 21, 2005 12:41 PM (e) (s)

Ed, I guess I was wondering whether a judge could (or would) rule that the specific case in Dover is illegal since they are mandating ID in the classrooms, but might stay mute on whether optional teaching of ID is legal or not.  Could a judge rule that way, and how likely is a ruling like that?  If the judge simply says, “ID is not science,” but does not specify that it is religious in nature, how does that affect states like Ohio?  If the judge says, “ID is just religious arguments dressed up as science,” then I would expect that the ACLU or somebody would jump on any place that does teach it.

Comment #35928

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 21, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

It’s not about “obtaining bragging rights”, it’s simply about obtaining the information you suggested you’d like to obtain concerning this topic.

I take him at his word that he has nothing to hide (and that is genuine - I really don’t think he has anything to hide in this regard). Thus, there is no reason to hold that conversation in private and then report back here on what he says. Best to have it in public in his own words than to work through a middle man.

Comment #35929

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 21, 2005 01:19 PM (e) (s)

GCT wrote:

Ed, I guess I was wondering whether a judge could (or would) rule that the specific case in Dover is illegal since they are mandating ID in the classrooms, but might stay mute on whether optional teaching of ID is legal or not.  Could a judge rule that way, and how likely is a ruling like that?  If the judge simply says, “ID is not science,” but does not specify that it is religious in nature, how does that affect states like Ohio?  If the judge says, “ID is just religious arguments dressed up as science,” then I would expect that the ACLU or somebody would jump on any place that does teach it.

The first thing to understand is the substance of the legal case. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents who object to having ID taught in science classrooms. In order to win, they must show that the school board’s policy is unconstitutional, in this case that it violates the Establishment clause. In order to do that, they must show that ID is inherently religious in nature, that the school board was motivated by the desire to endorse or prop up a religious viewpoint, and so forth. So no, the judge could really not rule the way you suggest. If the plaintiffs fail to establish a violation of the Establishment clause, they will lose the case and the policy will be upheld. If they do establish such a violation, then it will be unconstitutional either to mandate it or to allow it to be taught.

Comment #35936

Posted by Keanus on June 21, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

Brayton is right. The Dover case boils down to the plaintiffs demonstrating to the judge’s satisfaction that ID is inherently religious; the defendants must demonstrate not only that it’s not but that it fits the definition of scientific. The issue of ID’s scientific validity, to this non-lawyer, will be mostly a sidebar, but will surely aid in answering whether ID is religiously rooted or not.

The contretemps between TMLC, its original “expert” witnesses, and the latter’s right to have their lawyers attend their depositions and advise them at the trial (I assume the latter) is probably a manifestation of fundamental difference in both strategy and the emptiness of ID’s scientific quiver. It has no arrows to shoot other than faith, and faith isn’t admissible in scientific or legal debate. And there’s also the probable wide range of theologies subscribed to by the supporters of ID. In fact one strategy the ACLU and Pepper Hamilton (pro-bono counsel for the plaintiffs) could follow would be to call as witnesses a sampling of a dozen of so ID promoters and creationists and take them through their scientific views for the judge and the public to see. Such a trial would be like the sideshow at the circus, very much akin to the Kansas hearings, but with a real judge and adult in charge.  But then I suspect that plaintiff’s counsel will achieve the same end cross-examining the witnesses the defense calls

Comment #35939

Posted by H. Humbert on June 21, 2005 03:30 PM (e) (s)

As many have already pointed out, the “designer” must necessarily be supernatural, since aliens (often thrown out as an alternative) could not evolve naturally without themselves being designed by some supernatural diety.

It seems to me this incontrovertible fact should be enough in and of itself to prove in court that ID is a religious statment at heart. It doesn’t matter if IDists are loathe to name the designer—it’s the unavoidable logical conclusion of their claims.

Comment #35941

Posted by Carol Clouser on June 21, 2005 03:56 PM (e) (s)

Any opinions out there on Judah Landa’s latest work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, in which he seems to convincingly demonstrate that the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible? Landa’s science is rigorous, the linguistics is sound, the analysis is incisive and the conclusion is inescapable - that the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally! This should come as a big surprize to our fundamentalist friends. I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me. This is an important development. I would like some commentary.

Carol Clouser

Comment #35942

Posted by Mike on June 21, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

if honest answers will be provided, the questions to Dembski and/or the Dover lawyers boil down to (1) why did the witnesses feel they needed separate legal representation, and (2) regardless of whether the witnesses had valid reasons for this, why was it not possible to arrive at a negotiated solution to such a request (as typically happens even in complex, multi-party cases)?  I would have thought all the witnesses were appearing voluntarily to support ID, so the underlying substance of an irreconcilable conflict is, well, hard to fathom except as an expression of severe disagreement over the content, credibility, or purpose of the testimony.

Comment #35945

Posted by Raven on June 21, 2005 05:26 PM (e) (s)

Hi, Carol—

Any opinions out there on Judah Landa’s latest work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, in which he seems to convincingly demonstrate that the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible? Landa’s science is rigorous, the linguistics is sound, the analysis is incisive and the conclusion is inescapable - that the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally! This should come as a big surprize to our fundamentalist friends. I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me. This is an important development. I would like some commentary.

Comment #35946

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 21, 2005 05:38 PM (e) (s)

I think the answer to this has been pointed out here over the past several days. There are strong hints that some factions are already starting to bail on ‘Intelligent Design’, and pinning their hopes on ‘Teach the Controversy’. That seems to be how they’ve slimed into Ohio public schools. Plus, it’s so legally amorphous, it’s harder to fight.

However, time has shown us that abolutely nothing that gets used in the Creationist/ID arsenal ever gets totally thrown out, so expect to see people here and there still using the old terminology and old arguments forever.

If science has any hope, it’s that the Creationist/ID crowd can’t all stick to one story to save their lives.

Alas for them, “teach the controversy” has already lost in Cobb County.

And you are right —- the one fatal flaw in the entire anti-evolution movement is that no matter HOW they try to spin it legally, any strategy they choose requires everyone to shut up, indefinitely, about the one thing they care about most in the world  —- their religious opinions.

They can’t do it.

They don’t WANT to do it.

And that’s why their crap will never see the inside of a science text or classroom.

Comment #35948

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 21, 2005 05:42 PM (e) (s)

If I were Dembski, I wouldn’t post my phone number around the Lenny Flanks

“Dr” Hovind kept pestering me to call him, too.

I prefer to have my conversations in public.  And in writing.

What can Dembski say on the phone that he can’t just say here?

Or have the IDers learned a belated lesson from the whole Wedge Document fiasco —— “don’t put anything in writing if you don’t have to”.

Comment #35949

Posted by Raven on June 21, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)

Hi, Carol—

Any opinions out there on Judah Landa’s latest work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, in which he seems to convincingly demonstrate that the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible?

I had not heard of the book, nor of Professor Landa, but it was my privilege to study classical Hebrew with a profound scholar of the language. I believe my teacher would agree with Landa’s assertion, as he has a fine ear for nuance and meaning. He continually got us to look at the text in different ways, and to analyze and account for what was actually there on the page.

The first word of Genesis, which becomes the English phrase “in the beginning”, is one of his favorite examples of interpretation. After you brought up the subject, I went to Amazon and viewed the first couple of pages. His points about “in the beginning”, while not the same as the ones my teacher raised, are of a similar kind of analysis.

Landa’s science is rigorous, the linguistics is sound, the analysis is incisive

Again, I am only speaking of the first two pages, so I can’t comment on the science or linguistics as a whole, but I did like what analysis I saw there. He does use a non-standard transliteration of the Hebrew words, though, which makes me wonder about his linguistics—but I have too small a sample to comment.

and the conclusion is inescapable - that the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally! This should come as a big surprize to our fundamentalist friends.

yes—there is no one-to-one correspondence between English and Hebrew syntax and semantics, and translation always has some ambiguity built in. And the New Testament has similar issues, only with Greek, rather than with Hebrew or Aramaic. There is (and I hope Andrea will correct me if I am mistaken) an Italian proverb, “Traduttore, traditore”: who translates, betrays—because you can never elegantly convey all the aspects of the other language. You may get close to the meaning, but lose rhythm, internal rhyme, etc.—or you may go for similar poetic structures, but thereby change the meaning. How one can be a literalist about a translated text has always mystified me. But people do, and we are now living with the consequences of that fact, not only in science but in other public arenas as well.

I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me. This is an important development. I would like some commentary.

It seems interesting, but realistically, I probably will not get around to reading it for some time, just because of all I have to get done in the near future. It will definitely go on my “to-read” list, and the first couple of pages do yield some interesting analysis.

(and if any administrator would be kind enough to delete #35945 by mistake, I’d appreciate it—I hit “Post” instead of “Preview” by mistake.)

—Raven

Comment #35950

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 21, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)

Who knows, maybe we’re seeing the symptoms of what might happen if ID were to win out and be presented in classrooms.

More generally, we’re seeing what will happen if the fundies are allowed to gain real political power.  Blood will flow in the pews. Metaphorically, and literally.  Heretic-hunting has always been a favored fundie pastime.  And by golly, there’s no enemy like the “enemy within”.

Me, I think we should do everything we can to exacerbate and aggravate the internal ID splits.  Let’s see how big their tent REALLY is.  I say we point out all the internal doctrinal schisms and conflicts at every opportunity.  The YECs hate the OECs.  The fundies hate the Moonies.  They also hate the Catholics, and Behe also bears the sin of accepting the evolution of humans (they hate that too).  The DI’s luminaries have all exposed themselves as heretics by declaring that the Creator might be a space alien and not God at all.  The “ID is religious” kooks (like ICR) hate the “ID is science” kooks (like DI).

I say, encourage all the fundies to do what, deep down inside, they really WANT to do anyway —- kill all the heretics.  There’s nothing like a good internal religious war to destroy the ID movement’s effectiveness as a political organization.  Let them slit each OTHER’S throats.  It saves *us* the trouble.

Comment #35951

Posted by harold on June 21, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

Carol Clouser -

I have no familiarity with the book you mention, but I will offer some commentary.

1) In my view, the Bible is intened as a spiritual work, and has been since its earliest inceptions.  Its role is not to provide scientific explanations of the material world, any more than the role of a Chemistry book is to provide spiritual commentary and guidance.  It is obvious to any honest reader that the Bible in any translation is full of symbolism, parables, and deliberate exaggerations of emphasis.

2) Therefore, I don’t consider any translation of the Bible to be at odds with science.  Nor do I consider the spiritual works of other religions I am familiar with to be at odds with science either.

3) So if your claim is that the Bible is “compatible” with science, it already was, so I strongly agree and encourage you in your quest for spiritual fulfillment. 

4)If your claim is that the Jewish Bible alone among spiritual works is consistent with science, to the exclusion of other religions’ texts, I object to that on three grounds -

a) it sounds unlikely, because the Bible has been studied for centuries already, and was never intended to be a science textbook b) it sounds as if someone might be trying to use false claims of a “scientifically accurate” Bible to “force” people of other beliefs to “admit” that one particular stance is the “true” faith, which is reprehensible and c) it is clearly in contrast with the actual message of the Bible, most pointedly in the Book of Job but also throughout the Old Testament, and the New Testament as well, that God demands faith, and does not provide superficial physical “proof” of his existence for the convenience of his followers.

A widespread cultural phenomenon, more or less the reason for the existence of this board (or at least, most of the posts on it), is the false claim that Christianity commands some “conservative” political action such as cracking down on homosexuals etc, followed by the false claim that the existence of God has been “proven”, so that the aforementioned political claim must be valid.  “Intelligent design” is entirely a variation on this theme.  An abandonment of the true moral teachings of Jesus is characteristic of those who follow this strategy, as is, usually, an effort to make a great deal of money by peddling “proof” of God.  I sincerely hope the book you mention is in now way related to this phenomenon.  I freely concede that I have not even looked at it yet.

Comment #35952

Posted by SEF on June 21, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)

What’s the legal status of recorded phone calls then (eg which might later be transcribed and/or held as evidence)?

Comment #35954

Posted by harold on June 21, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)

Based on what I now see posted, I may have pre-judged Landa too harshly.  I stand by my comments, but apologize if the speculation parts were way off.  Yet one more thing to add to the list of negative consequences of ID/Creationism…

1) ID/creationism weakens the moral fiber of America, by teaching children that dishonesty is okay if you don’t get caught, or can get a bunch of people to agree with you, or use equations.
2) ID/creationism weakens science in America, thus sowing the seeds of economic decline.
3) ID/creationism has parallels with Lysenkoism, which was promoted by Stalin.
4) ID/creationism wastes public funds, and contributes to budget deficits.
5) ID/creationism clogs America’s courts, at a time when judges are reported to be stretched thin.  This could indirectly promote crime, or disrepect for the law.  And lastly…

6) ID/creationism promotes cynicism - just look at what it’s doing to me!

Comment #35957

Posted by Ed Brayton on June 21, 2005 06:15 PM (e) (s)

Lenny Flank wrote:

“Dr” Hovind kept pestering me to call him, too.

Hey, I have talked to Kent Hovind on the phone, more than once. Talk about a frustrating experience. I spent weeks negotiating the particulars of a debate that he challenged me to, only to have him pull out of it after finally agreeing to everything.

Comment #35960

Posted by Steviepinhead on June 21, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

SEF, in Washington state, and I expect in a good many others, it is illegal—under various “privacy” provisions and, in some cases, under descendants of wire-tapping laws—to record a private telephone conversation.  An illegally-taped conversation usually cannot be used as evidence.

One major exception, at least here, is where the intent to record the conversation is disclosed ahead of time, and permission to record is obtained.  One example would be when you call in to report a claim to your insurance company, and they ask your permission to telephonically interview you about the circumstances.

Similarly, when you call in to the various customer service lines and, as you fritter your life away working through the menu, at some point they inform you in advance that “in order to monitor the quality of service,” the conversation that you are about to have—once you finally get through to the live person!—may be recorded.

Thus, surreptitiously recording a phone call WITHOUT obtaining the other conversant’s permission could subject the person making the recording to civil and criminal liability on top of being “inadmissable” as evidence.

It is tempting to speculate that this is exactly WHY some of the ID fellers don’t want to come here, and prefer to discuss controversial matters on the phone.  It confers the illusion of transparency without the substance, since if you don’t record the conversation with them, they are in a position to deny anything you say about it, and if you do record it, you can’t ever safely admit that you did so.  Of course, you could ASK for permission to record and transcribe the conversation, but who wants to take a bet that the persons we’re talking about will actually agree to THAT…

Comment #35961

Posted by Raven on June 21, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

Based on what I now see posted, I may have pre-judged Landa too harshly.  I stand by my comments, but apologize if the speculation parts were way off.

Or you may be quite right, Harold—I only saw two pages, hardly a representative sample. I, too, would strongly object if it turned out to be the kind of polemic you described.

It’s one thing to use metaphor—I once opened a class paper on apoptosis with a description of different Navajo views on death, in order to more evocatively contrast apoptosis (cf. peaceful death in old age) and necrosis (cf. untimely, violent death). But I was not seriously arguing that necrosis then resulted in angry, vengeful ghosts. It was a useful device in this paper, though, and succeeded in its intended purpose—and to see literalists beat the use of metaphor, simile, and allegory to death is a very sad thing.

(I have been privileged to have had many wonderful teachers; my Navajo professor was another of them.)

6) ID/creationism promotes cynicism - just look at what it’s doing to me!

there’s a lot of that going around—when real life holds this much absurdity, it’s hard to tell what’s parody anymore.

Comment #35962

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 21, 2005 07:24 PM (e) (s)

Of course, you could ASK for permission to record and transcribe the conversation, but who wants to take a bet that the persons we’re talking about will actually agree to THAT…

Well heck, let’s find out … .

Mr Dembski, do you have any objection to having the phone conversation you have issued an invitation for, recorded and transcribed?

Comment #35963

Posted by steve on June 21, 2005 08:04 PM (e) (s)

Bill would not feel comfortable posting much here. No chance to edit the comments.

Comment #35964

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 21, 2005 08:15 PM (e) (s)

Brayton is right. The Dover case boils down to the plaintiffs demonstrating to the judge’s satisfaction that ID is inherently religious; the defendants must demonstrate not only that it’s not but that it fits the d