RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?, Chapman & West in Dallas Morning News< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,06:06   

Quote
We want a discussion of ideas, say JOHN WEST and BRUCE CHAPMAN

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Nowhere is the free exchange of ideas supposed to be more robust or uninhibited than on college campuses.

Thus, it is disheartening that certain professors and even some journalists are seeking to prevent scientists and philosophers who support the theory of intelligent design from explaining their views at the Darwin v. Design conference on the Southern Methodist University campus Friday and Saturday.

At the conference, scholars will present empirical data from biology, biochemistry, physics, mathematics and related fields that provide strong evidence that features of living things and the universe are the products of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random (chance) mutations.

Unfortunately, would-be censors are trying to get the conference banned from campus by ludicrously comparing intelligent design proponents to faith healers or even Holocaust deniers.

Faith healers and Holocaust deniers are not on the faculties of reputable universities. Scientists who support intelligent design are.


Read it here.

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,12:44   

I sent a dismissive missive to the paper in turn:  
Quote
Bruce Chapman and John West of the Discovery Institute ask why busy scientists "are afraid" to come to their prayer-circle and "debate them."

This reminds me of the encounter I had last night at a bus stop with a belligerent man who kept bothering me despite the fact that I was trying to read my school assignment. “You just hate Indians!” he finally blared, after pooh-poohing my statement that I was related to some. [True story - what a flipping lunatic!]

Keep up the “they’re afraid” whine, fellows. It’s all you have going for you. You certainly haven’t come up with a testable hypothesis or cured any diseases, although you have aligned yourself with the “global warming is a lie, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, women shouldn’t teach Hebrew at Southern Theological Baptist University” crowd. Big tent, small circus.

I don’t know how it is down in Texas, but here in Minnesota we have a saying, and I bet sensible Texans would agree with it: talk is like sex. The more you spread it around, the less it’s worth.

Get a lab, my dears.


Not that I haven't spread any sex-talk around or anything.  ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,15:12   

Someone should simply point out that public debate isn't how science is done. Have West submit his research papers, have those he'll talk with submit theirs, both sides will evaluate the research, and THEN the findings can be discussed.

If you are interested in science, you aren't intested in people explaining their "views", you are interested in them explaining their results! Be prepared to detail how your hypotheses might be falsified, and why and how your chosen research methodology might do this. If you do NOT have test methods, have performed no experiments, and have no replicable empirical results, you might as well be a faith healer.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,17:48   

Alas, for IDers, there already WAS a public debate.  It had international coverage.  The IDers were allowed to present *any* evidence, data or witnesses that they liked, and even had the opportunity to ask all the "evolutionists" all the big tough questions that they wanted to ask (ya know, that whole "vise" thingie).

That public debate was called "Kitzmiller v Dover".

It, uh, didn't go very well for the IDers . . . . . .

The IDers simply have nothing to say NOW that they didn't say in Dover.  

They shot their load.   They lost.

It's time they got used to it.  (shrug)

And as I said before, they should feel entirely free to whine, weep, scream, cry, jump up and down and wave their arms all they want to over the Dover decision.  But if they don't FOLLOW it, we'll sue the crap out of them.


Game over.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,03:43   

Quote
Freedom of Speech vs. License
Issue date: 4/11/07 Section: Opinion

It is noted that Aeschylus, in the 5th century B.C., wrote that truth is the first victim of war. As the conflict between science and religion once again heats up, truth is again in danger of being the victim. An academic campus is logically the appropriate setting for the science-religion debate, but it ought not to become a battlefield, lest truth be sacrificed by emotion and freedom become license.

It is for this reason that academics must be very careful not to tread heavily on either freedom of speech or its unreasoned license. Just as truth itself grows and changes with experience, so the pursuit of it without open debate has always the possibility of leading to falsehood.

It is understandable, then, that many of us in the sciences were taken by surprise and reacted strongly to the announcement that Seattle's Discovery Institute had scheduled a conference on "Darwin vs. Design" this semester in McFarlin Auditorium. This is not to be a debate or balanced discussion, but rather a partisan promotion of the assertion that design in nature constitutes scientific evidence for a creator, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (ID).

Our protest (initially, a call for disallowing the conference until its legal scheduling was confirmed) immediately drew claims that we are trying to "censor scientists and scholars advocating Intelligent Design…." The Institute further claimed that we are "trying to intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching Intelligent Design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil debate about the scientific merits of their arguments."

This is patently untrue, and is but one reason for our objection to the venue. The conference will promote this and other false statements designed to discredit science and scientists. In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship.


Read it here.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,09:16   

I debated ID advocate and Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Fellow Ray Bohlin at SMU last year.

Been *there*, done that. No fear here.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 11 2007,16:09

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,12:19   

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/sarkar_lab_deba.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,01:41   

Are ID Creationism Advocates Afraid to Acknowledge Past Debates?

Quote

The Discovery Institute’s big guns, John West and Bruce Chapman, had an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News, “Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?” They were complaining about Southern Methodist University faculty who objected to SMU providing facilities for a DI dog-and-pony show promoting “intelligent design” there. The DI’s approach to this was simple: turn it into a media opportunity by inviting one or a few SMU faculty to “debate” ID at the dog-and-pony show. The SMU faculty were, needless to say, less than enthusiastic about doing any such thing. Enter West and Chapman cashing in on the media attention by hyping the “Darwinists are afraid to debate us” angle.

Apparently, West and Chapman don’t want to acknowledge what happened when I debated DI CSC Fellow Ray Bohlin at SMU last year. [...]


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:07   

Wesley,

Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.  

SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:12   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:07)
Wesley,

Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.  

SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason?

Why are you talking about "open dialogue"? You've heard it all before, haven't you. Why don't you get back on your thread and leave the hypocrisy alone.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:18   

Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.  I merely don't allow people to talk down to me in my space.  

If they do, I'll either flick the comment into space or let it go through and shove the attitude back in their face.

And, fine, I'll go back to my blog now.  But, I think it's really, really, a bad move not to engage with IDists when they are plastering the invitation all over the media.

Just, MO.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:19   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:07)
Wesley,

Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.  

SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason?

The illusion that there is "something to think about" is all the IDers want. What that thing is is irrelevant. If IDers are stood on stage with scientists then they are perceived to be the same, or nearly so.

The "discussion" already happened in Dover. Accept that, and perhaps things can move on!

Nobody's "afraid" to debate. It's just why bother? Do you debate Hindus as to who's got the "right" religion? No? Why not?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:26   

Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:34   

Ftk,

Did you read the Dover decision? It manifestly was not a biased decision, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Judge Jones' comments.

Anyway, debate, dialogue, isn't that what we've been trying to get you to participate in over here to no avail? I still have a couple of science questions for you over on your dedicated thread of joy and flirting! ;-)

Join me there and we'll have debate and dialogue.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:41   

My debate with Bohlin was on the narrow topic, "Intelligent design is a topic suitable for inclusion in public K12 school science curricula". It was a public policy debate. I took the negative. Bohlin led off with saying that ID was not yet ready for inclusion in K12 science classrooms, conceding the point.

The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.

What I would suggest to the SMU professors is that, failing to persuade SMU to boot the DI dog-and-pony show off-campus, they should arrange an event for scientists to present cool research into evolutionary science, and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program.

I see no reason for the SMU professors to legitimate the DI dog-and-pony snake oil sales pitch with their presence.

Quote

ID is not a legitimate branch of intellectual inquiry. It began in the deception of “Of Pandas and People” and ended in the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover case. Doctors don’t have to respond to demands from snake-oil salesmen to “debate”.

The real issues are that ID represents a narrow sectarian religious viewpoint, not science, and that science classrooms should have the information that is accountable, that is, that has a record of success in the scientific literature. Evolutionary biology has a voluminous record in science, with both experiments and observational studies
testing hypotheses, with development of ideas where erroneous ideas have demonstrably been culled, and with application of ideas that improve our lives every day in medicine, agriculture, and even engineering disciplines. Evolutionary biology has convinced the scientific community in the only “debate” that matters.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 12 2007,10:45

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:42   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:18)
Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.  I merely don't allow people to talk down to me in my space.  

If they do, I'll either flick the comment into space or let it go through and shove the attitude back in their face.

And, fine, I'll go back to my blog now.  But, I think it's really, really, a bad move not to engage with IDists when they are plastering the invitation all over the media.

Just, MO.

You edit comments out that expose your hypocrisy. That's why a thread for you exists here. You can post here without fear of them not making it through - a freedom you wont extend to others.

I think the idists / creobots would be better served doing science rather then trying to have a culture war.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:48   

Quote
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.

Well yes. The ID folk had the opportunity to present whatever evidence they wanted, and put those mean scientists in "the vice," and had the good fortune to do so before a conservative, Christian judge. The fact that the defense could provide no evidence of ID was telling.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:48   

I will note that FtK reserves a right for herself of choosing not to discuss things on anyone else's terms and conditions that she denies to the SMU professors.

I think that there is a word for that...

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 12 2007,10:50

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:55   

Quote
and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program.


What does this gobbledygook mean?  

"critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:01   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:26)
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

Have you read the trial transcripts?

I guess not by your usage of the phrase "I was under the impression".

Don't you think that before you offer opinions on "a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject" you should perhaps read the transcripts? Do you need a link?

Come back when you've read them.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:03   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:55)
Quote
and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program.


What does this gobbledygook mean?  

"critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes?

Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:07   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,09:26)
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

You're saying there was no debate in cross-examination?

Well, if the trial transcripts lack drama for you (and the truth that came out about the purchase of that gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!] Of Pandas and People was pretty riveting), I guess Dembski should have testified then.

Man, if my fav fundertaker is ever put under oath I want it videotaped.  :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:19   

Quote
I will note that FtK reserves a right for herself of choosing not to discuss things on anyone else's terms and conditions that she denies to the SMU professors.


I'm kinda thinkin' that the ID folks aren't going to hurl insults like the ones I find sitting in moderation on my blog.  It also seems to me from what I've read that the SMU professors aren't being denied anything.  Sounds like they can come in a say whatever they want.  It's called *dialogue*.  Conversations *with* each other rather than *at* each other.

Btw, Richard, are you saying that Dave, Blipey, and Zach's arguments suck?  Perhaps you could do better?  Doubtful, hon.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:33   

Quote
gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!]


Nope, actually I use that word quite often.  Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term.

Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:45   

No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.

Back in 1996, I got a "call for papers" for a conference called "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise". There was no mention of "intelligent design" in it. It was, it turned out, fully an IDC conference, funded with DI CRSC money and featuring all of the DI big names with the exception of Michael Behe.

Not knowing that, I submitted an abstract and got accepted to present there. During Phillip Johnson's plenary talk, he went on about how the mere attendance of critics of "intelligent design" helped "legitimate the question". Whoa. There had been no mention of "legitimating the question" if I showed up at the party. You probably have no idea how upset that made me.

We are far, far past the point of deferring judgment concerning bad behavior of that sort on the part of IDC advocates. Of course IDC advocates manipulate critics and the media and claim that their position is improved thereby, no matter what the content of what the critic said. They've done that consistently at least since 1997. This latest media stunt is no different than the thing at Biola last year: scour around for token critics, give them a minor presence at the event (let them ask a few questions where there's no limit on how long the answers can be or how well IDC advocates respond to the actual question), and forever after use the fact that they were there as a talking point for the legitimacy of IDC. That's not dialogue, that's demagoguery. Fool me once, as the saying goes...

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:56   

IDC advocates do hurl insults, some of them quite nasty. Pretending they don't "hurl insults" is going nowhere. They are "hurling insults" even within their "invitations".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:58   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,11:26)
I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU&#8217;s proposed &#8220;Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law&#8221; which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Your impressionis wrong,  In particular "J then based his decision on the ACLU&#8217;s proposed &#8220;Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law&#8221; which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling." is a flat-out lie.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:02   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,11:33)
Quote
gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!]


Nope, actually I use that word quite often.  Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term.

Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology.

Hi FTK,
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:13   

I'm not sure what to make of the creationist fixation on  what they perceive as name caling and insults.

I wonder if they even read the material that their own side produces, and if so, if they perceive any negativity, incivility, etc. in it.  Most likely not.

It is that whole 'framing' thing - when an evilutionist tells a creationist he'she is closed-minded and ignorant, that is incivil, rude, name calling.  When a creationist says the same thing to an evilutionist, it is okey-dokey because it is 'the truth.'

The saddest part is, they truly do not seem capable of seeing their hypocrisy.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:26   

Quote
Hi FTK,
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.


No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading.

I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:35   

Quote
I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

They had every opportunity to respond. The ID guys had the opportunity to crossexamine Miller, and present their own experts to rebut him. They failed, as always. But hey, the DI put out another OP-Ed last week!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2007,10:56)

IDC advocates do hurl insults, some of them quite nasty. Pretending they don't "hurl insults" is going nowhere. They are "hurling insults" even within their "invitations".

Wow, I wasn't aware of that thread. *Whistles*

Don't forget everything that Dembski has said about Barb Forrest. (I can’t find it now but last year he went on a tirade about something she wrote to him, thanking for something, etc. “What is she thanking me for?” etc. Maybe she was being nice?)
This especially creeped me. Yeah, let's joke about beating up a woman and an old man.

And I'm a terrible person. I felt pretty awful after that. Incidentally, Wells and Johnson have no right to call anyone else holocaust deniers.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:44   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,12:26)
Quote
Hi FTK,
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.


No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading.

I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Behe starts here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10am.html
if you want to jump ahead.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Is the decision.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,13:19   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,11:19)
Quote
I will note that FtK reserves a right for herself of choosing not to discuss things on anyone else's terms and conditions that she denies to the SMU professors.


I'm kinda thinkin' that the ID folks aren't going to hurl insults like the ones I find sitting in moderation on my blog.  It also seems to me from what I've read that the SMU professors aren't being denied anything.  Sounds like they can come in a say whatever they want.  It's called *dialogue*.  Conversations *with* each other rather than *at* each other.

Btw, Richard, are you saying that Dave, Blipey, and Zach's arguments suck?  Perhaps you could do better?  Doubtful, hon.

They have never, to my knowledge, censored comments that make them look bad. They have always seemed very keen to engage in meaningful dialogue with people of different views. They are the very antithesis of you. Please don't compare yourself to them.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,13:37   

I notice that the inconvenient fact that the DI folks don't want to acknowledge the debate they've gotten has gone without comment.

"Blotnik".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,13:43   

YOU KNOW THAT THING I HAVEN'T READ? WELL I'M REALLY ANGRY ABOUT IT! I'M ANGRY BECUASE "EVOLUTION NEWS AND VIEWS" TELLS ME SO!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,15:05   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,12:26)
Quote
Hi FTK,
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.


No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading.

I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls...

ftk,
You make me shudder. Your posts remind me about my opinions of a few years ago.
You have been lied to ftk, it only takes an hour or two at talk origins to realise how badly you have been lied to.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,16:28   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 12 2007,15:05)
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,12:26)
Quote
Hi FTK,
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.


No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading.

I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls...

ftk,
You make me shudder. Your posts remind me about my opinions of a few years ago.
You have been lied to ftk, it only takes an hour or two at talk origins to realise how badly you have been lied to.

But you have to want to go there.

'Cos I'd like to believe
That there is a god
Why sinful angels
Suffer for love
I'd like to believe
In the terrible truth
In the beautiful lie


"There goes God", Crowded House.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,17:30   

Quote
No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.


Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.

 
Quote
Back in 1996, I got a "call for papers" for a conference called "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise". There was no mention of "intelligent design" in it. It was, it turned out, fully an IDC conference, funded with DI CRSC money and featuring all of the DI big names with the exception of Michael Behe.

Not knowing that, I submitted an abstract and got accepted to present there. During Phillip Johnson's plenary talk, he went on about how the mere attendance of critics of "intelligent design" helped "legitimate the question". Whoa. There had been no mention of "legitimating the question" if I showed up at the party. You probably have no idea how upset that made me.


Um, no, considering who you are, I can definitely understand your fury.

 
Quote
We are far, far past the point of deferring judgment concerning bad behavior of that sort on the part of IDC advocates. Of course IDC advocates manipulate critics and the media and claim that their position is improved thereby, no matter what the content of what the critic said. They've done that consistently at least since 1997. This latest media stunt is no different than the thing at Biola last year: scour around for token critics, give them a minor presence at the event (let them ask a few questions where there's no limit on how long the answers can be or how well IDC advocates respond to the actual question), and forever after use the fact that they were there as a talking point for the legitimacy of IDC. That's not dialogue, that's demagoguery. Fool me once, as the saying goes...


Hmmm...sounds exactly like what I see you people doing to them.  

 
Quote
My debate with Bohlin was on the narrow topic, "Intelligent design is a topic suitable for inclusion in public K12 school science curricula". It was a public policy debate. I took the negative. Bohlin led off with saying that ID was not yet ready for inclusion in K12 science classrooms, conceding the point.


Good win...LOL.  You didn’t have to say a word, did ya?  Truth be told, I’m not sure ID belongs in K12 curricula (yet) either.   It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.

 
Quote
The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.


Doing so looks very cowardly.  Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out?  If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about.  As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.

 
Quote
What I would suggest to the SMU professors is that, failing to persuade SMU to boot the DI dog-and-pony show off-campus, they should arrange an event for scientists to present cool research into evolutionary science, and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program.


Um....how in the world is that scenario any different than an actual debate in the sense that it might help make "legitimate the question" as to whether ID is a threat to Darwinism?  

Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?  Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.

Quote
I see no reason for the SMU professors to legitimate the DI dog-and-pony snake oil sales pitch with their presence.


You’re making a huge error, big guy.  Your minions are out everywhere lecturing and writing books and articles trying to sway the public away from ID.  You have already “legitimized” ID due to your intense battle against it.  Now, when you refuse to debate in a situation like SMU, that looks really, really bad.  It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

Here's what I think.....

SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...




--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,17:40   

Quote
They have never, to my knowledge, censored comments that make them look bad. They have always seemed very keen to engage in meaningful dialogue with people of different views. They are the very antithesis of you. Please don't compare yourself to them.


I think you're missing my point.  I LET DAVE, BLIPEY, AND ZACH post at my blog when they actually engage in civil dialogue.  In fact, Zach has suprised me with his comments lately compared to some of the stuff he's left me in the past.

Luv, the comments you leave me don't give me much to work with.  Usually, you're merely complaining about moderation.  Other times you post under "anonymous" and make some useless comment as well.  

Speaking of Dave, I better get back to my blog and finish up my response to his last comment!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,17:52   

You want debate? Start here. The ID folks haven't shown up yet, but will always be welcome when they have something to present.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:00   

In an on-line forum?  The public isn't like to find exactly where you want to hide these little on-line debates.

There's no media coverage, and it's unlikely that one would have the fortitude to scan through all the ad homs, etc. to get to the meat.  People tend to get to the subject much more quickly when face to face.

College campuses are the best place to discuss these issues, IMHO.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:01   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,16:00)
In an on-line forum?  The public isn't like to find exactly where you want to hide these little on-line debates.

There's no media coverage, and it's unlikely that one would have the fortitude to scan through all the ad homs, etc. to get to the meat.  People tend to get to the subject much more quickly when face to face.

College campuses are the best place to discuss these issues, IMHO.

Um, that "here" is a link. The underline is often a hint that you may want to mouse-over.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:18   

Quote (Kristine @ April 10 2007,12:44)
I sent a dismissive missive to the paper in turn:  
Quote
Bruce Chapman and John West of the Discovery Institute ask why busy scientists "are afraid" to come to their prayer-circle and "debate them."....

Good letter!

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:21   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:26)
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

Alas for you, though, FTK, Dover is not the only court case the ID/creationists lost.  Indeed, they have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with.  Every single one.  Without exception.  That has to be a record of some sort.

Epperson v Arkansas.

Daniel v Waters.

Maclean v Arkansas.

Edwards v Aguillard.

Webster v New Lennox.

Peloza v New Capistrano.

Segraves v California.

Kitzmiller v Dover.

Freiler v Tangipahoa.

Selman v Cobb.

Your side lost every single one of them.  Plus a few more.


Wait, wait --- let me guess ---------->  the judges were ALL atheists, the poor creationist/IDers weren't allowed to present ANY of their world-shattering evidence, the ACLU cheated in EVERY case, and the liberal press was behind it all anyway.

Right?


No WONDER nobody takes ID/creationists seriously.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:25   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:18)
Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.

Hey FTK, not sure if you've noticed, but you've not answered a single goddamn question that anyone here has asked of you ever since you arrived and declared that you weren't going to discuss anything with anyone.

So take your self-righteous hypocrisy about "open dialogue" and shove it up your holy little tookus.


(Note to our esteemed moderator ---- I meant that only in the nicest possible way, of course.)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 365
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,19:28   

Kristine wrote in an earlier post: "Big tent, small circus."

That's a great line, Kristine!  And I thought your whole letter was good.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,19:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 12 2007,18:25)
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:18)
Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.

Hey FTK, not sure if you've noticed, but you've not answered a single goddamn question that anyone here has asked of you ever since you arrived and declared that you weren't going to discuss anything with anyone.

So take your self-righteous hypocrisy about "open dialogue" and shove it up your holy little tookus.


(Note to our esteemed moderator ---- I meant that only in the nicest possible way, of course.)

That's a lie. It's not open, just the comments you let through and reply to. You are plain dishonest.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,20:02   

Quote

It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.


There wasn't. If it had been suggested to do that, there's no way I would have agreed to appear. Public policy is a debatable topic. If the IDC people want to convince the scientific community that they have a good idea, there is a known process for doing that. So far, they have done very little in that regard. They have spent their energy and effort working on public policy.

   
Quote

As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started


Only to IDC cheerleaders.

   
Quote

Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?


Hmm. How am I supposed to respond to that: "I am not a crank!" ? Certainly none of the DI IDC advocates could reasonably be accused of objectively considering IDC. Which leaves the burden of objectively evaluating IDC claims to folks who who write books like this and like this.



Let's see, I was in court for this segment of testimony, and it seemed distinctly cranky to me:

   
Quote

Q. So scientists have been looking at and do know a certain amount about the evolution of biochemical pathways, and that's reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature?

A. Adaptive responses for sure and looking at sequence comparisons of highly conserved pathways like glycolysis or the Krebs cycle. But in terms of the origin of those, we don't have a good history of it.

Q. Well, take a moment to look at what has been marked as P-842.

A. Got it.

Q. You've seen this paper before, haven't you?

A. I have. I think this was in my deposition.

Q. And these are some research from the Air Force Research Laboratory who did some work on the biochemical pathway by which certain bacteria breakdown a substance called DNT?

A. Correct. It's very important.

Q. That's like TNT, except this is dinitroluene, correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. These researchers, this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you look on -- at figure 1, which is on page 113. And Matt, perhaps if you can bring that up for us. These researchers, based on their own original data, have published the organization and evolution of the bacteria that breaks down DNT?

A. Right. This is an adaptational response.

Q. And that's a DNT -- this process by which these bacteria breakdown DNT, that's a biochemical pathway?

A. Correct.

Q. So we do have published information in this scientific literature about the evolution of biochemical pathways?

A. Steve, you're extrapolating from the data here. I mean, not all these enzymes evolved specifically to break down this compound. I mean, you're mixing and matching enzymes, I'm sure, from pathways that had some other property.

Q. You're not disagreeing with these scientists from the Air Force Research Academy, are you, Dr. Minnich?

A. This is an adaptational response, okay. This is microevolution. I have no problem with that. That's not what we're discussing. These enzymes were present. You probably modified one or brought some in by lateral gene transfer from another system that can attack these problems. I mean, this is critical.

The Air Force is working on this because TNT reservoirs in their munitions dumps are a problem for environment. And, yes, we can take organisms that -- and adapt them by selective pressure to modify enzymes that they have and attack these compounds. I have no problem with that.

Q. Well, you're the one who said, we lack intermediate structures, and now -- and you specifically mentioned subcellular organelles and biochemical pathways, and now we've seen literature that's in the scientific literature that addresses these points exactly. And if I understand your testimony, it's just not -- we just don't know enough to satisfy you that natural selection can drive the evolutionary process?

A. I don't think you understand my position, okay. I mean, this is an adaptational response. This entire pathway didn't evolve to specifically attack this substraight, all right. There was probably a modification of two or three enzymes, perhaps cloned in from a different system that ultimately allowed this to be broken down.

I mean, I've got good colleagues in my own department that are working on the same problem. And I don't think they pretend to know that the evolution of the pathway from start to finish in their system.


And under oath, even.

Back to FtK.

   
Quote
Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.


More "blotnik". Imagine that, IDC people not owning up to the debate that has happened. Just like I was talking about. Thanks for giving us a live demonstration of that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,21:15   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,19:00)
College campuses are the best place to discuss these issues, IMHO.

college campuses are a good place to discuss ID/creationism. It came up a lot in my philosophy of science classes. Also, I suppose if I'd had a class like "Pseudoscientific Right-Wing Movements in 20th Century America" it would have been a good fraction of the course.

It's arguable whether college campuses are the best place to discuss these things. Only two or three times in college was I in a room with more people with science degrees than appear in this forum.

ID/Creationism didn't come up in any of my math, physics, biology, geology, chemistry, or computer science classes, because it doesn't contain any valid math, physics, biology, geology, chemistry, or computer science content.

I did think about emailing some of the Granville Sewell 2nd Law BS to my old thermo professor, but I recall him saying he gets too many pseudoscience manuscripts as it is.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,21:25   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:26)
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

Here we see the Official Wingnut Talking Point on Dover: the wicked ACLU somehow infected the liberal activist Judge Jones. Yawn.

Hey, FTK, was plate tectonics decided by 'public debate'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,21:57   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,17:30)
Hmmm...sounds exactly like what I see you people doing to them.

Evolutionary biologists invite ID theorists to their events in order to legitimize those events?  Those sneaky dogs!

 
Quote
Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?

Good point.  There is no way to make ID less legitimate.

 
Quote
It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

If only we had the courage of Dembski, who said, "I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue."

By the way, do you know the best way to get a hold of him?  He owes an awful lot of responses to a lot a people, including Dr. Elsberry.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,22:35   

Quote
At the conference, scholars will present empirical data from biology, biochemistry, physics, mathematics and related fields that provide strong evidence that features of living things and the universe are the products of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random (chance) mutations.


Mmmhmm.

And they prefer to present this at a 'debate' than in, you know, 'scientific literature'.

Why are IDers 'afraid' to publish in peer-reviewed journals? ?

Then I suppose at the end of the debate they'll ask people who are pro-ID to applaud, then they'll ask people who are anti-ID to applaud, and whoever gets the loudest applause will win the prize of Scientific Truth.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,23:52   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 12 2007,22:35)
       
Quote
At the conference, scholars will present empirical data from biology, biochemistry, physics, mathematics and related fields that provide strong evidence that features of living things and the universe are the products of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random (chance) mutations.


Mmmhmm.

And they prefer to present this at a 'debate' than in, you know, 'scientific literature'.

Why are IDers 'afraid' to publish in peer-reviewed journals? ?

Then I suppose at the end of the debate they'll ask people who are pro-ID to applaud, then they'll ask people who are anti-ID to applaud, and whoever gets the loudest applause will win the prize of Scientific Truth.


Exactly right.

If the ID movement were truly serious about ID as actual science, they would take up the ever-standing challenge to participate in the only public debate that matters in science: peer-review.

Whatever the protestations of the DI and FtK, that's not what they're about now, nor is it what they have ever been about.

A 'debate' forum such as the one DI wants, lends itself only to the provision of an appearance of scientific legitimacy to the DI and their hangers-on, groups that can most charitably be described as bands of professional liars.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,01:12   

Quote

If only we had the courage of Dembski, who said, "I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue."


It was gratifying to learn from Steve Harvey that the last information communicated to Dembski and the TMLC before we got word that Dembski was withdrawn as an expert witness was that Jeff Shallit and I were going to attend Dembski's deposition to assist Harvey. We got the word that Dembski was out the Friday before the Monday when the deposition was going to start. Harvey and Shallit cancelled their travel plans. I had already booked three speaking engagements in Texas by that time, so I went anyway. One of those was to Baylor, where I presented part of my dissertation research to the biology department, or at least the group that was there over the summer term. So afterwards, we took a ride down to Riesel, Texas to check out the "intelligently designed" BBQ joint that Dembski is a silent partner in. We got there and found that the schedule didn't include being open on Tuseday afternoons. I have a picture of Prof. Steve Steve on site there, though, for posterity.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,07:21   

Ftk is certainly cleverer than your average IDer.  Try to sound as reasonable as possible while bad-mouthing the opposition but avoiding actually addressing any relevant arguments.  Looks good to all her like-minded friends, I'm sure.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:02   

THIS JUST IN....

SMU will present "good science" today to off set the "bad science" that ID will present.

So what will they present as "good science"?

 
Quote
There will be a showing of "Inherit the Wind," the classic 1960 courtroom drama directed by Stanley Kramer. Spencer Tracy plays Henry Drummond and Frederic March plays Matthew Harrison Brady. The movie is a light fictionalization of the Scopes trial that pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan. Most of the script is taken from the transcript of the 1925 Scopes trial in which a high school biology teacher was prosecuted (and convicted; it's not a suspense movie!) for teaching evolution.


Holy crappers.  Evidently, this is no joke.  

The more inquisitive students must be wondering why those profs. won't step up to the plate and debate.  Hopefully, the students will start asking questions about this hesitation to engage in dialogue.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:29   

So, the prof's should go just to satisfy the IDer's childish call for a p*ssing match and if they don't they will start making 'chicken' noises?  (gasp)  The shame!

You're like a brick wall.  If they really want to debate, then they should take it where it matters - in court (oh, yeah they lost that one (oh, and Dembski 'chickened' out)) or in peer review.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:53   

Quote
The more inquisitive students must be wondering why those profs. won't step up to the plate and debate.


Well I'm certainly curious why IDers won't step up to the plate and do research and publish in real scientific journals. Any idea why, FTK?

One hopes the 'more inquisitive students' at SMU realize that science does not progress by town hall debates.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,13:44   

Quote
The more inquisitive students must be wondering why those profs. won't step up to the plate and debate.  Hopefully, the students will start asking questions about this hesitation to engage in dialogue.
Maybe but the answer is pretty easy. I would suspect that if you put a random biologist in a debate against a creationist the biologist will loose. This is primarily because the creationist will have a very broad but very shallow knowledge of what they are debating, and so can come up with claims that a scientist may not be able to refute on the spot. Furthermore the scientist will need to be quite familiar with the history of antievolutionism, as well as be able to answer questions on topics such as eugenics and philosophy of science. If you pick an random biologist they probably wont fair well, but is interesting that someone like Wes or Ken Miller who understands the arguments usually wins.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,20:07   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 13 2007,13:44)
interesting that someone like Wes or Ken Miller who understands the arguments usually wins.

Interesting, too, that in courtrooms, where creationists/IDers can't lie, make unsupported statements, refuse to answer questions they don't like, change the subject when things get uncomfortable, run away to come back later, or evade/avoid direct questions, the creationists/IDers have lost.

Every single time.

Without exception.

They have never, ever, anywhere in the United States of America, been able to convince courts that ID/creationism is "science", or anything other than a dishonest and deceptive attempt to use political power to force fundamentalist religious apologetics onto a captive public school audience.

I wonder why that would be . . . . . . . . . . .



Wait, wait -- let me guess ------------>  every judge in the United States of America (including the ones appointed by Bush) is an ATHEIST!!!!!   Right?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,22:07   

FTK:

Science is not a public debate.  Publish or perish.

Done.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,22:43   

Quote
Luv, the comments you leave me don't give me much to work with.  Usually, you're merely complaining about moderation.  Other times you post under "anonymous" and make some useless comment as well.  


posting as anonymous was a plan to keep you honest for all posters. Clearly keeping you honest is beyond my abilities.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,11:08   

[quote=Ftk,April 12 2007,17:30][/quote]
FTK:
Quote
 
Quote
No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.


Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.

Perhaps if you would stop writing about things that you do not know much about as if you knew a lot about them, you would not hear that so much?
Quote


It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.

Perhaps because that was not what the debate was about?

When one looks at the 'scientific' ID meetings - the ones at which they don't invite critics - they don't really discuss science, either.  Why is that?  Don't you think that a big meeting of the big names in IDcreationism on the 'science' of ID might garner some actual scientific discussion, as opposed to, I don't know, mock interviews by Lee Strobel, of the typical 'Darwin=Hitler' garbage that tends to be the focal points of these things?

Recall, FTK, that ID's own 'peer-reviewed' journal, PCID, has not even been published since 2005!  THE ID advocates cannot possibly claim 'anti-ID conspiracy' there, can they?  
Quote
   
Quote
The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.


Doing so looks very cowardly.

Ahy yes, that old conservative machismo...

Because, after all, 'debates' are how real science is done...  at least when opne side does no scientific research of any type - all that is left is public spectacles to woo the fence sitters with flowery rhetoric and fire-up the hard-core supporters.

Perhaps the SMU faculty could invite - challenge - the ID propagandists to discuss the issues face-to-face any time, anywhere...  Than, when they take up the offer, the SMU faculty could claim that they can suddenly only meet at specific times that will not be convenient for the IDcreationists, and warn them about their dogs... and their concealed weapons... and their call to the cops... and their chain saws... and how they are all built like football players - no, middleweight boxers...

Because apparently that sort of thing is the antithesis of cowardly in religious conservative circles.
Quote

Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out?  If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about.  As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.


How about we all wait until the well-funded DI actually produces some verifiable research supportive of their bombastic claims, instead of reading their bravado and rhetoric about public 'debates' and op-eds written by lawyers and theologians?
Quote

Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?  Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.

What is to debate?

The DI clowns will declare evolution caused Nazism, that Peppered moths were glued to trees, that Behe is the greatest scientist ever, that Dembski - despite being unable to hold down a job for any length of time - is the greatest Information Theorist ever, that Jon Wells, Spetner, Meyers, etc. disproved evolution, and then when asked what thye have that actuially SUPPORTS thier position scientifically, they will say, Why, we just old you!

What is to 'debate'?  Will the stacked audience really stop and think about what is being explained to them - between 'Amens', that is?

Open your eyes.  Public debates are for people that have no legitimate scientific support on their side.
Quote

It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

You are conflating a couple of issues here, deary.
There is a difference between making 'accusations' against "design" and calling out the antics of the Intelligent Design Creationism movement.  The Movement doesn't seem able to support their claims at all, not scientifically, so they rely on public spectacles and appeals to the masses.  They are, as Wes writes, snake oil salesmen.
Quote


Here's what I think.....

SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...


???  ???  ???  :D


Where did you get that picture of Springer?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,13:14   

The IDC "open dialogue" meme must be a recent invention. I registered to attend the 2002 IDC RAPID conference at Biola. I was in discussion with someone there about when I would present and about to mail off my registration fee when I got a call from the conference organizer. Dreadfully sorry, he said, but this is a closed conference, only ID advocates to attend. Perhaps I would be so good as to participate in some future, unspecified, ID and critics conference.

There was a second RAPID conference at Biola in May, 2006. The IDC folks learned something from the first: there was no pre-conference public statement that anything at all was happening at Biola. So this "open dialogue" thing is, at its oldest, less than a year of age.

Weblog post on the topic

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,13:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 18 2007,13:14)
The IDC "open dialogue" meme must be a recent invention. I registered to attend the 2002 IDC RAPID conference at Biola. I was in discussion with someone there about when I would present and about to mail off my registration fee when I got a call from the conference organizer. Dreadfully sorry, he said, but this is a closed conference, only ID advocates to attend. Perhaps I would be so good as to participate in some future, unspecified, ID and critics conference.

There was a second RAPID conference at Biola in May, 2006. The IDC folks learned something from the first: there was no pre-conference public statement that anything at all was happening at Biola. So this "open dialogue" thing is, at its oldest, less than a year of age.

Weblog post on the topic

Recent, but hardly surprising.  The Gish Gallop is a time-honoured creationist tactic: set up a "public forum", tip a bunch of assertions into the manure spreader, and stand well back.  Make fifty unsupported statements in your thirty minutes, watch your opponent spend her thirty minutes refuting two of them, and you win 48-2.

Of course ID is not the same as other branches of creationism, because it's science, not religion, as indicated by all those peer-reviewed publi... what?  Oh.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,10:31   

Hahahahaha!

When random professors who probably know nothing about ID wont debate them they complain. When someone who actually understands ID offers, they refuse!

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,22:03   

Random professors? Shouldn't professors be non-random? ;)

Henry

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,17:20   

When I say random I mean that the DI emailed all the departments and assuming they had decided to send someone they would have been whoever was free that day.

  
  68 replies since April 10 2007,06:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]