Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,14:06    Just in case any of WMAD's students are looking for a way to fulfill Course Requirement #4: Quote (4) 3,000-word record of interactions with contrary websites, totaling at least 10 posts and giving URLs for posts — 10 percent positive. Due by last class meeting. This is where you get to mix it up with people on the other side of the debate over faith and science. It will open your eyes. and would like to do so without the dishonesty and pretense that we've seen to date, here is the place to do it. Two requests: 1. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you're not approaching the question from the specific perspective of a particular faith-tradition; 2. At least TRY to engage the substance of what you read. This is an opportunity to ask questions and to learn, not to take a stand in the culture wars. You're free to say anything, of course (no censors here). However, we all have plenty of experience with the mock-humility that sometimes acts as a cover for self-righteousness. If you approach people here with some amount of GENUINE respect, you'll see that respect reflected back. Even your classmate DAEVANS is welcome to try again if he or she can be honest and respectful. "It will open your eyes." I'll bump this as the last class day--April 28--approaches. -------------- -Tom Ames

bfish Posts: 267 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,14:53    I think this is a great idea for a topic. Much better to ask questions or make comments without pretending to be something you are not.

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,14:55    I promise I'll try very hard to be nice. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:01    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,14:55) I promise I'll try very hard to be nice. Perhaps we should also repost carlsonjok's timeline here, as a word to the wise... -------------- 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

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:25    Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 22 2010,15:06) Just in case any of WMAD's students are looking for a way to fulfill Course Requirement #4:   Quote (4) 3,000-word record of interactions with contrary websites, totaling at least 10 posts and giving URLs for posts — 10 percent positive. Due by last class meeting. This is where you get to mix it up with people on the other side of the debate over faith and science. It will open your eyes. Can you supply a link to the course requirements (I'm too lazy to look)? -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:31    Quote (khan @ Feb. 22 2010,13:25) Can you supply a link to the course requirements (I'm too lazy to look)? Philo 4483 -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:31    I had to see it for myself. Here is the link EDIT - I see Sledgehammer beat me to it.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:38    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 22 2010,13:31) I had to see it for myself. Here is the link EDIT - I see Sledgehammer beat me to it. Dr Dr D: Quote ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Plagiarism is the misrepresentation of another's work as one's own. When the professor concludes that a student has plagiarized an assignment, the student will receive the grade of zero for the assignment, and the office of the Vice President for Student Affairs will be notified about the incident. The same actions apply to other acts of academic dishonesty such as cheating on examinations (see Ethical Conduct section in SWBTS catalog). I don't see "Make a video about the inner workings of the cell" in the course requirements.  So it looks like Dembski won't get thrown out of his own course. -------------- 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

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,16:13    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,12:55) I promise I'll try very hard to be nice. My hunch is that it will be a lot easier to be nice to people when they're not insulting my intelligence by pretending to be disinterested observers. Concern trolls piss me off. Concern trolling for credit in one of Dembski's religion classes REALLY pisses me off. (At the very least we can point DAEVANS and his/her kind to this thread and see what they say for themselves.) -------------- -Tom Ames

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,16:31    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 22 2010,13:38) Dr Dr D:   Quote ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Plagiarism is the misrepresentation of another's work as one's own. When the professor concludes that a student has plagiarized an assignment, the student will receive the grade of zero for the assignment, and the office of the Vice President for Student Affairs will be notified about the incident. The same actions apply to other acts of academic dishonesty such as cheating on examinations (see Ethical Conduct section in SWBTS catalog). And let's not forget his defense of quotemining when I busted him for it in "Dembski’s Five Questions: Number One." That was in June of 2004. Nobody much paid attention to it until D^3 responded hizself on 26 April 2005, Quoting, Misquoting, Quote-Mining. This too might have gone unheralded, except that a few months later Jason Rosenhouse wrote about it in Skeptical Enquirer, "Why do Scientists Get So Angry when Dealing with ID Proponents?". Not surprisingly, nearly all subsequent references are to Jason's piece. Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 22 2010,14:34 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,16:49    Doc GH - Thanks for the links, and of course doing all the work in the first place to absolutely nail down the lies told by the lying scumbag that we like to call Dr. Dr. Dembski. I knew there was a reason why I always think of him as a weasel.* * No disrespect intended to all proper four-legged weasels. -------------- 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

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,16:52    "Doctor Doctor give me the news, got a bad case of quote mining youse..." -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:10    On the off chance that any of Dembski's Philo 4483 students wander over into this Swamp of Immorality, I made an offer to answer their questions on this thread. However, I'd also like to direct a few questions in return to these Dembski students. Here goes: Dear Student, You are taking a class called "Christian Faith and Science" which I hope means that you have some interest in learning about how your religion can inform your interest in the natural world, and vice versa. I'd like to think that you might actually have some interest in science beyond its use as a cudgel in the hands of the culture warrior. You might once have thought that you'd become a scientist some day. If that is the case, I think you owe it to yourself to ask a few questions. (Of yourself, but if you're really gutsy, you'll ask these of your professor as well.) And as long as you're answering these questions for yourself, perhaps you would consider shedding some light on them by telling us here what these answers are. Because we've never gotten a straight answer from your professor and his colleagues. 1. Dr. Dembski says of your prospective experience at sites like this that "it will open your eyes". By this I assume he means that there is a hostility and level of disrespect here that is emblematic of the failed worldview we hold. I'd dearly like to know if Dr. Dembski has mentioned anything in class about respectful treatment towards members of the judiciary. In particular, does he show his "Judge Jones with Fart Noises" flash animation with pride? 2. I imagine that Dr. Dembski, as a good apologist, has exhorted you to "speak truth to power" and stand up for what you believe in in the face of withering odds. (My understanding of Christian iconography says that this kind of courage against secular foes is evidence of strength and confidence in one's faith.) Please ask yourself (or Dr. Dembski) why, when it came time to testify in Kitzmiller v Dover he took a pass, choosing to risk letting the defense fail rather than expose his ideas to criticism. 3. In a similar vein, Dr. Dembski has said that some kind of Scientific Conspiracy has suppressed the ideas of his theory of Intelligent Design, via the mechanism of peer review. You might ask him why his own journal, "PCID" languishes for lack of submissions, despite having a very low bar to publication of ideas such as his. 4. Dr. Dembski accuses his perceived opponents of censorship quite a lot, actually. Many of us would like to know how this squares with the fact that the only place that he will engage in discussion of his ideas is among people who he knows agree with him, in fora that he has absolute control over. (This mostly turns out to be blogs, books-for-sale and seminary classrooms.) 5. According to my understanding of Christianity, there is a prohibition against "bearing false witness". Is Dembski's informing on a professor to the state security apparatus because of a second-hand account of his lecture an example of this? Or are some forms of bearing false witness acceptable if they're done to advance the correct political agenda? 6. Whatever does Dr. Dembski mean by "science is the embodiment of the Logos of St. John"? Is there any way to relate this to someone who does not partake in a particular sectarian worldview? I imagine there will be many more questions, but I'll leave it at that. My image of the educational environment of a Baptist seminary is, I'm sure, full of stereotypes and misconceptions. I hope that, counter to my conceptions, there is room within the seminary to ask these kinds of questions of yourself and your professors. Meanwhile, if you are in fact interested in science for its own sake, you should be aware of the fact that your professor is a very unreliable source of information. If he ever tried to argue his ideas among practicing scientists, they'd face a withering storm of spontaneously arising mockery. They are provocative in the way that many ideas of mediocre and narcissistic minds are. They are, quite frankly, incoherent babblings. I've allowed myself some editorial commentary, obviously. My hope is that I've laid my cards on the table, and got it out of my system. Although you're a student of his, I do not start with the assumption that you've bought his snake oil. If there's anything you genuinely want to know (and if you're not engaged in a drive-by for grades) I, and many others here, will do our best to address your questions respectfully. -------------- -Tom Ames

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:47    Tom, I am amazed at your self restraint. I will try (really) to use it as a standard. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:54    I think it would be helpfull to all if someone could post this at UD. -------------- "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

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:32    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 22 2010,14:49) Doc GH - Thanks for the links, and of course doing all the work in the first place to absolutely nail down the lies told by the lying scumbag that we like to call Dr. Dr. Dembski. I knew there was a reason why I always think of him as a weasel.* * No disrespect intended to all proper four-legged weasels. I recalled that D^3 stated his position somewhere that if he could "quote" an author without changing words, it didn't matter what the author might have intended. Now, all the crap that post-modernist literary critisim pumps out, is matched by the anti-PoMo crap that gets pumped. That is an argument for another day and another thread. However, I cannot think of a better example of the worst excesses of PoMo than Dembski- words mean what ever I want them to mean. Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 23 2010,08:52 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:37    Quote (khan @ Feb. 22 2010,14:52) "Doctor Doctor give me the news, got a bad case of quote mining youse..." "No pill's gonna cure that shill. Bill's got a bad case of Dover blues" -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,09:10    I'm gonna get out the popcorn and hope for a couple of students.  Since dawkins' forum is out, they might be hurting for some place to 'engage'... I guess my biggest question for Dembski is "Why do you have this as a course requirement?  Aren't you afraid that the 1-2% of your students that can think might 'lose their way' when exposed to reality (and truth for that matter, not your truthiness)?" If I were Dembski, I'd be worried sick about a student asking me a question from this thread.   Of course, he probably figures out who the smart ones are with a pop-quiz on the first or second class day and then administratively drops them. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,11:15    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,22:32) Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 22 2010,14:49) Doc GH - Thanks for the links, and of course doing all the work in the first place to absolutely nail down the lies told by the lying scumbag that we like to call Dr. Dr. Dembski. I knew there was a reason why I always think of him as a weasel.* * No disrespect intended to all proper four-legged weasels. I recalled that D^3 stated his position somewhere that if he could "quote" an author without changing words, it didn't matter what the author might have intended. Now, all the crap that post-modernist literary critisim pumps out, is matched by the anti-PoMo crap that gets pumped. That is an argument for another day and another thread. However, I cannot think of a better example of the worst excesses of PoMo than Dembski- words mean what ever I want them to mean. We all really know, because of the objective and absolute moral code inscribed in our hearts, that goddidit.  All that Dembski is doing is identifying the bits of text where our conscience takes over and we speak the truth. Right now, he's on page 9,759 of The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory, still looking for Gould's admission that he didn't come from no monkey. -------------- 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

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,11:43    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,21:47) Tom, I am amazed at your self restraint. I will try (really) to use it as a standard. Well, I've had a few good friends over the years who could have found themselves in situations analogous to being a student of Dembski's. I'm writing as if to them, because I really do want to draw out the answers to some of these questions. I've made questionable choices myself at times, and I'm sure glad that there have been friendly people there to help me move beyond them. Long odds of doing so here? You bet. But it's not like I'm being civil to Salvador Cordova or Casey Luskin. -------------- -Tom Ames

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:32    Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 23 2010,09:43) But it's not like I'm being civil to Salvador Cordova or Casey Luskin. No. That would qualify for sainthood. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:20    Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 23 2010,05:10) On the off chance that any of Dembski's Philo 4483 students wander over into this Swamp of Immorality, I made an offer to answer their questions on this thread. However, I'd also like to direct a few questions in return to these Dembski students. Here goes: Dear Student, [snip excellent questions] If there's anything you genuinely want to know (and if you're not engaged in a drive-by for grades) I, and many others here, will do our best to address your questions respectfully. I'd suggest that any one who wants to talk about scientific questions states first, - what s/he thinks the age of the earth is - whether he accepts common descent (including humans) - what kind of background he has in biology* That would make it much easier. * I actually mean biology, not whether he thinks he "knows" evolutionary theory. I want to know if he knows anything about e.g. genetics. -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:23    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 23 2010,18:32) Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 23 2010,09:43) But it's not like I'm being civil to Salvador Cordova or Casey Luskin. No. That would qualify for sainthood. Or at least heavy medication. Louis -------------- Bye.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:46    Regarding Quote some kind of Scientific Conspiracy as President for Life of the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, I hasten to caution you about using the onspiracy-cay word in ublic-pay if you get my drift.  Wouldn't want anything to happen to your grant money, would we, though accidents do happen. If youse don't mind, me and my associates will let ourselves out.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,17:15    Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 23 2010,21:46) Regarding Quote some kind of Scientific Conspiracy as President for Life of the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, I hasten to caution you about using the onspiracy-cay word in ublic-pay if you get my drift.  Wouldn't want anything to happen to your grant money, would we, though accidents do happen. If youse don't mind, me and my associates will let ourselves out. This is...errrr....a very nice place you've got here. Wouldn't want it to...errrr...catch fire or anything. It looks kind of flammable. By happy coincidence my colleagues and I are in the fire prevention and insurance market... Louis -------------- Bye.

fnxtr Posts: 3497 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,20:01    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,15:15) Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 23 2010,21:46) Regarding   Quote some kind of Scientific Conspiracy as President for Life of the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, I hasten to caution you about using the onspiracy-cay word in ublic-pay if you get my drift.  Wouldn't want anything to happen to your grant money, would we, though accidents do happen. If youse don't mind, me and my associates will let ourselves out. This is...errrr....a very nice place you've got here. Wouldn't want it to...errrr...catch fire or anything. It looks kind of flammable. By happy coincidence my colleagues and I are in the fire prevention and insurance market... Louis I mean, fings break, don' 'ey? -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,05:18    Bumbumty Bum bumbty b umpty Is this pervy? -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

fnxtr Posts: 3497 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,10:49    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 08 2010,03:18) Bumbumty Bum bumbty b umpty Is this pervy? :( Sorry, no. Keep trying, though. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,10:53    Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 08 2010,15:49) Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 08 2010,03:18) Bumbumty Bum bumbty b umpty Is this pervy? :( Sorry, no. Keep trying, though. What worries me is that comments like Dr GH's there make me want to post something that starts with "No. But this is...". I feel that would be a Bad Thing. So instead, something whoelsome from the potter's wheel: Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,11:02    It's a bit small innit? -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,11:07    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,16:02) It's a bit small innit? Perhaps. But it was the cleanest and most wholesome of a series of potential "rude pottery" images I could select from. Thankfully! Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,13:59    Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,11:07) Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,16:02) It's a bit small innit? Perhaps. But it was the cleanest and most wholesome of a series of potential "rude pottery" images I could select from. Thankfully! Louis I am sure the Dr. Dr. Philo students will appreciate it! :)   That way they can cling to their clean and wholesome image, as they learn to tell the Big ID Lie, as taught by their saintly sweater-clad instructor. -------------- 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

Texas Teach Posts: 2082 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,17:28    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,13:59) Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,11:07) Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,16:02) It's a bit small innit? Perhaps. But it was the cleanest and most wholesome of a series of potential "rude pottery" images I could select from. Thankfully! Louis I am sure the Dr. Dr. Philo students will appreciate it! :)   That way they can cling to their clean and wholesome image, as they learn to tell the Big ID Lie, as taught by their saintly sweater-clad instructor. For clarity...Is it Dembski who is saintly, his sweater, or both? Once we determine that, we need to see evidence of any miracles attributable to Dembski and/or his sweater.  Can either one bring back Denyse's toe nails, for example? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,17:20    Hi there, Dembski students! Just over a month to go to finish your project! Please read the first post of this thread and then go ahead and ask your question. I'm sure we'll have the required number of words posted in no time at all!  (Though we do request that the majority of these words be original to you, rather than the cut-and-pasted words of others.) Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it. -------------- -Tom Ames

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,18:06    Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 15 2010,22:20) [SNIP] Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it. Not true. I can help it, I just don't want to. Where would be the fun in that? Louis -------------- Bye.

bjray Posts: 13 Joined: Mar. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,01:12    Mr. Ames, you finally get your chance to engage with a student of the oh-so famous “Dr. Dr. D” as you refer to him. First, I would like start off by offering my gratitude for the place to come and offer up questions in regards to, well, Dr. Dembski for one (since you seem to have such an extensive knowledge about him); and secondly about science and evolutionary theory (assuming the later are the types of questions you are seeking?) Unfortunately, I do not have such an extensive knowledge of Dembski’s background as you; however, I do meet with the man for several hours every week. (That has to count for something, right?) But, do know that comments and questions about him and his past actions are of no consequence to me. I think a good place to start might be with the questions you posed in your previous post.  Several of your questions deal with Dembski’s past events, of which I do not wish to specifically entertain due to previously mentioned reasons. However, I will comment on the first question you posed. When Dembski mentioned in his syllabus (which I see you’ve got your hands on) these sites (like this one) will “open your eyes;” I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution. Furthermore, they tend to be more tenacious about refuting even the thought of some sort of Creationism/Intelligent Design.  (Of which I take you to be the opposite beings you seem so anxious to receive any questions I might have, but I guess we’ll see.) Dembski has in fact mentioned “respectful treatment” in so many words. From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.). However, after reading several forums, responses to Dembski’s work, and a few other things, I have found that the environment is not as objective when seeking truth in science. (For example, look at this post up until my own. They are either full of conniving remarks about Dembski’s past actions or babblings about receiving a post from me (a student).  It is these types of posts that are there to “open your eyes.” (Although, I am not so naive to realize that people (in general) are like this, no matter what the topic.) Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ). In response to your third question, I would first like to know from where you got your citation of Dembski stating that there is “some kind of Scientific Conspiracy” that is suppressing the ideas he advocates in Intelligent Design? Then I might be able to assist in finding the answer to your question. In response to your fourth question: This seems to be the mantra of anyone who holds to a view that is not the mainstream perspective or the most acceptable among those in higher authority. In other words, the minority view tends to be seen as the one being preached among only those who will believe it. One of the things that would hold anyone from promoting a minority/adversarial viewpoint (especially in the scientific community) that would combat the mainstream viewpoint, subjects themselves to the chance of “committing intellectual suicide.” I’m not suggesting that Dembski has done this, but it would appear that his chances for a full-on proliferation of ID in the scientific community are slim to none, so long as evolution is the dominant theory to be held. Furthermore, Dembski’s only method of engaging his ideas is not always among those who would agree with him. I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him. If I might pose a few questions myself: 1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views? 2) Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny? All right, I’ve said plenty for the first post. I look forward to hearing your response. Note that I will do my best to respond to all of the reply posts I get to this one, because I imagine I am out-numbered here (me being the only student thus far..) Also, to OgreMkV: Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum? Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,02:39    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 15 2010,23:12) 1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? Your premise is incorrect. Science accepts new data all the time, and scientific data that challenged current theories of evolution would have no problem. There are plenty of acrimonious disputes in real science, but eventually the most useful models prevail. If ID produced a more useful model than evolution, it (or whatever part made it useful) would eventually be accepted... unfortunately for ID proponents, ID currently doesn't produce any useful model of anything. Dressing "goddidit" up in some sciencey sounding jargon doesn't provide any useful insight.                 Quote A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? Here we get to the stuff that does trigger disgust, but this is not an irrational reaction. Creationism, whether in the ID flavor or otherwise, is not supported by any coherent scientific theory (if you believe there is a scientific theory of ID, please feel free to present it!) For those of us who value the scientific process, the attempt to pass off nonsense as science is directly contrary to our interests. The reaction you get when you try to get creationism into the science class is the same reaction you get from a doctor who sees a quack passing off some ineffective treatment off as a cure for cancer. Real science cures diseases. "Goddidit" does not. Theistic evolution generally doesn't fall into this category, because it's proponents* don't try to pass it off as science. It doesn't belong in science class, because it's a theological or philosophical argument, but unlike ID, it's not an attack on the whole enterprise of rational inquiry. * Ken Miller is a good example of this. Oh, and unlike Dembski, he showed up at Dover. His testimony is worth reading, as is the whole transcript. You can find it at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html Seriously, if you want to understand why most of the scientific world views ID as creationism in a cheap tux, it's a good place to start. Finally, you will find a lot of snark and crude jokes on this forum. It's a place where people come to unwind, frequently by mocking creationists who have shown themselves to be immune to reason. If you wish to engage in a serious discussion, you are free to ignore responses which do not pertain to it. There are many here who will engage in serious discussion, as long as you do likewise. OTOH, if you show that you aren't capable of engaging in rational discussion (e.g. Robert Byers), then eventually all the responses you get will be mockery. If you want an excuse not to address serious questions, "OMG TEH MEANIE EVILUTIONISTS SAID NASTY THINGS" is ready made for you.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,03:44    BJRay:         Quote Dembski has in fact mentioned “respectful treatment” in so many words. From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.). It's nice that Dembski's demeanor in class is sanguine. However, he isn't always so reserved. Check out his Intelligent Design Coming Clean essay, where he refers to yours truly as an "Internet stalker". Those of us who have seen this aspect of Dembski's behavior aren't so quick to give him a pass on it. BJRay:         Quote Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ). One of my treasured memories from 2005 is when Stephen Harvey called on Friday to say that Bill Dembski was withdrawn as a witness and would not be deposed as planned the following Monday. He told us that the last communication Pepper Hamilton had with the Thomas More Law Center was to inform them that Jeff Shallit and myself would be coming to assist Harvey in deposing Dembski. Coincidence? Perhaps, but also perhaps not. BJRay:         Quote Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views? There is quite rational disgust for the unseemly way that the socio-political religious antievolution movement seeks to undermine science education in this country. Perhaps you have been misinformed about this? Some explanations have gone through a process of having hypotheses generated, tested against empirical data, published in the technical literature, discussions concerning the ideas leading to refinement and further tests, and eventually the scientific community comes to accept the idea as having merit if it consistently passes tests, and discarded as implausible if it fails to consistently pass those tests. These are the concepts worthy of being taught in a science class. Evolutionary science meets that standard. The other conjectures you list (not theories; they are not anywhere close to having the status of theory) have not been through that process and do not have that status, and thus are not suitable to bring up in science class. After all, treating something that isn't science as if it were science is a recipe for sowing confusion about what science is. In 2006, I had the opportunity to ask Dembski himself about whether "intelligent design" should get a pass on this process. I pointed that that "cold fusion", the archetypal not-ready-for-prime-time physics theory, had over 900 peer-reviewed articles on the topic, while the Discovery Institute's list of articles was still in the double digits. Nobody claims that public school K-12 students should be "taught the controversy" over cold fusion. Should ID get a pass? I transcribed Dembski's response, which is long but works out to be the same as Michael Ruse's immediate, "No." BJRay:     Quote Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny? Religious antievolutionists are not always irrational; they quite commonly show areas where they perform quite well. Forrest Mims III is an excellent electronics engineer. John Baumgardner writes good modeling code for a national lab. But when it comes to the topic of evolution, religious antievolutionists seem not to be able to process the information in any way that can be considered scholarly. They make the most egregious misrepresentations repeatedly, which either indicates that they don't know what they criticize or that they are choosing to tell falsehoods knowingly. There is a tendency for religious antievolutionists to pass on and exaggerate material from other religious antievolutionists. As for scientists living up to the sort of scrutiny that we'd hold religious antievolutionists to, please do check out the scientific literature. It is pretty common there to find extended debate over methodology and interpretation, and the amazing thing is that you can join in if you can get up to speed. However, getting up to speed often requires years of study and preparation in the field of interest, not just a weekend reading the latest propaganda book from the Discovery Institute crew. BJRay:   Quote Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Part A: Past experience is not a perfect predictor of future performance, but it often works well as a guide. Part B: I'm only speaking of science, not "truth" in the abstract. Science delivers knowledge with a degree of uncertainty. It is a limited enterprise, and gains much of its power because it is a limited enterprise. On the other hand, I have no reservation in pointing out the rampant falsehoods promulgated from the religious antievolution movement. Correcting what is obviously wrong is a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. You mileage may vary. If you are interested in even more information about Dembski's ideas, you should read this. It is likely that you would get no response from Dembski other than a dismissal that the essay is somehow "out of date", even though he has not bothered to retract any of the stuff criticized there. Don't you think that if a claim has been made that is wrong, that an author should acknowledge the error and seek to correct it? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,04:00    BJRay:   Quote [...] scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory [...] Do you have something that you wish to offer as an example of the class of items referenced above? It would seem that the criticism is moot if there is actually nothing in the class... Let's split those up, actually. What would be most useful is to see if you can provide an actual example in each that stands up to scrutiny of (1) scientific data and (2) scientific theory that "combat evolutionary theory". My prediction: you'll trot out something very like "bacterial flagellum" for (1) and "intelligent design" for (2). I'd be happy to be surprised, though. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,04:09    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12) In response to your third question, I would first like to know from where you got your citation of Dembski stating that there is “some kind of Scientific Conspiracy” that is suppressing the ideas he advocates in Intelligent Design? There appears to be a conspiracy suppressing the disclosure of the values for the CSI in anything at all. Bjray, if you want "intelligent design" taught as an alternative in schools one of the things you'd have to teach would be how to determine if something is designed. To do that you need to determine the "CSI". Is it possible you can demonstrate, or ask Dembski to do so, how to calculate the CSI in a range of objects? Perhaps a bacterial flagellum? And a baseball? And a salt crystal? Or pick something yourself, as long as the calculations are shown...... -------------- 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

Cubist Posts: 551 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,04:32    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? Answer: What "scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory"? As far as I know, there ain't no such animal. To be sure, there are various conjectures and assertions and suchlike which Creationists have presented as "combat(ting) evolutionary theory", but if you filter out everything which is based on misinterpretations and/or outright falsehoods, the residue simply doesn't contain anything which genuinely does "combat evolutionary theory". If you disagree with me here, I invite you to present something which you believe both (a) is not based on misinterpretations or falsehoods, and (b) genuinely "combat(s) evolutionary theory". You apparently are under the impression that ID genuinely does "combat evolutionary theory", but as far as I can tell, ID can be accurately (albeit cruelly) summarized in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. Do you think that terminally vague sentence can possibly pass muster as a 'theory'? I don't. If you disagree with me about the accuracy of my seven-word summary of ID, perhaps you could explain where it goes wrong? I am not optimistic that you'll be able to do so, based on the responses I got a while back when I asked this question in a different forum, but perhaps you can succeed where others have failed, eh?       Quote Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny? I need to present a little background before I get to my answer. The "foundational principles" of the Institute for Creation Research include this paragraph:       Quote The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. And the Statement of Faith for Answers in Genesis says, in part:       Quote The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. So Creationists believe that the Word of God is true, end of discussion. Fine -- but there are many Christians who believe that God used evolution to create Earth's various species. These guys can be called 'theistic evolutionists', and for some reason, I kinda suspect that most (if not all) of them would affirm that the Word of God is true... so what's going on here? How come one set of Word-of-God-is-true believers accepts evolution, while a different set of word-of-God-is-true believers rejects evolution? Surely the Word of God is the same for both sets of believers, isn't it? The solution to this riddle: These two sets of believers differ in how they interpret the Word of God. The evolution-rejecters interpret the Word of God in such a way that they believe evolution conflicts with the Word of God; evolution-accepters, on t'other hand, interpret the Word of God in such a way that they believe evolution is not in conflict with the Word of God. So when Creationists make noise about how evolution contradicts God's Word, one of two things must be true: Either they're bearing false witness (because of all those other believers who do accept evolution), or else what they're really saying is that evolution contradicts the particular interpretation of God's Word which they happen to accept. All of which is well and good... but how do you know which interpretation of God's Word is true? Me, I think that the best way to do this is to compare that interpretation to the Work of God -- to the universe which He created. For instance, 2 Chron 4:2 says "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Okay; let's see how hypothetical believer John Doe interprets that passage... "It describes a circular pool ('round in compass') of molten metal, right? Since its shape is a circle, its diameter ('from brim to brim') is ten cubits, and its circumference ('compass it round about') is thirty cubits. The number pi is what you get when you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter; do that with this circle, and you get (30 / 10 =) 3. Therefore, the value of pi is exactly 3 -- none of this unGodly 3.14159... nonsense need apply, thank you very much, and anybody who thinks pi is 3.14159... is just wrong, end of discussion." Hmmm... but when I actually measure the circumference and diameter of a circle, I always get that bigger number, John. "So what? The Word of God says that pi is exactly three! Are you telling me that the Word of God is wrong? Are you calling God Himself a liar!?" No, John, I'm not saying anything about God. I'm saying that when you measure the diameter and circumference of a circle, and you divide the circumference by the diameter, you don't end up with a result of exactly three. You must have made a mistake somewhere. "So you are saying that God is a liar! It's there in black and white -- pi is exactly equal to three!" Do you think John Doe is rational, bjray? I don't. I think he's decided that his personal interpretation of the Bible takes precedence over empirical, objectively determinable fact, and I think that's crazy. I think that when it comes to the value of pi, this Doe guy is seriously irrational. Do you disagree? Just as I think John Doe here is a bit of a nutbar when it comes to the value of pi, so do I think Creationists are seriously irrational when it comes to evolution. The problem is that you can interpret any piece of text, Biblical or not, in any bleedin' way you feel like... but science is constrained by Reality. See any problems there?   Quote Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? I can't speak for anybody else, but I think that any evolution-denying statement from a Creationist is false for pretty much the same reason I think the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. Every time I've been awake whilst the Sun came up, the Sun has always risen in the East; every time I've investigated an evolution-denying statement from a Creationist, that evolution-denying statement has always been either (a) incoherent, (b) false on its own terms, ( c ) falsely presented as a problem for evolution when, in fact, it's nothing of the kind, or (d) some combination of (a), (b), and ( c ). Always.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,05:42    Quote I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him. To save Louis the trouble of posting, I think this is the only reasonable thing you wrote! Sorry, can't stay.  Must go out and buy a new irony meter.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,05:52    Quote Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ). Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition prior to Kitzmiller.  Forrest's deposition is available on-line, I recall, and it's devastating in its scholastic thoroughness.  I have it on authority that Dembski blanched visibly as the deposition proceeded and withdrew from the case shortly thereafter. Yes, Dembski was all bully to put Darwin on Trial but when his opportunity came he ran like a scared little girl. Nothing dishonorable about self-preservation, though.  Dembski knew that Forrest was going to blow the case wide open, as she actually did later, and he simply didn't want to be part of the collateral damage.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,06:46    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12) I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution. That's incorrect; science is always interested in new explanations. The problem for Dembski et al. is that ID/Creationism is not a new explanation, it is an old and  failed explanation. As far as ID/Creationism goes, the scientific community was receptive back in the 19th Century. Experiments, observations, successful predictions, etc have all combined since then to show that evolutionary theory is a better explanation than ID/Creationism. Dembski and his acolytes have added no new basic arguments, and, more importantly, no new data that would make it useful to revisit the defeat suffered by ID/Creationism in the late 19th Century. Do you have new data or arguments that make phlogiston a better explanation than oxidation/reduction? No? Then we won't bother to revisit that defeat either. The point is that new data will be required to make scientists pay attention to old controversies. Let us know when you, or Dembski, or Behe, or Minnich, or anyone else manages to come up with those data. Until then, ID/Creationism will be deservedly ignored. And if that revelation succeeds in "opening your eyes", so much the better. -------------- 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

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,08:13    cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy. edited -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,08:24    Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 16 2010,10:42)   Quote I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him. To save Louis the trouble of posting, I think this is the only reasonable thing you wrote! Sorry, can't stay.  Must go out and buy a new irony meter. You are nothing if not generous. May the heavens rain down beer upon thee...but not in steins that would just be silly and hurt. Louis P.S. Oh can't I take just one?   Quote 1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views? This presumes the scientific validity of these "other views". What if, and this is an important question, they are not scientifically valid? I.e. they lack the data to support them. What if they are exactly as they've been shown to be, intellectually vacuous, previously well refuted claims couched in pseudoscientific jargon designed to gull the electorate and inculcate a specific narrow, religious doctrine into science? If, and I stress the conditional, this is the case then should we scientists be "open minded" to these claims? Perhaps geologists and astronomers should reconsider their positions on a flat earth, a less than 10000 year old universe, and earth as the centre of the universe. Are they being dogmatic when they don't entertain these "other views" as science? Or are they just practising science as it should be done, i.e. with no view as to what is demonstrably true but rigour regarding how we claim something to be demonstrably true? The word "true" in the previous sentence is used in full awareness of the philosophical niceties and the limits of observation etc. Perhaps the "irrational disgust" you claim exists (without evidence and support I note. Anecdote and personal interpretations are not evidence) is neither "disgust" nor "irrational". On the issue of the emotion surrounding the issue, to use an example of Dawkins', imagine you are a classics scholar, an expert in the study of Ancient Rome, and you were frequently subjected to a relatively well organised and extremely popular (in some countries at least) denial of the existence of Ancient Rome (or variant twists on that theme). Is it possible that, among even the most patient and saintly of you and your colleagues, someone would let a teensy bit of frustration creep through now and again? It's an all too human failing. Sometimes, just sometimes, the frustration that creeps through is justified. Not always, just sometimes. Now, cards on the table, why have I answered you in this way, why have I asked these questions? Because I doubt you have arrived at the position you clearly have arrived at by soberly studying the available evidence. In fact I have an advantage, I know it's impossible for you to have done so in exactly the same way I know a homeopath who claims that water has a memory hasn't studied chemistry in a sober, reasoned evidence based manner. If you wish to take umbrage at that or claim bias on my part, then that is your affair, and your problem. I suspect, however, the evidence is meaningless to you and entirely besides the point as far as you are concerned. I'm very happy to be wrong about that by the way. You, apparently, have been indoctrinated with the view that somehow evolutionary biology is in opposition to what I presume (perhaps wrongly) your religious faith is. This isn't necessarily the case, although for some religious positions it is undeniably so. If the latter is the case, I suggest you follow the words of the Dalai Lama as opposed to the actions of Kurt Wise. Louis ETA: The majority of the traffic here is humorous for a reason. IDC and it's ilk got old long ago. If the banter and frivolity disturbs you, or if you seek to use it to impugn the seriousness of the participants, or to cast irrelevant aspersions at science then you will get incredibly short shrift. Other people have said this better than I: "By calling him humourless I mean to impugn his seriousness, categorically: such a man must rig up his probity ex nihilo." Martin Amis, Experience (2000), Part I: "Failures of Tolerance" "Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that Humour excites in those who lack it." George Saintsbury, A Last Vintage, p. 172 -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,08:56    cubist:  And Louis get's an A" - and I am sure Dr. Dr. D would agree.  See what he did there?  See the difference between what you wote, and what he wrote? -------------- 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

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,09:01    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,14:56) cubist:  And Louis get's an A" - and I am sure Dr. Dr. D would agree.  See what he did there?  See the difference between what you wote, and what he wrote? J-Dog: I must be stupid (or French), but I thought Cubist's initial response was quite okay. Is there something I should know about Cubist? -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,09:43    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,09:01) Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,14:56) cubist:  And Louis get's an A" - and I am sure Dr. Dr. D would agree.  See what he did there?  See the difference between what you wote, and what he wrote? J-Dog: I must be stupid (or French), but I thought Cubist's initial response was quite okay. Is there something I should know about Cubist? SD - Ye should know he is a Dembski accolyte, and that is all ye need to know.* *Sorry to go all biblical on you, but it just seemed appropriate. -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,09:54    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,09:43) SD - Ye should know he is a Dembski accolyte, and that is all ye need to know.* *Sorry to go all biblical on you, but it just seemed appropriate. I think you are confusing cubist with bjray... -------------- 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

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,09:54    Shhh J-Dog. Down Boy! -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Cubist Posts: 551 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,10:07    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13) cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy. edited Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here?

Hawks Posts: 14 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,10:40    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12) 1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? If we leave aside Intelligent Design's political goals and instead concentrate on it's scientific merits, you will find that it falls short. Rather than writing a long essay, I'll link to a very good article by Elliott Sober that details why ID has severe problems when trying to make any predictions. This should be required reading for anyone wishing to evaluate how scientific ID really is.

nmgirl Posts: 92 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,10:42    Dear BJ,  youask why ID/creationists (IDiota) don't get any respect on science blogs.  Here are some of my observations. Some babble incoherently like Byers. Some, like FL  and IBIG, insist on their literal interpretation of the Bible being the only truth. The misuse of real science, ie the second theory of thermodynamics. The mental contortions required to make the geology of the earth fit with a noachian flood:

nmgirl Posts: 92 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,11:24    Dear BJ,  you ask why ID/creationists (IDiota) don't get any respect on science blogs.  Here are some of my observations. Failure to answer a simple question:  How do you calculate CSI? Some babble incoherently like Byers. Some, like FL and IBIG, insist on their literal interpretation of the Bible being the only truth. The misuse of real science, ie the second theory of thermodynamics. The mental contortions required to make geology fit a 6000 year old earth with a noachian flood:     - rocks are not really millions and billions of years old, God just made them look that way to fool us.     - plate tectonics either doesn't exist or was much faster in the past.     - claiming there is no place on earth where limestone is forming now so how can we say how long it takes to deposit 6 or 7000 feet of the stuff.     - claiming the fossil record supports how dead organisms would have been deposited after a world wide flood.   Quotemining:  The deliberate misquoting of evolution supporting scientists to make it appear that they support ID.  for example Gould, Hawking.  This "lying for Jesus" is especially reprehensible since in the internet age it is very easy to check what the author really said.   Lying through "cut and paste":  individuals will try to argue their point with articles and links from places like aig or conservapedia without ever checking original sources. This is where you get the "Scientist sez" quotes like " Dr Joe sez chimps and humans are not related" and Dr Joe is a high school educated homeopath in Gunbarrel City, TX. Deliberate misunderstanding of how science works.  Scientists doing research are constantly producing new data.  This data could be new fossils or mapping of the genome in a new organism or even the discovery of new organisms.  This new data may fit smoothly in the paradigm or be outside the box.  Scientists will argue and test and do more research to see where it fits or it may inspire a new research.  This messy process does not cancel out the value of the conclusions. Endless repetition of arguments that have been dismissed dozens of times before.  I think the IDiota must have a play book because they argue the same things the same way time after time.  I give Byers credit for being a creative babbler.   Deliberate "misunderstanding" of scientific terms such as transitional fossils. or misunderstanding common phrases such as Joe's "baseball sized rock" on another thread here. I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,11:51    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 15 2010,23:12) From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.). I do wonder if any of Dembski's students will be reading long responses, since they have a rather long reading list as it is. But regarding Dembski's "respectful" treatment presenting scientists work, I suggest that you read, "Dembski's Five Questions: Number One," which I wrote with the help of Dave Mullenix back in 2004. Amusingly, this at first dropped out of sight, and cite, like a black hole. It was resurrected a year later by Dembski when he tried to justify himself in,  "Quoting, Misquoting, Quote-Mining." In his comments he basically says that any way he uses a quote is correct, regardless if he distorted the meaning 180 degrees from the intent of the original author. Next, the story was picked up by Jason Rosenhouse, in "Why do Scientists Get So Angry when Dealing with ID Proponents?" and then by various other academics. So much for expecting "respect" or honesty from Dembski. And, unless you have independently read the works of evolutionary biologists, I doubt that you have any idea of what they are really saying. Certainly not if you would include Mike Behe in a list of "mainstream scientists." Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 16 2010,10:03 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,11:55    Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 16 2010,10:07) Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13) cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy. edited Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here? OOPS-- SORRY - YES, I am concussed, I mean confused!  I most humbly beg your pardon! I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.* * Not really, but I thought about it.  The virgin not the novena. -------------- 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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,11:58    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,11:55) Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 16 2010,10:07)   Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13) cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy. edited Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here? OOPS-- SORRY - YES, I am concussed, I mean confused!  I most humbly beg your pardon! I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.* * Not really, but I thought about it.  The virgin not the novena. HA HA THIS IS YOU -------------- 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!)

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,12:12    Maybe the ID Tard is finally getting to me... -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,12:25    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,16:55) Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 16 2010,10:07)   Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13) cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy. edited Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here? OOPS-- SORRY - YES, I am concussed, I mean confused!  I most humbly beg your pardon! I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.* * Not really, but I thought about it.  The virgin not the novena. I wouldn't worry about it. Bloody humans. All look the same to me. Louis -------------- Bye.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,12:28    [quote=carlsonjok,Mar. 16 2010,11:58][/quote] Quote HA HA THIS IS YOU HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky. 'Nice kitty...down kitty...hey that's my arm!' Brings a whole new meaning to I can haz cheeseburger... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:02    Quote (Robin @ Mar. 16 2010,12:28) HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky. But that's a leopard in the picture, I believe. Do they have leopard cubs there as well? -------------- 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

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:05    Hi BJRay, Thank you for coming for a visit.  The guys and gals around here have been getting bored lately.  My Quantum Quackery trolls barely even get nibbles anymore. Assuming you find this comment among all the others.  Allow me to quote from Dr. Dembski's expert testimony at the Dover trial...     Quote How, if at all, does quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? The intelligent design community is at the forefront in raising and answering such questions. ... there is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain. link Since that time, there have been remarkable discoveries in Quantum Biophysics.  Sir Roger Penrose is among the most notable scientists proposing the ideas Dr. Dembski wrote about (Penrose/Hawking mathematically modeled and predicted Black Holes). Why aren't Dr. Dembski and the rest of the ID crowd "...at the forefront in raising and answering such questions" about Quantum Biophysics? Could it be they are more interested in manipulating public opinion than doing science? Feel free to tell Dr. Dembski that Thought Provoker says "hi".

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:56    TP, you are mistaken! Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:     Quote                                                                                                   .                                                                                          . (Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage) -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

bjray Posts: 13 Joined: Mar. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:58    I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me. On a side note, I have been reading up on the links you posted as well (thanks for getting me up to speed). Also, Elsberry, thanks for your thorough response. I thought I'd also note that I randomly read one of Shallit's responses to Dembski's work ( which can be found here); since you mentioned the case. (More to comment on this "peice" later.) Thanks again, and I'll work to reply to your comments/questions, just give me a bit.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,14:51    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58) However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me. You'll, er, want to turn that off! Just to reiterate, CSI is the prize. I would really like to see the CSI calculated for any one of the things that Dr Dembski claims it can be calculated for. Or a baseball. Or a cake. Or a salt crystal. If CSI really means something and is something, then why can't we see it being worked out? Is there a list of objects and the values for the CSI for each? Even just one? And how it was worked out? Can we give the explanatory filter a go while we're about it?   -------------- 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

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,14:52    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2010,13:02) Quote Quote (Robin @ Mar. 16 2010,12:28) HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky. But that's a leopard in the picture, I believe. Do they have leopard cubs there as well? I noticed that when I saw the pic. There were no leopard cups when I was last there, but they do have a number of paddocks, so it's conceivable they were rehabbing one for one of the game parks or some such. I could also be wrong that the pic comes from Spier, but the petting cell for the cheetah cubs I was in had the exact same wall art. Seems a bit too coincidental, but maybe there's something to that pattern that's more common than I know. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,15:28    Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,13:56) TP, you are mistaken! Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover: You are right. I should have said it was from Dembski's expert witness report which was excluded since Dembski dropped (was dropped?) as a witness.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,15:29    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 16 2010,14:51) Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58) However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me. You'll, er, want to turn that off! Just to reiterate, CSI is the prize. I would really like to see the CSI calculated for any one of the things that Dr Dembski claims it can be calculated for. Or a baseball. Or a cake. Or a salt crystal. If CSI really means something and is something, then why can't we see it being worked out? Is there a list of objects and the values for the CSI for each? Even just one? And how it was worked out? Can we give the explanatory filter a go while we're about it?  :D -------------- 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!)

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,15:34    Yeah, listen to Akbar! -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:02    Quote since Dembski dropped (was dropped?) as a witness How about chickened out? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:10    Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,13:56) TP, you are mistaken! Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:       Quote                                                                                                   .                                                                                          . (Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage) No, not sung to the tune you mentioned. Sung to the tune of Sir Robin! Brave Doctor D ran away - No! Bravely ran away, away - I didn't! Dep'sition reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled - No! Yes, brave Doctor D turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Doctor D! -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:16    I liked the "Dr. Dr. William Dembski, you've got a bad case of Mammon envy" one. -------------- "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

RBH Posts: 49 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:59    Cubist wrote   Quote ... as far as I can tell, ID can be accurately (albeit cruelly) summarized in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. I have to demur: It's worse than that.  My wording, asked a number of times in various venues, is this: Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that designed thing in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and leaving no independent evidence of the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s). If BJRay can fill in any of the placeholders in that statement, with evidence appended, I'd be grateful. Edited by RBH on Mar. 16 2010,17:00 -------------- "There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,17:01    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,11:55) Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 16 2010,10:07)   Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13) cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy. edited Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here? OOPS-- SORRY - YES, I am concussed, I mean confused!  I most humbly beg your pardon! I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.* * Not really, but I thought about it.  The virgin not the novena. It's virginity that's supposed to be sacrificed not the virgin. I really wish people would get that rite. God

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,17:42    Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58) I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me. On a side note, I have been reading up on the links you posted as well (thanks for getting me up to speed). Also, Elsberry, thanks for your thorough response. I thought I'd also note that I randomly read one of Shallit's responses to Dembski's work ( which can be found here); since you mentioned the case. (More to comment on this "peice" later.) Thanks again, and I'll work to reply to your comments/questions, just give me a bit. I hope your comments on Shallit's participation in the Kitzmiller v. DASD case prove more, uh, substantive than those of Dembski himself, who embarrassed himself so thoroughly that he deleted three threads on the topic on his blog and referred to the deleted posts as himself engaging in "street theater". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Cubist Posts: 551 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,18:47    Since you're coming from a Creationist-heavy background, bjray, I think it would be appropriate to draw your attention to a recent example of behavior which you may have overlooked on account of unfamiliarity: Namely, someone admitting their mistake when called on it. The specific mistake was made by J-Dog, who wrote two responses to you, bjray, that were somehow addressed to "Cubist". When J-Dog's mistake was pointed out to him, his response to that pointing-out-of-mistake was basically, Oh, jeez... that was stupid of me, huh? My bad! He acknowledged his error -- took ownership of it, you might say. What J-Dog did not do: He did not ignore the corrections. He did not defend his mistake. He did not attack the people who pointed out his mistake. He did not reply to their corrections with any variation of "You're not qualified to judge what I wrote". He did not employ sophistry to confuse the issue of the mistake he made. He didn't do any of that; rather, he simply acknowledged his mistake. bjray, it might be instructive for you to dig into some of the many criticisms Mr. Dembski's work has received, and compare Mr. Dembski's behavior in response to those criticisms with J-Dog's behavior here. If you do that, perhaps you may gain some insight as to why real scientists treat Creationists the way they do.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,19:06    Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,14:56) TP, you are mistaken! Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:     Quote                                                                                                   .                                                                                          . (Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage) Comparable to Zappa's The Black Page in every way but one. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,19:39    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 16 2010,19:06)   Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,14:56) TP, you are mistaken! Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:         Quote                                                                                                   .                                                                                          . (Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage) Comparable to Zappa's The Black Page in every way but one. Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,00:16    Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39) Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version? "If she were MY daughter..." -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,03:26    Given BJRay's noted intention to comment on Jeff Shallit's rebuttal report in the Kitzmiller case, I re-read it myself. Shallit's rebuttal has two distinct components. One addresses Dembski's academic standing, and the other addresses Dembski's ideas about "design inferences". For a legal proceeding, like the Kitzmiller case, this is pretty standard. The idea is that one aims to discredit or impeach an expert witness offered by the opposing side. To do this, one can legitimately examine both the claims of the opposing expert and critique the reasons for considering him to be an expert in the case. I'm assuming that Shallit's rapid demolition of Dembski's ideas is likely not the source of discontent here. After all, "intelligent design" advocates are nothing if not adept in explaining away any and all challenges to their argumentation. It is more likely that Shallit's rapid demolition of Dembski's academic pretensions and exaggerated claims to expertise are more troublesome. This, some would assert, is simply out of place in a rebuttal in the context of science. But the point is that the context is not science, and in the relevant context, that of a legal proceeding, items that go to consideration of the weight to give to an putative expert's opinion are not just permitted but are to be expected. When one is offered as an expert in a case that goes to trial, one should expect and be prepared for the opposition seeking to find reasons to discount one's opinions. My impression of the handling of expert witnesses by the Thomas More Law Center was that it was inept in several aspects. While the experts for the plaintiffs were cautioned that referencing materials in expert reports would induce a burden to produce those materials for the opposing side, either that advice was not given or not followed on the defense side. For example, the defense wanted plaintiff's expert witness John Haught to deliver to them a manuscript of a book that he was writing at the time of the trial. Haught, though, had not mentioned the manuscript in his expert report and the judge denied the defense's motion for production. William Dembski, by contrast, prominently mentioned in his expert report that his expertise in the topic at hand was enhanced by his role as academic editor of the then-in-production third edition of "Of Pandas and People" (published later as "The Design of Life"). Plaintiffs moved to have the manuscript of this work provided to them, and the judge ordered it to be done under seal. (This incident caused a huge uproar involving the publisher, Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.) This was a case where Dembski's penchant for self-aggrandizement materially hurt both his side of the case and his colleagues at FTE, and if the lawyers at TMLC had been even halfway paying attention, it could have been avoided. So, BJRay, if what concerns you is the attack on Dembski's credentialism, please rest assured that is par for the course in rebuttal reports in legal proceedings. One need only look to the transcript and the TMLC's rather desperate attempts to deny expert witness status to plaintiff's expert Barbara Forrest to see similar (though ultimately unsuccessful) actions at work on the defense side. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,05:23    Being frank* for a moment, if I were back at university as an undergrad/taught masters student and one of my lecturers was getting the demolition of a lifetime the world/web over I'd feel I was in a pretty tough spot. I got on pretty well with my lecturers and very well with a couple of them. It's not an unusual (or reprehensible) psychological impulse to want to defend/not think poorly of one's lecturers. I think the motivation is pretty obvious. If BJRay is what he says he is, I genuinely feel for him. Granted my patience is generally short lived, but I have a mental image of this kid reading replies here and running off to Dembski/sticking replies in his assignments and generally playing piggy in the middle. If he's at the stage where he is genuinely interested in the subject of evolutionary biology, or intellectual discovery (as opposed to thinking he is, or just saying he is), then he's going to rapidly come to the conclusion he's in the wrong class at the wrong university. If he's not at that stage then we'll see the standard hot shoe shuffle and creationist two step. My guess considering his posts to date, heavily focussed on the tone of the debate and the personalities involved, is that he is not (yet perhaps) interested in the evidence. I hope to be proven wrong about that. I also guess he won't grasp that that isn't a criticism. I hope to be wrong about that too. Although I will say someone who has been through a conversion experience (an ex-creationist/ex-religious person) is far better placed to empathise with, or examine, the stages than someone like me who never had to go through this process. Louis *Resist the temptation folks. I tried, but I'm weak, it's not easy. ETA: Our new chum is a she? I thought women had more sense....oh wait....FTK....carry on. -------------- Bye.

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,05:26    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 16 2010,14:51) Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58) However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me. You'll, er, want to turn that off! Just to reiterate, CSI is the prize. I would really like to see the CSI calculated for any one of the things that Dr Dembski claims it can be calculated for. Or a baseball. Or a cake. Or a salt crystal. If CSI really means something and is something, then why can't we see it being worked out? Is there a list of objects and the values for the CSI for each? Even just one? And how it was worked out? Can we give the explanatory filter a go while we're about it?  :D I'd also like to know the CSI of a Garden of Eden pattern in Conway's Game of Life (or any cellular automaton), as by the rules of that universe, it meets the most major requirement for design: it absolutely cannot come about by natural laws (and cannot arise by chance either). If it ever appears in the Game of Life, it HAS to be created. By the laws of the Game of Life, this thing should be the most CSI-ey thing in existence. Of course, since a Garden of Eden doesn't have any function beyond 'being a Garden of Eden', ID can't analyse it, which just shows that Dembski's claim to 'finding patterns which indicate design' ultimately means 'inventing a pattern and then claiming that evolution can't do it'. In essence, he sneaks in the very information he finds by specifying a function, then claiming that the inability of natural causes to produce that function IS the information.

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,09:45    Hi Bjray, A lot of the answers so far focused at least in part on the person of Dembski and I could understand if you felt compelled to defend him. But let’s not waste time on him. If his criticism of evolutionary theory were legitimate, he could be a total asshole, incompetent, and promoting his criticism for the wrong reasons, that still wouldn’t make his criticism less valid. So, the question really is whether Dembski’s (or Behe’s, or Meyer’s, or whoever) criticism is valid. You clearly believe so:       Quote Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? Scientists don’t. If it were valid, it would be dealt with. I don’t know whether you read Uncommon Descent? Just a few days ago [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/speciation/uncommon-descent-contest-question-21-reposted-what-if-darwins-theory-only-works-6-percent- of-the-time]they were crowing[/URL] over an article published in Nature, one of the leading scientific journals. Or, more precisely, they were crowing about an article in the New Scientist reporting about that article. The author of the Nature article tested hypotheses regarding speciation. He looked at several phylogenetic trees and measured the branch length between speciation events, i.e. the time it took for speciation to take place. If speciation were the result purely of accumulation of variation then the branch lengths should be uniformly distributed, meaning that when a certain amount of variation is reached, speciation occurs. But what he found (and I’m simplifying a lot) was that the branch lengths he measured were distributed in a pattern that suggested that this wasn’t true. In most cases, the pattern he found was instead best explained by speciation as a result of rare chance events. The purely “Darwinian” mode of speciation by accumulating variation occurred only in about 6 % of the cases he analysed. If you read only the UD post about this topic you’d get the impression this paper overturns evolutionary theory. But it was published in Nature! If scientists are repressing scientific data that challenge the status quo why was this article published in Nature? The answer is easy. Challenging new insights are welcomed. This article was published in Nature and not in some less prominent journal exactly because it is challenging for some views of evolution and if Dembski et al. had legitimate criticism bolstered by data they’d be publishing in Nature as well. But is this article really the overturn of evolutionary theory the UD crew would like you to believe? No, of course not. A chance event that could lead to speciation is e.g. the metaphorically rising mountain that separate two populations. That’s an example included in every text book. We know that some species remain genetically compatible although they’re clearly two separate species, e.g. tigers and lions while e.g. polyploidy in plants can lead to “instant speciation” because the polyploid offspring is genetically incompatible with the diploid parent plant. So, we already knew that the event that leads to genetic incompatibility and/or speciation can be a chance event that is independent from how much variation is accumulated in separate populations. And in no way does this article comment on the importance of natural selection in general. While the event that leads to speciation might be a chance event, species are still shaped by natural selection. But why is the article published in Nature if we already knew all that? For one thing, it puts a number on it. While we knew that chance events can lead to speciation we didn't know how often that is the case. Secondly, because there’re two lines of thinking – one emphasizes the importance of natural selection/adaptation for evolution the other emphasizes the importance of chance events for evolution. This article is another point in favour of the importance of chance events and, therefore, important for "the big picture", how we think about evolution in general. And why am I telling you all that? Because it highlights a few things about the ID movement. - They aren’t interested in what the research really says. This is just one example where no one bothers to read the original article but instead quotes some parts of a pop sci article that include words like “surprising” or “controversial” and claims victory. - They do not think about what research means in relation to their own proposal. What does this article have to do with ID? And of course, this article relays heavily on evolutionary theory. The calculation of branch length etc. is only valid if a lot of our understanding of evolution is valid, too – an understanding that is heavily criticised by ID people in other instances. Some proponents of ID do not even accept common descent – how can they then accept any of the conclusions of this article? - They do not honestly represent current evolutionary theory. In this case they pretend that no one ever mentioned anything about chance events leading to speciation. That is clearly wrong. But if they were interested in valid criticism of evolutionary theory they wouldn’t do any of these things. They’d read the original article, they’d evaluate it in light of their own criticism, and they’d put it in the context of what evolutionary theory actually says. That never happens, though. You can go over to UD and look at the last ten posts or so and you’ll find several posts all along the lines of “this research shows that evolutionary theory is wrong” that all show the same short comings. Actually, all of the output of UD or the Disco’tute can be grouped in one of four claims: 1. Darwin was a racist, plagiarized his “theory” (scare quotes are obligatory), and beat puppies (therefore evolutionary theory is wrong). 2. Darwinism led to school shootings, moral relativism, and/or the holocaust (therefore evolutionary theory is wrong). 3. This scientific research shows Darwinism is wrong (while not engaging in any way with the actual research). 4. Scientific research that shows Darwinism is wrong is repressed by a conspiracy of Darwinists that want to preserve the status quo (or “Help, help, we’re being oppressed." Funnily, they don’t seem to realize that 3. and 4. can’t both be true.)* So, if scientists are disgusted by ID proponents it is because of this: Their pretence to be interested in scientific criticism when they’re clearly not. Instead, they're running propaganda mills. * There’s a fifth group of posts at the Disco’tute: Casey Luskin whining about Dover. Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 17 2010,16:55 -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,10:35    Quote There’s a fifth group of posts at the Disco’tute: Casey Luskin whining about Dover. Casey would like the spelling changed to Do-over. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,10:54    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2010,11:35) Quote There’s a fifth group of posts at the Disco’tute: Casey Luskin whining about Dover. Casey would like the spelling changed to Do-over. Turned out to be more of a Doh!-ver though. -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,11:14    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16) Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39) Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version? "If she were MY daughter..." What would you do daddy? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,12:17    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14) Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16) Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39) Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version? "If she were MY daughter..." What would you do daddy? If she were MY daughter... -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,12:21    I would be careful about calling a daughter BJ. I have a nephew named John Thomas. His dad is a creationist and a lawyer, so that's three strikes. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,13:29    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,13:17) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14) Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)   Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39) Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version? "If she were MY daughter..." What would you do daddy? If she were MY daughter... What would you do daddy? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,15:34    Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2010,07:45) Hi Bjray, A lot of the answers so far focused at least in part on the person of Dembski and I could understand if you felt compelled to defend him. But let’s not waste time on him. If his criticism of evolutionary theory were legitimate, he could be a total asshole, incompetent, and promoting his criticism for the wrong reasons, that still wouldn’t make his criticism less valid. So, the question really is whether Dembski’s (or Behe’s, or Meyer’s, or whoever) criticism is valid. ... POTW! -------------- -Tom Ames

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,19:43    Anywhere Richard Thompson (head of the Thomas More Law Center) goes, weirdness seems to follow. I was reflecting on Jeff Shallit's deposition in the Kitzmiller case, which was taken by Thompson with Stephen Harvey present from Pepper Hamilton. Thompson probably spent more time in the deposition asking about my role in the production of Shallit's rebuttal report than any other single topic. Close behind that would be questions about Jeff's motivation to send email to various IDC cheerleaders. What one sees very little of in it is stuff to do with the technical side of things, such as the exact form of Jeff's critique of Dembski's "design inference". An amusing thing happened in the deposition, since Jeff was part of the group that the "The Design of Life" manuscript had been provided to under seal. IIRC, Thompson apparently hadn't known or perhaps had not remembered this, and wanted to refer to something in the manuscript as a basis for a question to ask Jeff. Stephen Harvey had to decline once Thompson admitted that he wasn't on the list of people approved by the court to view the manuscript. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,21:48    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,11:29) Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,13:17) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14)   Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)   Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39) Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version? "If she were MY daughter..." What would you do daddy? If she were MY daughter... What would you do daddy? I'd cover that Girl with ... This is really Bathroom Wall material. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,21:52    Quote 4. Scientific research that shows Darwinism is wrong is repressed by a conspiracy of Darwinists that want to preserve the status quo (or “Help, help, we’re being oppressed." Funnily, they don’t seem to realize that 3. and 4. can’t both be true.)* Maybe they think of it as one of them there false dichotomies that evolution supporters like to talk about? Henry

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,21:56    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,17:43) Anywhere Richard Thompson (head of the Thomas More Law Center) goes, weirdness seems to follow. I was reflecting on Jeff Shallit's deposition in the Kitzmiller case, which was taken by Thompson with Stephen Harvey present from Pepper Hamilton. Thompson probably spent more time in the deposition asking about my role in the production of Shallit's rebuttal report than any other single topic. Close behind that would be questions about Jeff's motivation to send email to various IDC cheerleaders. What one sees very little of in it is stuff to do with the technical side of things, such as the exact form of Jeff's critique of Dembski's "design inference". I was bummed out when Dembski bailed from the Dover trial. I thought he was going to get creamed, and I was looking forward to it. I did not know that "Why Intelligent Design Fails" would be part of Behe's cross-examination. But, I was confident that Steve Fuller would make an ass of himself IF he was encouraged to talk about "science" and not be challenged about PoMo. The trial was not about Paul Gross, or his hate of anthropologists. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,22:03    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48) I'd cover that Girl with ... This is really Bathroom Wall material. You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here?

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,23:12    Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2010,20:03) Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48) I'd cover that Girl with ... This is really Bathroom Wall material. You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here? :p As I recall, the end of the line was "chocolate syrup." Well, I am in fact re-doing the bathroom. It must be one of those subliminal whatchumacalits. Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 17 2010,21:15 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,02:16    Do your job, and do it right Life's a ball! (ID tonight!) Do you love it, do you hate it? There it is, the way GOD made it (WOOOooow) -------------- -Tom Ames

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,04:42    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,21:56) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,17:43) Anywhere Richard Thompson (head of the Thomas More Law Center) goes, weirdness seems to follow. I was reflecting on Jeff Shallit's deposition in the Kitzmiller case, which was taken by Thompson with Stephen Harvey present from Pepper Hamilton. Thompson probably spent more time in the deposition asking about my role in the production of Shallit's rebuttal report than any other single topic. Close behind that would be questions about Jeff's motivation to send email to various IDC cheerleaders. What one sees very little of in it is stuff to do with the technical side of things, such as the exact form of Jeff's critique of Dembski's "design inference". I was bummed out when Dembski bailed from the Dover trial. I thought he was going to get creamed, and I was looking forward to it. I did not know that "Why Intelligent Design Fails" would be part of Behe's cross-examination. But, I was confident that Steve Fuller would make an ass of himself IF he was encouraged to talk about "science" and not be challenged about PoMo. The trial was not about Paul Gross, or his hate of anthropologists. I was also put out a bit by the timing of Dembski's withdrawal. If they had waited a week, we'd have had his deposition done. One of the things we had asked him to bring along was his documentation of the review process for "The Design Inference" (TDI), since peer-review of that work played such a prominent role in his expert report. (Somewhere along the line, Dembski had responded to critics that if they had questions about the review process, they should contact Brian Skyrms. I did so, and found him pretty completely uncooperative not just in discussing review of TDI itself, but of answering any questions about what constituted the usual book review process for Cambridge University Press.) By bailing right then, Dembski avoided any hostile scrutiny, yet still had the consolation prize of >$20,000 in expert fees that he extracted from TMLC. So, let's recap: by choosing William Dembski as an expert witness, TMLC got an expert report that they couldn't use without opening the door to letting the plaintiffs put rebuttal expert Jeff Shallit on the stand, one huge mess over which lawyers got to represent both Dembski and the defense (remember FTE tried to add themselves to the list of defendants in the case), a loss of one expert witness they could bring to trial (once past the date for announcing expert witnesses, dropping a witness is subtracting from that total), and a >$20,000 bill to pay for the privilege. Given all that, you could almost believe that Dembski was working for the plaintiffs. Letting us depose him would only have made that case stronger. If I have anything to say about a future case involving a Dembski-associated book (say, "The Design of Life"), my advice is going to be to bring Dembski aboard as a hostile witness. That way, it won't be among his options to bail at his pleasure. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,05:23    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2010,05:42) If I have anything to say about a future case involving a Dembski-associated book (say, "The Design of Life"), my advice is going to be to bring Dembski aboard as a hostile witness. That way, it won't be among his options to bail at his pleasure. This. I want to see this. Live and in person, and videotaped for posterity, plastered all over YouTube. Yes, this. (Hypothetically, how unethical would it be to try and get IDC into my classroom just to spawn a lawsuit to see this? Really really really unethical, or just a little bit unethical? Just wonderin'...) -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,05:58    Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,10:23) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2010,05:42) If I have anything to say about a future case involving a Dembski-associated book (say, "The Design of Life"), my advice is going to be to bring Dembski aboard as a hostile witness. That way, it won't be among his options to bail at his pleasure. This. I want to see this. Live and in person, and videotaped for posterity, plastered all over YouTube. Yes, this. (Hypothetically, how unethical would it be to try and get IDC into my classroom just to spawn a lawsuit to see this? Really really really unethical, or just a little bit unethical? Just wonderin'...) I'm going to go with intentially hilariously unethicalicious. Don't do it. That is unless I can fly over, join the class and ask amusing questions about precisely which proteins Jesus tinkered with. Louis -------------- Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,06:06    Lou, Unless you start teaching at a public K-12 school, it wouldn't work anyway. Universities, even public ones, can be a lot more flexible in curriculum without tripping over the establishment clause. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,06:35    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,22:48)   Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,11:29)   Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,13:17)     Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14)     Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)       Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39) Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version? "If she were MY daughter..." What would you do daddy? If she were MY daughter... What would you do daddy? I'd cover that Girl with ... This is really Bathroom Wall material. OK, OK. Time to go home. Madge is on the phone. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,11:40    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,23:12) Quote Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2010,20:03)   Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48) I'd cover that Girl with ... This is really Bathroom Wall material. You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here? :p As I recall, the end of the line was "chocolate syrup." Well, I am in fact re-doing the bathroom. It must be one of those subliminal whatchumacalits. Sounds like a Freudian Coat of Paint... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,12:36    If student guy is still around you might enjoy watching the NOVA/PBS special Intelligent Design On Trial -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson