RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Disco "Legal Scholars" Investigating Judgment Day, I am NOT making this shit up< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:06   

I just got wind of this in one of the posts at PT.

 
Quote
Discovery Institute: PBS Teacher's Guide Injects Religion into the Classroom

A "Briefing Packet for Educators" just issued by PBS in conjunction with the NOVA program Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial inserts religion into the classroom and encourages teaching practices that are likely unconstitutional, says Discovery Institute.

"The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," says Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.

"The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," adds West.

The Institute has sent the PBS teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality.

Discovery Institute is hosting a press teleconference call on Wednesday, Nov. 7th at 1pm EST to discuss the legal review of the PBS teaching guide accompanying the Judgment Day docudrama program airing next week. To participate in the call, or to request an interview, contact Anika Smith at Discovery Institute, (206) 292-0401 x155, [EMAIL=asmith@discovery.org.]asmith@discovery.org.[/EMAIL]


See it here http://www.swnebr.net/newspap....?162418

I'm digging around the filthy Disco web site for more tard...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:11   

This is either a serious attempt to seek legal redress, or a publicity stunt designed to separate DI supporters from some more of their money.  Let's see if we can guess which.

--------------
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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:20   

Here is a link to the offending Teachers Guide:

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/media/nova-id-briefing.pdf

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:28   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2007,12:11)
This is either a serious attempt to seek legal redress, or a publicity stunt designed to separate DI supporters from some more of their money.  Let's see if we can guess which.

You're forgetting a highly plausible third option, which is that it's a stunt that obviously won't accomplish anything legally, yet which they hope will intimidate PBS into pulling the teaching packet. In other words, they know it's bullshit legally, but they're hoping that PBS will back down just to avoid the hassle.

If successful, this will be touted at UD as proof of the validity of ID.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:39   

I hope all the major news outlets pick this up.  The result would be more viewers and more teachers particpating.  Well not homeschool, "fundy" teachers of course.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:52   

Not sure what the DI is complaining about.

Quote

What does science say about the
nature of religious beliefs?
By definition science cannot address supernatural causes
because its methodology is confined to the natural world.
Therefore science has nothing to say about the nature of
God or about people’s spiritual beliefs. This does not mean
science is anti-religious; rather, it means science simply
cannot engage in this level of explanation.

[...]

Q: Why not teach intelligent design,
or creationism, alongside evolution?
A: The federal courts have ruled that creationism, creation
science, and intelligent design are not science, but instead
endorse a specific religious belief. Therefore, these topics
are not appropriate content for a science classroom. Neither
ID nor any other form of creationism has met any of the
standards of science and cannot be tested by the scientifi c
method. On the other hand, evolution, like all other sciences,
is founded on a growing body of observable and reproducible
evidence in the natural world. The state of knowledge in
evolutionary biology is the product of 150 years of rigorous
challenges using the methods of science, whereas intelligent
design is not supported by scientific evidence. Teaching
evolution alongside these other approaches would imply
that creation science and intelligent design meet these same
high standards of testability, and they do not.

[...]

Q: But some people say evolution is
just another form of religion itself:
Darwinism.
A: The idea of evolution did not begin or end with Charles
Darwin. Many alternate proposals about evolution already
existed when Darwin published On the Origin of Species
in 1859, but his work was quickly recognized as the most
compelling explanation in the field of natural history. Since
then, thousands of scientists have added greatly to our
understanding of evolution, through research in biology,
genetics, paleontology, geology, and more. If modern
studies contradicted Darwin’s work, science would follow
the evidence. Instead, over and over again, research has
confirmed the principles Darwin outlined, while further
fleshing out the picture. Evolutionary biology does not
depend on the personal authority of one person’s writing.
Evidence for evolution comes from many sources, including
the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics. The
theory of evolution is based on facts. Religion is based on
belief. Evolution is science, not religion.

Q: Can you accept evolution and still
believe in religion?
A: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-
religious is simply false. All that evolution tells us is that life
on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. For
many people of various faiths, showing that something is
due to a natural process doesn’t take it outside the realm of
the divine. Religious thinkers across the ages have written
that merely showing that something is natural puts it within
the influence of God, the creator of all nature. By definition
science cannot address supernatural causes because its
methodology is confined to the natural world. Therefore
science has nothing to say about the nature of God or about
people’s spiritual beliefs. This does not mean science is anti-
religious; rather, it means science simply cannot engage in
this level of explanation.



Ah, there are various statements of support for teaching evolutionary science from Christian denominations. This sort of thing was at issue in a case in California, IIRC.

I know of no better way to demonstrate in the next court dustup that the DI is pushing a narrow religious viewpoint than for them to object to the page of support statements in the educator's guide. They would be promoting their own theology and working to suppress that of others.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,12:57   

If you are affiliated with a press outlet or know someone who is, please do get in on the conference call or encourage those you know to do so.

It would be good to see just how restrictive the DI is about who they will accept for their conference call.

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

    
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:04   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 06 2007,10:28)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2007,12:11)
This is either a serious attempt to seek legal redress, or a publicity stunt designed to separate DI supporters from some more of their money.  Let's see if we can guess which.

You're forgetting a highly plausible third option, which is that it's a stunt that obviously won't accomplish anything legally, yet which they hope will intimidate PBS into pulling the teaching packet. In other words, they know it's bullshit legally, but they're hoping that PBS will back down just to avoid the hassle.

If successful, this will be touted at UD as proof of the validity of ID.

Given the strength of their case, this would rest on the assumption that PBS has no balls at all*.  Given that they've made the show and the teacher's guide in the first place, I would be very surprised if they backed down over something as ludicrous as this.



*  Bad choice of phrase.  Hitler Has Only Got One Ball is going to be pinging through my skull for the next four or five hours now.

--------------
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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:13   

Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:16   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

WTF???

Damn! Your right, FTK!  How in the hell did that ID support book get in there?"  We'll get rid of it right away.

Thanks for the help,

JD

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:19   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,11:13)
Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Fair point, FTK.  

What's the ratio of evolution to creationism among peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the last few years?  That would have formed a sound basis for the reading list weighting.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:40   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

The Disco Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet for exactly what reason?  Did they pay for the production of this documentary? Did they sponsor it on PBS? Hell, did they even bother to show up at Dover, the subject of the documentary? No, no, and no.

What, exactly, gives them the right to propagandize here?

I can hardly wait for the reply...

Oh BTW, that 14:1 in books is a lot more favorable to the ID cause than some other numbers, like

1) number of practicing biologists in either camp
2) number of peer-reviewed publications in either camp
3) number of testable hypotheses in either camp

etc.  You should be happy it is only 14:1, frankly. If it reflected the real numbers, it'd be a whole lot worse.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:42   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2007,13:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,11:13)
Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Fair point, FTK.  

What's the ratio of evolution to creationism among peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the last few years?  That would have formed a sound basis for the reading list weighting.

I'm willing to be more generous to the IDers.  FtK, I will be satisfied with the ratio of peer reviewed and published papers supporting evolution to the total number of ID papers submitted for peer review, regardless of whether they were accepted or rejected for publication.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,13:56   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

Hey FtK which Id books have your kids read?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:02   

LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.  And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science unless you enjoy just-so stories which contemplate how dinos sprouted wings and took to flight or other such rubbish.  

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:08   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.  And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science unless you enjoy just-so stories which contemplate how dinos sprouted wings and took to flight or other such rubbish.  

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

Quote
The state of knowledge in
evolutionary biology is the product of 150 years of rigorous
challenges using the methods of science, whereas intelligent
design is not supported by scientific evidence. Teaching
evolution alongside these other approaches would imply
that creation science and intelligent design meet these same
high standards of testability, and they do 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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:10   

Hey FtK what do you think of the ID camp refusing to be interviewed?  

Quote
Q: Of the three expert witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you not interview the other two, who are among the country's leading proponents of ID?

Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented directly, through firsthand interviews.

However, Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined nonetheless.

In some sense, though, we do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."



Read more
here

And I'm still curious to know which ID books your children have read.  Well other than the bible.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:13   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.  And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science unless you enjoy just-so stories which contemplate how dinos sprouted wings and took to flight or other such rubbish.  

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

Not an answer. Why should the DI be allowed to distribute propaganda related to this film when they didn't show up at Dover and when the DI heavyweights actually refused to be interviewed for the documentary?

Please try again, rather than shift into your standard "we're so persecuted we won't even dare to try to publish" schtick. It won't work here.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:18   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,12:02)
PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.

Huh?

Last time I checked, PBS weren't in the book-banning business, and bookshops didn't just stock publications on the approved list.  If people want to read more than one ID book, there's not much PBS can do to stop them.

--------------
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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:24   

Quote
Not an answer. Why should the DI be allowed to distribute propaganda related to this film when they didn't show up at Dover and when the DI heavyweights actually refused to be interviewed for the documentary?


ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Why wouldn't they take part in the documentary?

LOL...one word - NOVA.  

Quote
Please try again, rather than shift into your standard "we're so persecuted we won't even dare to try to publish" schtick. It won't work here.


Of course it won't work here.  Facts are usually dismissed in this neck of the woods.  But, hopefully those interested enough in evolution to watch the PBS flick will also attend "Expelled" in February.  That might provide them with a more well rounded view of the issues with regard to what the "scientific community" will and will not allow to be considered alongside their dogma.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:24   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2007,14:18)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,12:02)
PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.

Huh?

Last time I checked, PBS weren't in the book-banning business, and bookshops didn't just stock publications on the approved list.  If people want to read more than one ID book, there's not much PBS can do to stop them.

Oh Noes. I better hope they don't go out and read more ID books because then
Quote
you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.

Oh Noes.

--------------
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: Nov. 06 2007,14:26   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:24)
LOL...one word - NOVA.  

Quote
Please try again, rather than shift into your standard "we're so persecuted we won't even dare to try to publish" schtick. It won't work here.


Of course it won't work here.  Facts are usually dismissed in this neck of the woods.  But, hopefully those interested enough in evolution to watch the PBS flick will also attend "Expelled" in February.  That might provide them with a more well rounded view of the issues with regard to what the "scientific community" will and will not allow to be considered alongside their dogma.

Quote

LOL...one word - NOVA.  


you say that like it means something. Explain? Is that your entire comment on that matter?

Quote
Facts are usually dismissed in this neck of the woods.


Like what?

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:26   

Quote
Quote
as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."


I wonder who it's monther was? :O

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,13:26)
Quote

LOL...one word - NOVA.  


you say that like it means something. Explain? Is that your entire comment on that matter?

In Spanish "nova" means "it doesn't go". (And there's a car manufacturer that wondered why their model wasn't selling well in Mexico...  :p  )

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:38   

Quote
NOVA revolves around a simple premise: the world of science is exciting! For NOVA viewers, science means adventure and exploration

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
Ah, I see what you mean FTK. For NOVA science means adventure. For you it means twisting and turning to support your ideology with a veneer of "scientific" language.

Funny, nobody really stops IDiots submitting papers for peer review. Nobody stops people posting at YoungCosmos.com either. Odd then how very few people do either.

FTK, do you think there is a Darwinist conspiricy stopping people being interested in YoungCosmos.COm? I mean, 2 posts a month, if that, in a forum that says of itself:
   
Quote
The discussion forum is a place for users to post topics of interest to them and to collaborate on long term projects.

So, no topics of interest and no collaboration on *any* long term projects. It then goes on to say
Quote
In a sense, this is the heart of the YoungCosmos mission to foster the conception and execution of cutting edge projects.

Then the heart is blackened and dead. Cutting edge projects? Name *one* FTK! Name a current cutting edge research project that might turn around IDC? Can you?

If there's no Darwinist conspiracy stopping people posting at youngcosmos.com what do you suppose the reason could be FTK? The reason nobody posts or appears interested in the "science" on offer?



--------------
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: Nov. 06 2007,14:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:24)
Quote
Not an answer. Why should the DI be allowed to distribute propaganda related to this film when they didn't show up at Dover and when the DI heavyweights actually refused to be interviewed for the documentary?


ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Why wouldn't they take part in the documentary?

LOL...one word - NOVA.  

Quote
Please try again, rather than shift into your standard "we're so persecuted we won't even dare to try to publish" schtick. It won't work here.


Of course it won't work here.  Facts are usually dismissed in this neck of the woods.  But, hopefully those interested enough in evolution to watch the PBS flick will also attend "Expelled" in February.  That might provide them with a more well rounded view of the issues with regard to what the "scientific community" will and will not allow to be considered alongside their dogma.

"This film I haven't seen yet is more accurate than that program I haven't seen yet"

Impervious to knowledge.

--------------
"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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:43   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,14:26)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:24)
LOL...one word - NOVA.  


you say that like it means something. Explain? Is that your entire comment on that matter?

Well, since you are a Brit, you probably aren't aware that PBS (Public Broadcasting System) is a bastion of hippie, liberal, disembodied telic entity haters.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:43   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:24)
 
Quote
Not an answer. Why should the DI be allowed to distribute propaganda related to this film when they didn't show up at Dover and when the DI heavyweights actually refused to be interviewed for the documentary?


ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Why wouldn't they take part in the documentary?

LOL...one word - NOVA.  

 
Quote
Please try again, rather than shift into your standard "we're so persecuted we won't even dare to try to publish" schtick. It won't work here.


Of course it won't work here.  Facts are usually dismissed in this neck of the woods.  But, hopefully those interested enough in evolution to watch the PBS flick will also attend "Expelled" in February.  That might provide them with a more well rounded view of the issues with regard to what the "scientific community" will and will not allow to be considered alongside their dogma.

Indeed, it is well documented. Despite DaveScot's crowing about how the case would turn out, Dembski was smart enough to bail when he saw that the ID side had no facts on their side. Facts, you know, are those things that are useful in court cases and publications. Unlike the same shit that you keep repeating day in, day out.

And "NOVA" is not an answer either. Are you implying that they are part of the vast Darwinist conspiracy?  If so, why did they ask the DI for interviews? Don't conspirators want their enemies to be kept in the dark?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:53   

ftk dithered, after giggling and tossing her hair...
Quote
knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals


and the reason for that is.....

wait for it....

ID has nothing scientific to say!

Phillip Johnson admits it.
At times Berlinksi admits it.
Dembski has said this out of one side of his mouth.
Behe has said as much, at least in regards to being taught in school (note that he hasn't tried to publish anything in journals either)

And of course, as we keep pointing out to you, IDers can't even PUBLISH THEIR OWN GODDAM JOURNAL.  

impervious to knowledge.  what ID books do your kids read again?  No Free Lunch?  bwahahahaha

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:56   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 06 2007,14:43)
And "NOVA" is not an answer either. Are you implying that they are part of the vast Darwinist conspiracy?  If so, why did they ask the DI for interviews? Don't conspirators want their enemies to be kept in the dark?

Funny how expelled has an interview with mainstream Scientists (PZ etc) , even if under somewhat misstated pretenses yet the ID side are too afraid to interview even when it's made clear up front what the situation is and footage of the interview would be handed over.

It's almost like once side is unable to state its case if there's even the possibility of a awkward question being asked on camera. Whereas PZ and Dawkins can take on any question as they don't have to remember their lies.

Seeing any patterns here ? :)

--------------
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: Nov. 06 2007,15:14   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,14:56)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 06 2007,14:43)
And "NOVA" is not an answer either. Are you implying that they are part of the vast Darwinist conspiracy?  If so, why did they ask the DI for interviews? Don't conspirators want their enemies to be kept in the dark?

Funny how expelled has an interview with mainstream Scientists (PZ etc) , even if under somewhat misstated pretenses yet the ID side are too afraid to interview even when it's made clear up front what the situation is and footage of the interview would be handed over.

It's almost like once side is unable to state its case if there's even the possibility of a awkward question being asked on camera. Whereas PZ and Dawkins can take on any question as they don't have to remember their lies.

Seeing any patterns here ? :)

We all know that NOVA is part of Team Dogma when it comes to evolution.  Lord, some of their films on evolution have been down right hilarious.

It wouldn't matter if anyone from the DI was interviewed or not...they'd edit until they find something that works for them.  So, great, you guys do your show, we'll do ours.

Oh, btw, I truly believe it would be in Dawkins favor if he were to step away from the camera whenever possible.  That man digs more holes for himself than he can deal with.  I like to watch him on You-Tube just for kicks.  The dude is seriously religious, and that fact makes it difficult to understand why he is constantly condemning religious thought.  He conflates religion and science all the time, and certainly doesn't seem to live by the scientific process...methodological naturalism goes out the window when you're listening to Dawkins rave on and on about the "God Hypothesis".

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:16   

FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:21   

There is no battle Christopher, because "God" is a totally unworkable hypothesis for science to work with. "God" does not mean anything by itself, it only has meaning because of what people link to the word "God". It's an untestable hypothesis, completly worthless. And because of that, "God" never lost from science, simply because there was never ever a battle to start from.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:21   

Dang, some mistakes in that post, but can't correct it. Sorry for those.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:22   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,16:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Cuz god's just trickin' us to test our faith.

He's a slippery little Devil.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:26   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:14)
...

Quote

It wouldn't matter if anyone from the DI was interviewed or not...they'd edit until they find something that works for them.

No, that's how *your* side has been *proven* to behave.

Quote
So, great, you guys do you're show, we'll do ours.

Fine. We'll see what they are teaching in 10 years time.
Quote
Oh, btw, I truly believe it would be in Dawkins favor if he were to step away from the camera whenever possible.

You also believe there is plausible evidence for a 6000 to 10,000 year old earth at the same time as saying there is also evidence for an old earth.  So what you believe is of little importance.
Quote
That man digs more holes for himself than he can deal with.  I like to watch him on You-Tube just for kicks.

Name a single one. If you are talking about the "pause" incident then please be specific about where in Dawkins later answer to the information issue you have a problem.
Quote
The dude is seriously religious, and that fact makes it difficult to understand why he is constantly condemning religious thought.

Yes yes yes, and I also don't collect stamps for a hobby. How pathetic.
Quote
He conflates religion and science all the time

No, that's what you do every day, as I noted with your quote from your OW blog where you note that science always comes second to gods word - therefore to you the two things cross over and therefore god wins and so you conflate religion and science all the time.
Quote
and certainly doesn't seem to live by the scientific process

Huh? What do you mean? Live your life as a "scientific process". How do I wash my car using the "scientific process" you describe?
Quote
methodological naturalism goes out the window when you're listening to Dawkins rave on and on about the "God Hypothesis".

You state that, but don't say why.A flat assertion will not suffice to convince any lurkers, or kids, of your position.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:28   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:14)
We all know that NOVA is part of Team Dogma when it comes to evolution.

No, we don't "all know that". Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Those of us who use our heads rather than our guts would appreciate the evidence for this statement. What is "Team Dogma"? Where are the headquarters? How do you join?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:28   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Umm, not to be a pendant, Mr C, but why are you assuming that God is on the losing side?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:40   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Umm, not to be a pendant, Mr C, but why are you assuming that God is on the losing side?

God was booted out of science class decades ago.  Any attempt to put him back in science class ends up the same - god loses, over and over and over.

That's what I call losing.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:40   

Quote
What is "Team Dogma"? Where are the headquarters? How do you join?


Oh, come on Dave, don't be coy.  You know all about "Team Dogma".  In fact, from what I've heard, you've deemed yourself one of the biology coaches for the team since you've provided your basement as the secret headquarters.

The secrets out as to how to join as well.  From what I hear, you merely have to pledge your soul to Satan, and give a hile Darwin as you enter the camouflaged entrance to your basement den of iniquity.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:43   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:40)
you merely have to pledge your soul to Satan

what's satan FTK? Is that you equating "darwinism" with "satanism"? That's a new low, even for you. That one for the real hard core fundies?

--------------
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: Nov. 06 2007,15:45   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,14:38)
Quote
NOVA revolves around a simple premise: the world of science is exciting! For NOVA viewers, science means adventure and exploration

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
Ah, I see what you mean FTK. For NOVA science means adventure. For you it means twisting and turning to support your ideology with a veneer of "scientific" language.

Funny, nobody really stops IDiots submitting papers for peer review. Nobody stops people posting at YoungCosmos.com either. Odd then how very few people do either.

FTK, do you think there is a Darwinist conspiricy stopping people being interested in YoungCosmos.COm? I mean, 2 posts a month, if that, in a forum that says of itself:
   
Quote
The discussion forum is a place for users to post topics of interest to them and to collaborate on long term projects.

So, no topics of interest and no collaboration on *any* long term projects. It then goes on to say
Quote
In a sense, this is the heart of the YoungCosmos mission to foster the conception and execution of cutting edge projects.

Then the heart is blackened and dead. Cutting edge projects? Name *one* FTK! Name a current cutting edge research project that might turn around IDC? Can you?

If there's no Darwinist conspiracy stopping people posting at youngcosmos.com what do you suppose the reason could be FTK? The reason nobody posts or appears interested in the "science" on offer?


about that Darwinist conspiracy ftk...

--------------
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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:47   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:40)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Umm, not to be a pendant, Mr C, but why are you assuming that God is on the losing side?

God was booted out of science class decades ago.  Any attempt to put him back in science class ends up the same - god loses, over and over and over.

That's what I call losing.

Well, that joke fell flat since you completely missed my point.  

I have often wondered why Dembski, as a subscriber to revealed religion, has never stopped to think his unending string of defeats, and the shambles of his career, are a messages from God that he is wrong.  So, the point of the joke was that maybe God is on the winning (i.e. pro-science) side.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,15:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:40)
you merely have to pledge your soul to Satan

what's satan FTK? Is that you equating "darwinism" with "satanism"? That's a new low, even for you. That one for the real hard core fundies?

I told her that so she would stop witnessing to me. Sorry, mibad, kthxbai.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:52   

Guys and gals, the topic here is the DI's stuff about Nova.

We have a Bathroom Wall for a reason.

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

    
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:53   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:47)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:40)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Umm, not to be a pendant, Mr C, but why are you assuming that God is on the losing side?

God was booted out of science class decades ago.  Any attempt to put him back in science class ends up the same - god loses, over and over and over.

That's what I call losing.

Well, that joke fell flat since you completely missed my point.  

I have often wondered why Dembski, as a subscriber to revealed religion, has never stopped to think his unending string of defeats, and the shambles of his career, are a messages from God that he is wrong.  So, the point of the joke was that maybe God is on the winning (i.e. pro-science) side.

Sorry I missed it :-)  Must be the coffee and you are very right.  Who's to say god hasn't won every one of these court cases and he's getting really sick of being called an intelligent designer and wants nothing more than to be left out of science class and instead prominantly placed in religion class where he belongs :-)

That would be a very rational deity indeed.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2007,15:52)
Guys and gals, the topic here is the DI's stuff about Nova.

We have a Bathroom Wall for a reason.

Speaking of which why is the DI site silent on the topic?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:04   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:24)
 
Quote
Not an answer. Why should the DI be allowed to distribute propaganda related to this film when they didn't show up at Dover and when the DI heavyweights actually refused to be interviewed for the documentary?


ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Well documented, indeed:

[My bolding]

 
Quote
MODERATOR (Jon Entine): I am curious about the Discovery Institute's involvement in the Dover case, where originally they were slated three people, affiliated with the institute were slated to give depositions, and then obviously pulled out. There was some kind of dispute about legal strategy, perhaps. And I want you to address that, because I think there is some belief, at least expressed in various newspaper articles, that there was a concern by the Discovery Institute that if this issue is decided on science, that intelligent design would be ruled as religion and therefore would fall under the Establishment Cause and therefore would be banned from being taught in science classes.

So, for fear of that almost inevitability happening, the Discovery Institute repositioned itself for tactical reasons, to be against, for teaching the controversy perhaps in nonscientific settings. I just wanted you to respond.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Sure, I'd be happy to respond. Let me back up first and say: The Discovery Institute never set out to have a school board, schools, get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to do it, we've never promoted it. We have, unfortunately, gotten sucked into it, because we have a lot of expertise in the issue, that people are interested in.

When asked for our opinion, we always tell people: don't teach intelligent design. There's no curriculum developed for it, you're teachers are likely to be hostile towards it, I mean there's just all these good reasons why you should not to go down that path. If you want to do anything, you should teach the evidence for and against Darwin's theory. Teach it dialectically.

And despite all the hoopla you've heard today, there is a great deal of -- many, many problems with Darwin's theory, in particular the power of NS and RV to do the astounding things that are attributed to them. The new demonology, as one philosopher calls it, the selfish gene can do anything.

So that's the background. And what's happened in the foreground was, when it came to the Dover school district, we advised them not to institute the policy they advised. In fact, I personally went and met with them, and actually Richard was there the same day, and they didn't listen to me, that's fine, they can do what they want, I have no power and control over them. But from the start we just disagreed that this was a good place, a good time and place to have this battle -- which is risky, in the sense that there's a potential for rulings that this is somehow unconstitutional.

That's basically from an institutional perspective what I can say and what I know. Now, individuals associated with the Discovery Institute were then, had got involved in, the possibility of becoming expert witnesses in the case. And I don't, as far as I know there was no institutional decision made one way or the other, but I think it was the case that those individuals felt they had somewhat different legal interests being -- it was often because they were both expert witnesses, but usually fact witnesses as well, about things like the history of the intelligent design movement. So they wanted to have their own lawyers involved with depositions, and I believe there was an argument, a disagreement about that. I think that was the reason why they decided not to participate.

MODERATOR: Ken, I wanted --

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...

Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he the president?

MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and Culture.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert witnesses, which we could have done.

Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys, that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision, was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we thought we could present

MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.

KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:04   

Quote
ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Why wouldn't they take part in the documentary?

LOL...one word - NOVA.  

I agree, look at what they did to Newton. I'm glad he didn't agree to take part, it would have been a PR nightmare for the physics community.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:37   

UPDATE: My DI mole tells me the DI does in fact have their crackpot legal team looking into this and and we'll see details on the DI website soon.  

Hooray!  Go team jeebus!

Wouldn't it be cool if the DI actually asked a federal judge to block the teachers guide for constitutional reasons?  If they really tried to make it a legal issue. Seeing them lose *again* would make my year!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:47   

I'm really dying to see what the esteemed Counselor Luskin has to say about all of it.  With any luck, it'll be an in depth investigative legal brief.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:51   

Quote (theloneliestmonk @ Nov. 07 2007,09:32)
I believe that her answer is because those mean darwinians won't take it seriously because it is not in a darwinian journal. You really can't win.

I always thought that it was weird about the peer review schtick the IDers keep going on about. There is nothing magic about any of these journals except for their reputation. If they have the stuff they could publish and peer review their own papers. Also, Why doesn't Liberty U or another Fundie University fund an ID department.

I think that they know, Dembski knows, the DI knows that they have nothing more than "it looks designed and I think that it is really really improbable that it evolved". The sciency stuff they have published so far has fallen flat.

Also, everything that Dembski or Behe have put out there has been peer reviewed (torn to shreds).

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,17:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:40)
Oh, come on Dave, don't be coy.  You know all about "Team Dogma".  In fact, from what I've heard, you've deemed yourself one of the biology coaches for the team since you've provided your basement as the secret headquarters.

The secrets out as to how to join as well.  From what I hear, you merely have to pledge your soul to Satan, and give a hile (sic) Darwin as you enter the camouflaged entrance to your basement den of iniquity.

Still not an answer, and the accusations of being coy don't stick either.

On topic - Why should the DI have any say in anything revolving around this documentary when they bailed at Dover and refused to be interviewed by the PBS folks? If they wanted to get their message out, they had lots of chances, and somehow failed to take advantage of those opportunities. Why should we listen to them now?

In addition, re the Team Dogma comment, I'm serious. Accusations of conspiracy are being made, and as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for that. Your readmission to this peanut gallery was contingent on you being able to support your statements, or retract them if you couldn't.

Which will it be?  

Support?

Retract?

or the tactic so far - Ignore?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,17:43   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 06 2007,18:35)
On topic - Why should the DI have any say in anything revolving around this documentary when they bailed at Dover and refused to be interviewed by the PBS folks? If they wanted to get their message out, they had lots of chances, and somehow failed to take advantage of those opportunities. Why should we listen to them now?

Y'know, for a bunch a folks all hullabalooin' about

 
Quote (The Big Wedgie Document @ sometime 'round '98)
1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies


and such moral degeneracy, honesty really isn't their strong suit, is it?

 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 06 2007,18:35)
Accusations of conspiracy are being made, and as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for that. Your readmission to this peanut gallery was contingent on you being able to support your statements, or retract them if you couldn't.

Which will it be?  

Support?

Retract?

or the tactic so far - Ignore?


Indeed, FtK.  Those were the conditions of your re-admission as I understand them.

Support or retract.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 365
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,18:01   

This is all so obvious that it's hardly worth pointing out (except that this is the DI we are talking about): there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about PBS calling their document a Teacher's Guide, even if it was proselytizing.  For there to be any legal problem at all, some teacher would have to actually use the material in a classroom  and then someone would have to sue and then the DI would lose again.

They're just blowing smoke, as they usually do, to impress their constituents.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,21:30   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)
Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.

No, all of the ID books I've seen are finite in length, they just seem to go on forever.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,22:29   

Didn't the DI want to have a NOVA program focused on intelligent design?  
Quote
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)


Done
Well done, ERV!
 
Quote
2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)
this one?

 
Quote
3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows
Cue the chirping crickets?

 
Quote
4. Significant coverage in national media:

   * Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
Check.
Check.
     
Quote
* PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

ask, and ye shall receive . . . or are they just pi$$ed that NOVA has more credibility than Ben Stein?
 
Quote
   * Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Pssssst . . . where are those damn crickets?
 
Quote
  * Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
Right here, usually.

 
Quote
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

   * Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
   * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism
This had to sting.
 
Quote
  * Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

okay, which one of you wise guys fed the crickets to the snake?
   
Quote
  * Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
Like this survey?  The question, "How important would you say religion is in your own life – very important, fairly important, or not very important?" The response "Not very important" went from 12% in 1992 to 16% in 2006.

Or this one:"Do you feel homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?"  In 2003, 49% responded "No," compared to 2007's 39%.

[quote]6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory[quote]
Ohio?
Kansas?
Dover, PA?
El Cajon, CA?

They couldn't even slide it in under the guise of Teach The Controversy[sup]TM[/sup]

 
Quote
7. Scientific achievements:

   * An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

. . . will probably be given as the reason for the European & British motions against teaching ID in their classrooms.  Better to shut the barn door before the horse goes rabid, as they learned from the US.
 
Quote
   * Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

they flunked out
 
Quote
   * Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Besides Oral Roberts University & Patriot University?
 
Quote
  * Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory


It just doesn't look like those 5-year goals have worked out quite the way the DI intended.

[added in edit:  sorry, Mr_Christopher had already started an entire thread on the Wedge Document . . .]

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,22:46   

Quote (csadams @ Nov. 06 2007,22:29)
Didn't the DI want to have a NOVA program focused on intelligent design?  
Quote
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)


Done
Well done, ERV!
 
Quote
2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)
this one?

 
Quote
3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows
Cue the chirping crickets?

 
Quote
4. Significant coverage in national media:

   * Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
Check.
Check.
     
Quote
* PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

ask, and ye shall receive . . . or are they just pi$$ed that NOVA has more credibility than Ben Stein?
 
Quote
   * Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Pssssst . . . where are those damn crickets?
 
Quote
  * Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
Right here, usually.

 
Quote
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

   * Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
   * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism
This had to sting.
 
Quote
  * Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

okay, which one of you wise guys fed the crickets to the snake?
   
Quote
  * Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
Like this survey?  The question, "How important would you say religion is in your own life – very important, fairly important, or not very important?" The response "Not very important" went from 12% in 1992 to 16% in 2006.

Or this one:"Do you feel homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?"  In 2003, 49% responded "No," compared to 2007's 39%.

[quote]6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory[quote]
Ohio?
Kansas?
Dover, PA?
El Cajon, CA?

They couldn't even slide it in under the guise of Teach The Controversy[sup]TM[/sup]

 
Quote
7. Scientific achievements:

   * An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

. . . will probably be given as the reason for the European & British motions against teaching ID in their classrooms.  Better to shut the barn door before the horse goes rabid, as they learned from the US.
 
Quote
   * Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

they flunked out
 
Quote
   * Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Besides Oral Roberts University & Patriot University?
 
Quote
  * Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory


It just doesn't look like those 5-year goals have worked out quite the way the DI intended.

POTW

--------------
"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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,22:53   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,20:02)
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.  And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science unless you enjoy just-so stories which contemplate how dinos sprouted wings and took to flight or other such rubbish.  

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

Yep, you can sure tell FtK doesn't believe in any "big science" conspiracy. No scaremongering and tinfoil hat wearing lunacy from her, no siree bob....

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
snaxalotl



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,04:42   

in the interests of fairness, I would prefer to have seen the guide refer to ALL the ID books that have been written in a reasonably scientific manner. which is none

--------------
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,11:19   

We should hear from the DI today on this subject.  I spose UD will chime in too.

Anyone want to wager who at UD will start his/her own thread on the unconstitutional nature of the NOVA teachers guide?  Dipski (king tard)?  Davetard?  The Morphodyke?  A lower rung tard (gil, salvo, et al)?

My money says dave tard or the king tard himself.  They're the constitutional experts at UD.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,13:09   

Grafitti moved manually to This page of the Bathroom Wall

hereoisreal, keep your numerological/mystical/mythological musings to your own thread or The Bathroom Wall.  This thread is for the discussion of the Disco "Legal Scholars" Investigating Judgment Day.

Thanks,

Lou FCD


--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,17:03   

So did they have their press conference, or whatever?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,17:08   

Dunno, that was only open to the press.  Sadly the only thing on Evolution News today is an article claiming Dover was fucked up and they got it all wrong ("the Truth About Dover...") and a link to buy their self-published book "Traipsing Into Evolution:Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision"

Hardly the kind of fireworks and hilarity I was hoping for.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,18:23   

According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

Hopefully, he didn't contract malaria.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,19:51   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 07 2007,18:23)
According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

Hopefully, he didn't contract malaria.

oh my god that is funny.  

So, seriously -- no press conference?

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,20:19   

Seriously, no press conference.

Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

Would they raid the Thomas More Law Center?  I thought they burned that bridge.

It's possible the DI fell to shoot-ready-aim and issued the notice for a conference before they had their ducks in a row regarding the "answer."

If there is no substance to their claim, which there isn't, perhaps they decided to regroup and wish the whole thing away.

There's no place like teh home!  There's no place like teh home!

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,00:41   

Quote
Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

BarryA at UD?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,05:54   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 08 2007,01:41)
Quote
Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

BarryA at UD?

Whoever they are, I bet adding Larry Fafarman would probably raise the competence level of the group.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,06:05   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 08 2007,11:54)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 08 2007,01:41)
Quote
Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

BarryA at UD?

Whoever they are, I bet adding Larry Fafarman would probably raise the competence level of the group.

Impossible.

Larry Farfromsane is negatively competent in any field other than sitting on a toilet the right way round. And to be honest I don't even trust him to do that.

If you keep adding negative numbers, you just get a bigger negative number.

I despair I share a species with these loons.

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,07:37   




Quote
I despair I share a species


O plebeian, are you still beholden to such an antiquated ontology?  your philosophy is crude and your abstractions are obtuse.  when i converse with you, it is as if there is a gigantic drain in the floor where all the subtlety and savoir fare dribbles, just as rivers to the sea or piss into the corner.  and your butt stinks.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,07:39   

Erasmus,

Think you can do better, biatch?

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,07:44   

no.  i just be playa hatin, suckah.  pimpin aint easy.  foerealdoeyouauldhoe.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,08:15   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 08 2007,07:05)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 08 2007,11:54)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 08 2007,01:41)
 
Quote
Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

BarryA at UD?

Whoever they are, I bet adding Larry Fafarman would probably raise the competence level of the group.

Impossible.

Larry Farfromsane is negatively competent in any field other than sitting on a toilet the right way round. And to be honest I don't even trust him to do that.

If you keep adding negative numbers, you just get a bigger negative number.

I despair I share a species with these loons.

Louis

Evidence please, for your assertion that Fafarman knows how to sit on the toilet properly.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,08:24   

I have none. I retract it completely.

It was purest speculation.

Louis

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,08:27   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 07 2007,21:19)
Seriously, no press conference.

Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

Would they raid the Thomas More Law Center?  I thought they burned that bridge.

It's possible the DI fell to shoot-ready-aim and issued the notice for a conference before they had their ducks in a row regarding the "answer."

If there is no substance to their claim, which there isn't, perhaps they decided to regroup and wish the whole thing away.

There's no place like teh home!  There's no place like teh home!

Any word on the rain date?  (or the malaria treatments?  :)  )

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,09:31   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

The depth?

Perhaps they should include a link to UD and Joe Gallien's blog to see the 'depth' of the debate.

Or maybe a list of 'scientists' that doubt Darwin.

Or maybe one of Dembski's new collections of rehashed nonsense.  Or maybe Behe's latest collection of pre-refuted gibberish.

Because, after all, they really cannot supply any actual primary research information...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,09:36   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)

Quote
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

They cannot even seem to produce anything for THEIR OWN journals.
Quote

 And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science  

Then perhaps you can explain WHY macro-evolution is wothless.
Quote

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  

How many pro-evolution books are referred to in Expelled, do you think?
Quote

If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".


Which 14 would you suggest?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,09:37   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,14:10)
Hey FtK what do you think of the ID camp refusing to be interviewed?  

Quote
Q: Of the three expert witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you not interview the other two, who are among the country's leading proponents of ID?

Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented directly, through firsthand interviews.

However, Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined nonetheless.

In some sense, though, we do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."



Read more
here

And I'm still curious to know which ID books your children have read.  Well other than the bible.

I submit that they refused to be interviewed because they know what THEIR side does to interviewees and how thier tapes are edited.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,09:41   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:14)
We all know that NOVA is part of Team Dogma when it comes to evolution.

Just a big conspiracy to keep THE TRUTH from getting out...

  
EoRaptor013



Posts: 45
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,10:34   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,16:53)
Who's to say god hasn't won every one of these court cases and he's getting really sick of being called an intelligent designer and wants nothing more than to be left out of science class and instead prominantly placed in religion class where he belongs :-)

That would be a very rational deity indeed.

Off-topic:
I have often wondered about the notion that the printed Bible is the inerrant, literal, word of God. I have six Bibles in my house. Every one of them was translated, typeset, printed, bound, and sold through human agency.
As a Christian, I accept as a matter of faith that God's words are inerrant. As a rational (more or less) human being, however, I know that nothing printed in English conveys God's literal words and that there's little basis for deciding what God was actually trying to tell us poor, fallible, children two thousand (or 4 to 5 thousand for the OT) years ago.
I truly don't understand why modern fundamentalism isn't considered the greatest Christian heresy of the last millennium.
$0.02

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,19:34   

Quote
According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

I suppose it's too much to hope for that he got sick after reading his own words while preparing for the press conference ...

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,06:54   

It's interesting that FtK states that most high school [science?] teachers are unaware of the depth of this debate.  Next, she complains that only 1 anti-evolution book is included in the JD:IDOT teaching guide.

Perhaps she needs to remember that most high school science teachers have a much stronger background in science than she admits having herself.  

Likewise, those same teachers recognize the difference between data-driven research and popular publications.  

For example, EoE is praised as the book which will topple Darwin's theory of evolution.

It takes evidence and research and letting others qualified in the field have a chance to critique your work to topple any scientific theory.  

Strange how FtK's heroes avoid those processes like the plague.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,10:16   

The latest from Kansas:

Quote
NOVA program a crash course in evolutionary science
 Kansans still convinced that public schools should teach creationism or the intelligent design theory should watch a two-hour NOVA program on KPTS, Channel 8, next Tuesday at 7 p.m.
 The program is about the 2005 landmark case in which the Dover, Pa., school board was sued for ordering its science teachers to read a statement suggesting that intelligent design -- an idea that life is too complicated to have evolved naturally -- was a scientific alternative to evolution. District Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a religious-based theory and couldn’t be taught in the science classroom.
 NOVA producer Paula S. Apsell said that the case is instructive in that it “provided a crash course in modern evolutionary science” and “explored the very nature of science — how science is defined.”
 Click here to watch a YouTube trailer of the program.
 Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, contends that intelligent design is not religious based and that a teacher guidebook about the show distributed by NOVA violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.


I'll wager that the number of downloads for the teachers guide is going to out do ANY show they have ever produced.  Once again the fundies are shooting themselves in the foot.  I bet teachers that would have never even looked at the teachers guide will be doing so now that the DI is making such a big deal of it.

How cool is that?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,16:13   

The Disco Inst is now promoting Intelligent Design dot Org which according to Whois they purchased the domain in 1998.

But, and this is rich, there are videos of their Chief Scientist, Casey Luskin, telling us all what "intelligent design" is!

Hey, finally, a theoretical explanation.  All science, all the time.  At this rate Neo-Darwinialismness will be a thing of the past in no time.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,16:27   

Quote (dhogaza @ Nov. 09 2007,12:34)
Quote
According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

I suppose it's too much to hope for that he got sick after reading his own words while preparing for the press conference ...

or got sick when the lawyers replied "You want to what .... ha ha ha ha he he he ho ho ho"

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,11:41   

The DI's Mental Illness in full bloom

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
  86 replies since Nov. 06 2007,12:06 < 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]