RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Waterloo in Dover, Take 3< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:49   

It seems that if I copy "too much" text at once into a message, the thread collapses into itself like a black hole. Don't know what's up with that.


Quote

Comment #52073

Posted by Flint on October 12, 2005 01:28 PM (e) (s)

The new YDR article dwells on an aspect of the case which is genuinely important: what the Constitution says depends on who’s reading it. And Thompson’s comments that once Roberts and O’Connor’s replacement are seated, he has a 5-4 victory in favor of teaching one particular religious doctrine as scientific fact, is right on the money.

Scalia, the intellectual leader of the religioso, for the life of him can’t see any religious motivation when it’s his religion being inserted. His comment that the ‘subjective motivations’ of policy makers are invisible somehow doesn’t seem to apply when he does NOT like their motivations. THEN it’s clearly wrong. Clarence Thomas’s head is by now permanently shoved up Scalia’s butt. Roberts has in the past argued strongly for school prayer for his (oops, I mean the One True) religion.

All of this could easily mean our once-world-leading educational system retreats to the 18th century for at least a generation, while delirious people dance in the streets of the red states for decades to come.

South Korea seems to be doing some interesting work, though.


Quote

Comment #52188

Posted by Ben Katz on October 13, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)

Is it right to teach Intelligent Desin in school? Easy:

1. We can’t teach it in school because most of its supporters actually believe the bible!

Additionally,
2. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually believe the koran!

Additionally,
3. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.

Hmm, we got a problem. In the interest of being fair, you either teach NOTHING, or else teach ALL the main theories.


Quote

Comment #52190

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on October 13, 2005 02:02 PM (e) (s)

Hmmm, Mr. Katz…

WHICH “main theories” might you be referring to, I wonder?

You seem to imply that this “Intelligent Design” stuff is a theory; a “main” theory, no less.

Please tell us its main points, what research it’s conducting, how it can be falsified… you know, run of the mill stuff for sacientific theories.

We’re all ears.


Quote

Comment #52192

Posted by kay on October 13, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/13/164…

hey kitties, did you see this? “Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science”.

can someone with permission post it as an article? :)


Quote

Comment #52196

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 13, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)

“In the interest of being fair…”
Science isn’t interested in being fair.


Quote

Comment #52197

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 13, 2005 02:43 PM (e) (s)

   Ben Katz wrote:

   Hmm, we got a problem. In the interest of being fair, you either teach NOTHING, or else teach ALL the main theories.

You seem to be forgetting that pesky little thing called ‘evidence’. Science is unfair; when you get around to running experiments, some ideas don’t hold up and are discarded. Other ideas are not amenable to experimentation and so are not science.


Quote

Comment #52203

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 13, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

   http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/13/164……
   hey kitties, did you see this? “Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science”.
   can someone with permission post it as an article? :)

Here’s an open version at the Washington Post

   …
   America’s lead in scientific fields was the key to prosperity in the 20th century, the panel said. The country remains in the lead for now — but the gap with other countries is narrowing, panel members said, as rising powers such as India and China copy the U.S. strategy, turning out large numbers of college graduates with scientific backgrounds.

   Without bold action in Washington, the panel said, the nation will find itself losing not just low-wage industries such as garment manufacturing but high-skill jobs, such as computer design and pharmaceutical manufacturing, that have been a cornerstone of recent prosperity….



Quote

Comment #52228

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 13, 2005 06:37 PM (e) (s)

New transcript: continuation of Forrest testimony

HTML copies of the trial transcripts from talkorigins.org.


Quote

Comment #52262

Posted by Joe on October 14, 2005 05:06 AM (e) (s)

In addition to what others have said….

   3. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.”

Actually, you should probably replace the world “atheist” with “scientist”.

And since the majority of scientists are theists, your argument doesn’t really hold water.

The argument that evolution is an atheist construct is just not true. It is taught in school simply because it is the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

See…

Christian Clergy that support evolution(up to 8,712) - http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_scie…

Project Steve(up to 644) - http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_p…

If evolution is an atheistic construct, then they are doing a #### good job of tricking the clergy and scientists into beleiving it!

By the by, I haven’t followed that clergy list long, but it’s went up about 1,000 names since I first went to it less then 2 monthes ago.

You are right about one thing, we should be suspicious of these patterns if they present themselves. Say, how many atheist Intellegent Design proponents are there….


Quote

Comment #52266

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 14, 2005 07:05 AM (e) (s)

   3. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.

And here we see what ID is really all about.

It’s religious apologetics. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:52   

Quote

Comment #52282

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 14, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

   Say, how many atheist Intellegent Design proponents are there….

Approximately the same as the number of Raelians.


Quote

Comment #52329

Posted by RBH on October 14, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)

Valentine Pontifex noted on Infidels that the Discovery Institute is being very selective about what trial transcripts they’re posting. They seem to have the cross-examination of Robert Pennock and Kenneth Miller available, but none of the transcripts of their direct testimony. Wonder why that is? Why would the Discovery Institute, a self-proclaimed “non-partisan public policy think tank”, publish just one side of the expert testimony for the plaintiffs? Hmmmmmmm. I can’t imagine. You reckon someone should ask Bill Gates, since he reportedly supplies a good-sized chunk of the DI President’s salary?

RBH


Quote

Comment #52341

Posted by Big Talk Theory on October 15, 2005 11:36 AM (e) (s)

I seem to be reading the same old “evolution vs creation” commentary that goes on everywhere.

Why are these two topics always set against each other? The “XOR” proposition leads to endless sophistry. Perhaps an “AND” proposal would be the more sophic razor.

Creation is a biogenesis, seeking to explain the origin of life.
Evolution is science, seeking to explain the phenomena of life.

Like the Big Bang, Evolution does not and cannot explain the cause of the phenomena. Both acknowledge (and prove) the limits of scientific thinking.

The Big Talk theory of the Origin of Life parallels the Big Bang Theory, but seeks to integrate the origin with the phenomena. The biogenesis and the science.

Please see

http://www.geocities.com/bigtalktheory

for details.


Quote

Comment #52343

Posted by jeffw on October 15, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)

   big talk theory wrote:

   There are no examples of FSC giving rise to sequences of higher complexity (FSC).

Sounds like dembski’s conservation of information garbage and all that big front loader crap. Life is an example of complexity giving rise to greater complexity. And it’s not too hard to write a computer program that does the same.


Quote

Comment #52344

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 15, 2005 12:44 PM (e) (s)

   Please see

   http://www.geocities.com/bigtalktheory

   for details.

It certainly is all “big talk”. (shrug)


Quote

Comment #52345

Posted by Steve S on October 15, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)

Big Tard Theory is more like it.


Quote

Comment #52349

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on October 15, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

   2005/10/12: … The trial took two days off and resumes today…

And nothing worth reporting happened since it resumed?


Quote

Comment #52358

Posted by Andy on October 16, 2005 02:28 AM (e) (s)

Check http://aclupa.blogspot.com/ , they’ve got a good summary of Kevin Padian testifying.


Quote

Comment #52361

Posted by Ed Darrell on October 16, 2005 07:26 AM (e) (s)

   You reckon someone should ask Bill Gates, since he reportedly supplies a good-sized chunk of the DI President’s salary?

Why not first write to the president of Discovery Institute? They have a reputation to establish on other issues. Accurate information is part of their stock in trade. He can probably change it today, with a phone call. Drop him a line.


Quote

Comment #52365

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 16, 2005 09:55 AM (e) (s)

A correction to RBH’s comment 52329.

Yes, the DI is being very selective in what it puts up: Ken Miller cross with no direct testimony. And most witnesses are not none at all. However as for Robert Pennock, they have both the direct testimony and the cross (as well as redirect and recross).

The DI Pennock transcript appears to be the complete Day 3, AM session that is one of the transcripts not yet up on the sites of the good guys.

This transcript, like Day 6 AM, is another which Armstrong was the court reporter for. That means the PDF looks beautiful, but the file is large and one can’t copy and paste usable text from it.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:57   

Quote

Comment #52403

Posted by moakley on October 17, 2005 11:29 AM (e) (s)

Higher FSC, ad infinitum…


Quote

Comment #52472

Posted by John on October 18, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

Slate has a weeklong series of dispatches from the trial.


Quote

Comment #52563

Posted by Jit Gill on October 18, 2005 11:09 PM (e) (s)

Evolution vs Intelligent Design : Explaining The scientific method of Theory.

With the Dover PA lawsuit, and many other states trying to include references of ID into the science class room, I find myself debating this issue a lot. Since 64 percent of Americans believe that ID should be taught alongside Evolution in the science classroom as a valid scientific Theory, I find myself in the minority (this is 2005 right?) believing that ID should not go anywhere near the science classroom, but instead taught in Theology or Social studies.

Aside from the DNA record, Fossil record, “Irreducible Complexity”, young earth/old earth debates, I think the number one point of confusion with the lay person is the Term “Scientific Theory”. Most people just don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “Theory” in the scientific community. It does not mean a guess. It is back upped by lot’s of evidence and data. So in my debates with friends and family members I have come up with a way to really explain this process in a simple and I hope, understandable way.

I call it my Jack and Jill Concept.

Jack and Jill are married. One day Jack thinks Jill might be cheating on him, he has no proof, he just has this feeling. I would call this a concept or the beginning of a hypothesis. So acting on his feelings, he starts asking around. Jane tells him she has seen Jill at lunch with another man once or twice at a local Italian restaurant. So now Jack’s concept is turning into a good Hypothesis. But having lunch with someone is no proof of an affair.

Jack gives a waiter at the restaurant a 50 dollar bill and shows the picture of Jill. The waiter says “Ya I have seen her here a few times having lunch with Ken. I think he works for CO.Inc, at least that’s what it says on his ID badge”. After some more investigating, he finds out that CO.inc has offices in the same building that Jill works at. So armed with conjecture and speculation he starts to form a Theory, it’s still a hypothesis, because again having lunch is no proof of an affair. But it’s a good model for building a Theory of the Ken and Jill affair.

After looking thru Jill’s purse one day he finds a matchbook from a local motel. Giving the motel clerk a $100 gets him a look at the guest book. In the book he finds that Ken had a room at the motel, and after showing the picture of Jill, the clerk says he has seen her at the motel”. So now he is convinced that Jill is having an Affair. He has all the proof he needs. Based on investigation, logic, assumptions and hard evidence (Jill had the match book in her purse) . But all this is still only a Theory. To almost anyone else, this would not be a theory, we have proof that Jill shared a room with Ken at the motel. We would say she is in “fact” having an affair, and we would most likely be right. Logic and human reasoning tells us this.

But it’s still a Theory, because the definition of an affair in this case is sexual intercourse or some sexual act. Unless Jack burst into the room and caught Jill and Ken in the act, the affair is still just a Theory. They could have been just talking for all we know, unlikely but still a possibility. So it will always remain a Theory unless Jack catches them in the act.

I know this is overly simplified, but it’s the best I could do to explain the Scientific Process, and why the Theory of Evolution is not JUST a Theory, but a Scientific Theory based on facts, data, investigations, assumptions, and observations. It’s not to be dismissed easily with the premise or concept of Intelligent Design. That is based on faith.

Any comments?

Jit Gill

Shadowram

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blo…

Shadowram@cox.net

http://www.myspace.com/shadowram


Quote

Comment #52564

Posted by Steve S on October 18, 2005 11:21 PM (e) (s)

The front page of MSNBC has the misleading title:

Intelligent-design professor fires back


Quote

Comment #52565

Posted by sir_toejam on October 18, 2005 11:23 PM (e) (s)

yeah.

so in your debates with family and frends, how far has your analogy gotten you?

what kind of rebuttals have you been give?


Quote

Comment #52566

Posted by sir_toejam on October 18, 2005 11:26 PM (e) (s)

@ Steve,

that msnbc article has an interesting byline:

   Professor accuses scientific organizations of getting political

ROFLMAO!!! is that the pot calling the kettle black, or what! frickin hilarious.


Quote

Comment #52568

Posted by Steve S on October 18, 2005 11:36 PM (e) (s)

Yeah really. Every scientific organization in the world is just being political. Those jerks.


Quote

Comment #52569

Posted by sir_toejam on October 18, 2005 11:51 PM (e) (s)

it’s standard practice from the ID political spin department: accuse the other side of exactly what you are doing. it deflects the public eye on your own activities.

what saddens me is how readily the average american buys into this tactic over and over again.

they see behe writing that shit, and then parrot the headline themselves, and call the scientists “politicos” when nothing could be farther from the truth.

the truth is dead, steve. what comes after that?


Quote

Comment #52603

Posted by Mitchell D. Hirsch on October 19, 2005 09:56 AM (e) (s)

I believe Michael Behe is simply wrong when he says the Big Bang theory was not accepted for 30 years. Before World War II the tendency within both the scientific community and the general public was to assume that the Universe did, in some sense, have a beginning. It was the great accomplishment of Bondi, Gold, Hoyle, and others to point out that this was just that - an assumption, with little or no supporting evidence. Their proposed alternative - the “Steady State” theory - proved attractive to, at least, many scientists because it had very few adjustible parameters and was testable by astronomical observations, such as galaxy density as a function of distance.

Both views of the origin of the Universe prevailed and were debated throughout the 50’s and 60’s while numerous observations were carried out. Some, such as galaxy counts were deliberate; others, such as the microwave background, were partially serendipitous. Gradually a consistent, coherent picture emerged - the observations were inconsistent with the steady-state theory and quantitatively supported something resembling an abrupt origin.
The key word here is gradually - as the observational evidence accumulated, the consensus shifted away from the steady state picture toward the abrupt origin picture - the so-called “big bang.” This is how good science is done.

ID is not science. It is faith based, and does not belong in science classes, except perhaps to show that it is not science. Behe’s “observations” and ideas of “irreducible complexity” don’t come anywhere close to the rigorous observations, predictive power, and methods of astrophysics research. At the very least I would ask him this: when, exactly, did the “designer” intervene, and why then and not at other times?


Quote

Comment #52609

Posted by FitzRoy on October 19, 2005 10:55 AM (e) (s)

   “Doesn’t it sound like he knows what he’s talking about?” said the Rev. Ed Rowand, a board member and church pastor.

   and

   Behe “acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design.”

Lots of us can’t wait for a transcript of Behe’s cross-examination. In the meantime, the above excerpts were taken directly from reporting on the New York Times website: http://tinyurl.com/78hs5


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:01   

Quote

Comment #52622

Posted by Flash Gordon on October 19, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

   Jit Gill wrote:

   Jack and Jill are married. One day Jack thinks Jill might be cheating on him, he has no proof, he just has this feeling.

This sounds like a Blink moment.

For this to fit the scientific method for arriving at a theory shouldn’t there first be some observations, collection of data, recognition of patterns, symmetries, etc. before Jack “has this feeling” that an affair may be afoot?

Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps some scientific theories do start out as Blink moments. I am certain that the discovery of extra-marital affairs sometimes do.


Quote

Comment #52623

Posted by Steve S on October 19, 2005 12:50 PM (e) (s)



Quote

   Comment #52569

   Posted by sir_toejam on October 18, 2005 11:51 PM (e) (s)

   the truth is dead, steve. what comes after that?

I don’t think the truth is any less alive than it’s ever been. Some religious people will always say science is wrong. Behe does a good job of snowing people. If you want to get really worked up, I can introduce you to people who think that Answers in Genesis is a valuable scientific resource.

Anyway, Sir Lousyname, how do you explain PYGMIES AND DWARVES??!?!?!?!


Quote

Comment #52624

Posted by Jit Gill on October 19, 2005 12:53 PM (e) (s)

“This sounds like a Blink moment.”

You may be right, maybe Jack thought she was acting different, but that was not the point. So I proved I am not a great writer…lol, I was only trying for a simple way for people to understand what a Scientific Theory is. :),

I’m sure there are better ways of explaining it, this is what I thought up, and it does seem to be working in the debates I have. At least when the topic “But Evolution is ONLY a Theory” comes up. It may not change their views, but it does give people an little bit ofunderstanding about the weight of a Scientific Theory.
Jit


Quote

Comment #52625

Posted by Mike Plavcan on October 19, 2005 01:03 PM (e) (s)

It really doesn’t matter whether the Big Bang was accepted or not intially. Let’s say it wasn’t, for argument’s sake. It certainly caused some debate within the scientific community when first proposed. Some declared it impossible, but others gathered evidence corroborating the hypothesis. Support built over time, and eventually it became widely established after vigorous debate. At first, text books would probably ignore the hypothesis (depending on the intensity of serious debate that it generated among scientists). At the point that it became widely debated as a serious issue, it might get a sidebar as an alternative hypothesis worthy of consideration. When generally accepted, it took the place in the texts as accepted theory.

I hope that the prosecution in cross-examination has the sense to point out that Behe’s statement belies the whole ID agenda. At no point was it necessary to legislate for or against teaching the Big Bang. Science has an amazing ability to absorb and embrace the seemingly nonsensical and counter-intuitive — if there is evidence to back it up. Tellingly, legislatures are trying to cram ID down the throats of kids in spite of the unanimous scientific opinion that it is not science, and there is no evidence for it. IF ID really is good science, then like everybody else they can wait their turn for a crack at the kids when they actually come up with something tangible to support the “model.”


Quote

Comment #52630

Posted by Steve Case on October 19, 2005 01:19 PM (e) (s)

Let me see if I understand this line of reasoning; “Rothschild asked Behe about the scientific community, which has largely denounced the idea of ID as science. The National Academy of Sciences, for instance, regards ID and its supernatural ideas as inaccurate and unfounded. Even the Lehigh University Biological Sciences faculty, where Behe is a professor, has stated that ID has “no basis in science.

Behe argued that scientists and scientific organizations misunderstand intelligent design. Not only is ID science, Behe claimed, it is also an appropriate scientific theory to introduce to students.”

So the leading scientific minds in the country misunderstand ID but your average 15 year old in general biology is going to figure it out?


Quote

Comment #52634

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 19, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

   So the leading scientific minds in the country misunderstand ID but your average 15 year old in general biology is going to figure it out?

Hey, why not? I’m sure it’s not more complicated than, say, astrology.


Quote

Comment #52647

Posted by Flint on October 19, 2005 02:00 PM (e) (s)

   Hey, why not? I’m sure it’s not more complicated than, say, astrology.

There’s probably a strong positive correlation between the pedigree of a superstition and the amount of sheer detail in the specification. Astrology has been around for centuries, and by now consists of vast clouds of smoke and whole arcades full of mirrors. In rejecting the countless different interpretations of selected parts of one particular scripture, ID is reduced to little more than “the designer did it.” Both Dembski’s misapplied math and Behe’s bogus biology are beyond the layman anyway.

I hope the judge is enjoying himself. I know I would be.


Quote

Comment #52727

Posted by the pro from dover on October 19, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

Will someone please explain Michael Behe to me. I understand Philip Johnson. Jesus didn’t tell him to give away all his posessions to the poor and follow him, rather Jesus told him to destroy Darwin and if in the process he makes big bucks, well that was designed. But Behe as an educator of our youth at what I know is a major university (I went to Temple so I know Lehigh’s reputation) absolutely befuddles me. What do his students think he’s saying to them? “It’s all a lie, throw away your microscopes, telescopes and test tubes and put on robes and become priests!” ???? How can he in “good faith” teach science to his students when he himself does not believe in the scientific method? Am I missing something? In an article in the Denver Post yesterday it said that Behe had come to the conclusion of Intelligent Design from religious and philosophical considerations and that the designer was God. Is that statement really true? Inquiring minds wish to know. TPFD


Quote

Comment #52745

Posted by Jit Gill on October 19, 2005 07:40 PM (e) (s)

I never thought I would say this, but my hat is off to The Christian Science Monitor for their resent article. Link below.. They said :

“That doubt is common to many Americans, 80 percent of whom believe in God and 42 percent of whom, according to a July Pew poll, believe in the creationist idea that “living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”
But the Dover school board’s argument that intelligent design is science, not religion, is found wanting. The statement for students seems to fault evolution for being a “theory.” Yet a theory involves considerable evidence toward an accepted principle. As an explanation for biological life, evolution is gathering ever more evidence. Intelligent design is still a hypothesis, and vulnerable by its lack of evidence”.

I am very impressed with this article, it’s a must read, and I would hope more Christians will read it.
Shadowram
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1020/p08s02-comv.h…


Quote

Comment #52747

Posted by Steve S on October 19, 2005 07:52 PM (e) (s)

CSM has published some very good feature articles in the past.

btw, I wonder what’s the most accurate estimate of atheist/agnostic Americans. I’ve seen a lot of variation in that number.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:04   

Quote

Comment #52757

Posted by sri_toejam on October 19, 2005 08:34 PM (e) (s)

if you trust gallup poll data, you could check their site.

take all poll data with a grain of salt, tho.


Quote

Comment #52788

Posted by Dave Cerutti on October 19, 2005 10:41 PM (e) (s)

Anyone here have a rough idea of when the trial is going to conclude?

It’s just a matter of the judge’s opinion, right? No jury in this case?


Quote

Comment #52806

Posted by Fred on October 20, 2005 01:54 AM (e) (s)

Fred has shown you evolutionists to be the true fundamentalists!

http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionPhilade…


Quote

Comment #52808

Posted by darwinfinch on October 20, 2005 02:32 AM (e) (s)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'


Quote

Comment #52811

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 03:33 AM (e) (s)

Fred:

ask yourself this question:

“Why, oh why, are the curricula racial makeup of the schools the business of the courts?”

ask yourself why we educate our kids to begin with, eh? why do we teach them math and english?

do you know why we teach them science to begin with?

get a clue. if you want to enjoy your freedoms and quality of life, there are certain educational standards that must be met if we want to maintain those things. er, that is of course unless you plan on enslaving the rest of the world instead of outcompeting it.

teaching our kids that religion is science does a disservice to us all. if the courts WEREN’T involved, all school districts might devolve into segregated morasses of incongruous mixtures of various schools of “thought”, most of which have no bearing on actually doing science in a productive and meaningful way. end result: real science would eventually drop by the wayside, we get outcompeted by those who understand what science really is and how it gets done, and our quality of life goes down.

er, that’s why we have state and federal standards for education to begin with. You do understand the educational system, yes? why do you think the feds are so hot to trot on INCREASING the amount of standardized testing done?

In fantasy land, we all get to do whatever we want, and express ourselves however we want, in the real world, there are consequences to that, and a real consequence of teaching bad science is that our quality of life will decrease. just think about it.


Quote

Comment #52836

Posted by bcpmoon on October 20, 2005 09:00 AM (e) (s)

This has left me speechless:

   Rothschild asked if it was true that the intelligent designer might not actually exist any longer. Behe agreed that was true. Rothschild paused.
   “Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?” he asked.
   As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, “Yes, I think that’s a terrific thing to point out.”

I wonder what the followers of ID will say to that statement by Behe. Well, since ID is completely non-religious, perhaps they agree.


Quote

Comment #52837

Posted by Koly on October 20, 2005 09:18 AM (e) (s)

Behe completely misrepresents the nature and history of the Big Bang theory. First of all, Big Bang is not an unclear speculation that the universe had a beginning. It is a mathematically rigorous set of cosmological models based on General theory of relativity. As was, at least partly, Steady State.

Very soon after Einstein published GTR it was apparent, that it does not predict a static universe, or better said, only under very obscure conditions. (Just to be clear, static universe is NOT Steady State). No observation supported this at that time. However, in 1929 Hubble published his findings about the receding of distant galaxies and it was immediately interpreted as an expansion of the universe. The model, later called ‘Big Bang’, was widely accepted.

A cosmological model named ‘Steady State’ was proposed in 1948, I think. It went outside of the boundaries of GTR, as it required generation of new matter, for which no mechanism was offered. I don’t think Steady State could be called ‘widely accepted’ at any point in time, but it was a competing theory until the microwave background radiation was discovered in 1964.

I don’t know where does Behe get his 30 years. And of course, Big Bang has nothing to do with any kind of creationism. The singularity is an unanswered problem, but that can be solved only outside of GTR, as singularities are its general property occurring under fairly plausible conditions. In present view, Quantum theory of gravity is required to explain what was going on very close to the singularity, where GTR fails.

And of course, GTR and all cosmological models were developed by scientists, published in scientific journals and predictions were thoroughly compared with observations. Completely unlike ID.


Quote

Comment #52838

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 20, 2005 09:24 AM (e) (s)

   Dave Cerutti wrote:

   Anyone here have a rough idea of when the trial is going to conclude?

   It’s just a matter of the judge’s opinion, right? No jury in this case?

A legal “opinion” is to the common use of the word as a scientific “theory” is to the common use of that word. I can’t find a source right now, but I recall reading that the judge’s decision should be announced ~ December 2005.


Quote

Comment #52839

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 20, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

   Will someone please explain Michael Behe to me.

The problem is, you’re expecting that his position makes sense. It seems clear that he has decided he is right, and if he has to ignore data, redefine words, make demands of his opponents that he cannot meet himself to preserve that notion that he is right, he will do so. Whether he is not sane, or wishes to continue to receive adulation from the true believers and royalties for his book, I don’t know.

   In an article in the Denver Post yesterday it said that Behe had come to the conclusion of Intelligent Design from religious and philosophical considerations and that the designer was God. Is that statement really true? Inquiring minds wish to know. TPFD

Behe’s official public position, reiterated in his testimony at Dover, is that his belief in Intelligent Design Creationism is science, and his belief that the designer is the Christian God is based on nonscientific considerations. He has published statements to the effect that it is much easier to accept Intelligent Design Creationism if you believe in God. Rothschild brought this statement up during cross-examination and that’s probably what the Post was referring to.


Quote

Comment #52864

Posted by improvius on October 20, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

Will someone please explain Michael Behe to me.

I’m leaning towards “con artist” right now. I think he’s making good money with sales of his book and whatever speaking fees he gets. Plus, I’m sure, there are private contributors to his “research”. And I’ll bet he’s getting a little cut from Panda sales as well.

No reasonably educated person could possibly believe all of the stuff he’s saying. Frankly, he seems too smart to fall for his own BS. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that he’s in it for the money.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:09   

Quote

Comment #52890

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 20, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)

OH BOY! New transcripts are up on the ACLU site.


Quote

Comment #52893

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

   Will someone please explain Michael Behe to me.

Religion. Next.


Quote

Comment #52900

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)

hmm. i don’t buy it. what’s more likely, that somebody with an educational background like Behe’s completely implodes as a slave to his “religious beliefs”, or that he is just playing the audience in order to increase sales of his psuedo-religio-science books and increase his popularity with the ignorati.

no… i say follow the money; it’s always likely to lead you to the truth.

take Dembski as another case in point. he has MANY times contradicted himself private/public and dropped BIG hints that he doesn’t actually cling to half the crap he spouts; his history SCREAMS that he just does this for the money, and the only future he can see for himself.

most of us would like to think we wouldn’t sell out our principles for cash, but if we made a few mistakes, and our careers went in the toilet… who could honestly say they would live on the streets before selling out their principles for a comfortable living?

The ignorati seems to have plenty of money to bribe those who would side with them.

what else is new?


Quote

Comment #52901

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 03:49 PM (e) (s)

lol. i just realized that the 3 words i put in caps kinda reflect my feelings about the while ID movement…


Quote

Comment #52903

Posted by RBH on October 20, 2005 03:57 PM (e) (s)

Some of Behe’s cross-examination. (176 page PDF.

RBH


Quote

Comment #52904

Posted by JohnK on October 20, 2005 04:03 PM (e) (s)

Story & short amazing interview w/ defendants’ and Thomas More Law Center lawyer Richard Thompson:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/20/dov… (must watch brief ad)


Quote

Comment #52906

Posted by Flint on October 20, 2005 04:10 PM (e) (s)

RBH:

No need to post this, I’m sure we can all find it at the DI site. Or maybe on Dembski’s blog? Or at ARN?


Quote

Comment #52911

Posted by Lar W on October 20, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

The latest Behe statement is truly bizarre. While he feels ID should be taught along side evolution, and eventhough he has said clearly that he belives this designer to be God, he thinks that it would be a “terrific thing to point out” that it’s possible for this designer to no longer exist. No doubt his handlers at the DI are nervously scratching their seats over this one.


Quote

Comment #52914

Posted by K.E. on October 20, 2005 04:32 PM (e) (s)

I wish I could agree RBH but I can intuitivey discern that whatever is put there is Intelligently Designed so I don’t need to go there ;)
I wouldn’t have read that otherwise

And it is just incredible…. “relativist stance on science” isn’t that non ID code for PRIDE.
But hey he’s a lawyer so ly’n cheat’n is OK but PRIDE tch tch.


Quote

Comment #52920

Posted by Flint on October 20, 2005 04:46 PM (e) (s)

LENNY! Get your butt over here! Behe, clearly and specifically, answers a question you have placed directly to every creationist to show up around here. Just for Lenny, then, here is Behe FINALLY answering the most pressing question of all:
(R: is Rothschild, B: is Behe)
————————————————————————————————————————-

   R: Now, can we go back to page 11 of the report and highlight again the underscored text. So this is back to the claim that you say intelligent design makes, “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.

   B: Well, the word “mechanism” can be used in many ways. In this I was — and when I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved in its origin. Much like if I might refer back to the Big Bang theory, the Big Bang theory proposes no mechanism for how the universe arose, but nonetheless it infers that, whatever the mechanism, it came by some sort of explosive process. So there are many other questions that these theories leave unaddressed, but they do posit some aspect of the cause which is very useful to have and which is supported by the data.

   R: So intelligent design is about cause?

   B: I m sorry, could you say that again?

   R: I just want to get it clear here, intelligent design is about cause?

   B: Well, cause is a broad word, and when you’re trying to explain how something came about, you can say it came about for a variety of reasons. But intelligent design is one reason or one aspect or one cause to explain how the purposeful arrangement of parts that we see did come about.

   R: Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

   B: And I wonder, could — am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?

   R: I don’t think I got a reply, so I m asking you, you’ve made this claim here, “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” And I want to know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?

   B: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

   R: But it does not propose an actual mechanism?

   B: Again, the word “mechanism” — the word “mechanism” can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the history of the structure.

   R: So when you wrote in your report that “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism,” you actually meant to say intelligent design says nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.

   B: No, I certainly didn’t mean to say that. I meant to say what I said in response to that last question, that while we don’t know a step-by-step description of how something arose, nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved in the process. And let me go back one more time to the Big Bang theory. Again, we don’t have a mechanism for the Big Bang, but we can infer some important events about what happened, and that was that it happened in some explosive manner, it happened a distinct time ago and so on. So additionally, I might say, that it also focuses on other proposed mechanisms that purport to explain the purposeful arrangement of parts. And so I think it is quite accurate to say that that s exactly where intelligent design focuses.

   R: So it actually — it focuses on other proposed mechanisms, by that you mean natural selection, don’t you?

   B: No, just a natural selection, complexity theory and so on. But certainly the most widely accepted, and then the one that you would have to convince most people — or explain to most people is not well supported is the one which is the currently accepted explanation of natural selection.

   R: Okay. And so in terms of mechanism, it’s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution’s mechanism and not a positive description of the mechanism?

   B: No, I disagree. I say that while, again, while it does not give you a step-by-step description of how such things occurred, it does tell you something very important about the cause or the way in which these structures arose, and that was through the actions of an intelligent cause.

   R: So, Professor Behe, why don t we go to your deposition and see how you answered the questions then, okay?

   B: Okay.

   R: Could you look at page 179 of your deposition.

   B: Yes.

   R: I asked you, “What is the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose according to intelligent design theory?”

   B: Yes.

   R: And you answered, “Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures.”

   B: Yes. And that language, I think, is completely consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does not tell you step by step how something was proposed — or how something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very very important about the origin of the structure, and that is that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.

   R: And then further down the page at line 24 I asked you, “In terms of the mechanism, it’s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution’s mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism.” And what did you answer, Professor Behe?

   B: I said “that s correct.” But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said. Again, it does not propose a step-by-step description, but it —but it proposes or it accounts for some very important features of what was involved in its origin, and that is intelligent activity.

And there we have it! Intelligent design focuses exclusively on a mechanism that it doesn’t propose! It’s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution, except it’s not that at all! I just wish I could see the judge’s face during all this.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:15   

Quote

Comment #52924

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

lol. Behe essentially defines “wishfull thinking”

eos


Quote

Comment #52927

Posted by bystander on October 20, 2005 05:29 PM (e) (s)

I know I am going to be flamed but I think we have to be careful in this debate. It is true that Behe and Dembinski are creationists and try to make out that ID is God-Free.

Scientists talk about their beliefs and non-beliefs and this is okay as long as they talk about it as a personal belief and separate from their science. So their argument is that if IDiots do the same thing what is the big fig? I note that Dembinski in his website talks about following ID where ever it leads.

This could convince the Judge that ID in its current form is not bringing religion into the classroom, although it is a obvious offshoot of religion.

Remember the Judge is a lawyer not a scientist and though, Miller etc have pretty well demolished the ID’s current “scientific” findings. He might still decide that ID is a valid scientific endeavor.

Fight the “pseudo”-science but I think it is dangerous to portray these guys as con-artists and morons. They seem to be intelligent people and I believe sincere about their basic belief in ID if not quite honest in the details presented so far.

bystander

PS. labeling Astrology as a science with ID is an insult to the science of Astrology. It produces falsifiable predictions, in fact, every day my newspaper produces falsifiable predictions for this science (and every following day they get falsified).


Quote

Comment #52933

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 05:45 PM (e) (s)

   I note that Dembinski in his website talks about following ID where ever it leads

obviously, since that’s his mealticket.

IMO, he no more believes most of that crap than I do.

   He might still decide that ID is a valid scientific endeavor.

I’ll lay odds against that, and even give you the advantage.

money in the bank.


Quote

Comment #52934

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2005 05:55 PM (e) (s)

   Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures.

FINALLY, here I get an answer to my simple question “what is the scientific theory of ID … .

The answer: “There isn’t one”.

Wow. What a shocker.

I did notice, though, that Behe denied Jesus three times, before the cock crowed twice.

I wodner what all his fundie friends think about that.


Quote

Comment #52938

Posted by James Taylor on October 20, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

   bystander wrote:

   Scientists talk about their beliefs and non-beliefs and this is okay as long as they talk about it as a personal belief and separate from their science. So their argument is that if IDiots do the same thing what is the big fig? I note that Dembinski in his website talks about following ID where ever it leads.

   _…

   Fight the “pseudo”-science but I think it is dangerous to portray these guys as con-artists and morons. They seem to be intelligent people and I believe sincere about their basic belief in ID if not quite honest in the details presented so far.

These guys are idealists and do not believe in your Constitutional Rights. They want to make a societal change that begins by undermining reason. They don’t actually participate in science like their hard-working, dedicated counterparts do. They imagine then write books about mousetraps and probabilities. They have no scientific credibility and have only political motives. They are charlatans at best and dangerous at worse. Idealists tend to get a whole lot of people repressed and butchered.


Quote

Comment #52939

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)

look, Lenny, the ignorati that support the ID movement I’m sure will rationalize anything Behe says as just being twists that are the natural outcome of the supression of freedom the current “liberal” courts impose on us all.

How close to that exact wording do you think the public statements will be by the DI after the trial?

it’s obvious that they will be continuing to focus on influencing the courts and the law itself; change the rules of the game to fit their perspective.

the worse they lose here, the better as far as their strategy is concerned. all they need to is continue to paint themselves as victims.

eos

there is little point in detailing the lack of content behind ID at this point, the ignorati don’t care and the rest already know. I think there is only value at this point in detailing the current strategy of the movement and in continually asking whether most in the US would really abandon our constitution in favor of a legal theocracy or not.

public opinion is mostly against modifying the constitution to negate gay rights, and against congress interfering in private life (the immense negative reaction to congess’ involvement in the Terry Schiavo case surprised me in that way) so there is fertile ground for us to appeal to folks worried that the ignorati want to change the constitution through the courts.

that’s where the battle lies now, the rest is all distraction, don’t you think?


Quote

Comment #52941

Posted by bystander on October 20, 2005 06:10 PM (e) (s)

Actually Post #52920 was posted while I was writing the above. If Behe keeps shooting himself in the foot like that my scenario wont happen.

Dembinski’s quote means that if ID goes counter to his religion that he will still follow it. Probably thinks this is a safe bet as to him the Bible is literal truth. But yeah you are right he has nowhere else to go.

I still think that the guys are at some level sincere. Could come from my experience in working in large companies for over 20 years and seeing people hold opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The mind can perform wonderful mental tricks to give itself that it is correct. Or could just be that I am an atheist which makes me naive as we don’t have reasons to lie.

Wont take the bet, just wanted to put the point that it is a judge not a scientist making the decision.


Quote

Comment #52943

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 06:13 PM (e) (s)

I agree with that and recall that a pope in I think it was the fifties suggested that there is no right to freedom of religion.


Quote

Comment #52953

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

w/r/t the salon article, which says,

   He is arguing that no theory should be judged by its historical roots, even if they are religious, or even if they are creationist. Modern chemistry emerged from alchemy, after all, and that doesn’t make it bogus. Astronomy emerged from astrology, and we don’t hold that against it. Nor should a theory be judged by the personal ideologies of those who hold it; plenty of Darwinists are atheists, but that doesn’t disqualify evolutionary biology as an ideology, he says.

I am not a lawyer, but here goes: I think this is right, and moreover that there’s no clear demarcation between science and pseudoscience. I would agree that IC, or CSI, on their own, are scientific hypotheses. They’re wrong, useless, and only believed by idiots and zealots, but I don’t think those things are necessarily religious. However, it would have the practical effect of promoting religion, and harming the public understanding of science, so I support the legal attack on it.


Quote

Comment #52954

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 06:45 PM (e) (s)

“There are two Americas today, one that’s still very religiously based, and another that has no foundation, where everything is relative, where everything goes.”

That might be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard*.
____
* excluding anything ever said by Kent Hovind, who is the Michael Jordan of Stupid.


Quote

Comment #52963

Posted by Koly on October 20, 2005 07:36 PM (e) (s)

I am sick of Behe repeating his stupid Bing Bang analogy in his testimony over and over and over and over again, like

   Behe wrote:

   And let me go back one more time to the Big Bang theory. Again, we don’t have a mechanism for the Big Bang, but we can infer some important events about what happened, and that was that it happened in some explosive manner, it happened a distinct time ago and so on

The universe is a solution of Einstein’s equations in GTR. As GTR does not have any initial parameters, NO mechanism is needed for Big Bang! It’s perfectly self-consistent as it is. Yes, there is the question whether the singularity is real or what, but that could be answered only when Quantum theory of gravity is completed. However, that has nothing to do with a “mechanism” or a “cause”. Not to say there are many String theory inspired models where Big Bang is only a local phenomenon.

And comparing Big Bang to an explosion is almost as stupid as, well, comparing biological systems to the Sphinx…


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:20   

Quote

Comment #52967

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

   it’s obvious that they will be continuing to focus on influencing the courts and the law itself; change the rules of the game to fit their perspective.

This assumes that either the Supreme COurt or the Republican PArty actually want to help the IDers.

Neither has given any such indication. And given past history, I think the IDers haven’t got a prayer.


Quote

Comment #52968

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2005 08:24 PM (e) (s)

   there is little point in detailing the lack of content behind ID at this point, the ignorati don’t care and the rest already know. I think there is only value at this point in detailing the current strategy of the movement and in continually asking whether most in the US would really abandon our constitution in favor of a legal theocracy or not.

   public opinion is mostly against modifying the constitution to negate gay rights, and against congress interfering in private life (the immense negative reaction to congess’ involvement in the Terry Schiavo case surprised me in that way) so there is fertile ground for us to appeal to folks worried that the ignorati want to change the constitution through the courts.

   that’s where the battle lies now, the rest is all distraction, don’t you think?

Dude, you’re preaching to the choir. ;> I’ve been saying for TWENTY YEARS now that creationism/ID is just a “wedge” for theocracy.

And, as you point out, people in the US don’t want theocracy. More importantly, neither does the Republicrat Party, the Democan Party, or, even MORE importantly, the corporados who really run things.

That is why the fundies, despite thirty years of ranting and raving, haven’t accomplished diddley doo (other than some cosmetic thingies that get the fundraisers all excited).

I think the fundie movement is long past the peak of its political power.


Quote

Comment #52972

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 08:32 PM (e) (s)

Then why is GW trying to ram Meiers into the supreme court?


Quote

Comment #52975

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 20, 2005 08:44 PM (e) (s)

   And given past history, I think the IDers haven’t got a prayer.

That’s why I gave them one.


Quote

Comment #52976

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 08:46 PM (e) (s)

I’m not sure Miers is a fundie.


Quote

Comment #52977

Posted by bystander on October 20, 2005 08:51 PM (e) (s)

I think that this case may prove the point. It has been an open secret that the Christian Right has helped GW and the Republicans into government. But the uproar even from the Republicans when GW actual came out and said trust her she’s a “Christian” shows that maybe the fundies don’t run the show after all.


Quote

Comment #52979

Posted by Steve S on October 20, 2005 08:56 PM (e) (s)

   I think the IDers haven’t got a prayer.

Yeah, well, joke’ll be on you when the ID Experimentalists zoom in on a flagellum and read

   © 4004 B.C.
   GodCo Inc ™
   All Rights Reserved



Quote

Comment #52980

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2005 09:01 PM (e) (s)

   Then why is GW trying to ram Meiers into the supreme court?

So he can do what conservatives have ALWAYS wanted to do —- make the rich richer, and give the US worldwide military and economic hegemony.

GW wants to undo everything from the New Deal forward. He doesn’t need a theocracy to do that. And that IS something the corporados will support. Enthusiatically.


Quote

Comment #52982

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 09:10 PM (e) (s)

Fight the “pseudo”-science but I think it is dangerous to portray these guys as con-artists and morons.

It’s con-artists and/or morons. Big difference.

They seem to be intelligent people

By what criteria? The ability to form complete sentences? Because they were eyeglasses?

and I believe sincere about their basic belief in ID if not quite honest in the details presented so far.

People who inevitably contradict themselves and play word games and kick up dust each time they are seriously questioned about the logic of their claims are not “sincere” in my humble opinion.

Far from it.


Quote

Comment #52989

Posted by Registered User on October 20, 2005 09:13 PM (e) (s)

Or could just be that I am an atheist which makes me naive as we don’t have reasons to lie.

That’s a new one.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:23   

Quote

Comment #52994

Posted by Wayne Francis on October 20, 2005 10:04 PM (e) (s)

Is anyone in the process of scanning Day 8am and Day 9pm session transcripts? They are using embedded fonts agian and it cann’t be copied or exported into an ascii format. If anyone is scanning them like the day 6 am transcript it would be greatly appreciated if it is made available.


Quote

Comment #52995

Posted by Jit Gill on October 20, 2005 10:18 PM (e) (s)

No we should be very afraid of IDers..they have the money, marketing, and the media, and foremost the politicians. Science has nothing to do with this debate. We already know about the science, Behe knows about the Science, if you read the court transcripts you will see he did nothing but back pedal.

No mark my words my friend, this war will not be won in the courts, sure we might win a battle or 2, but in the end it’s who controls the public opinion. Right now with 64% of Americans believing that ID should be taught in the science classroom, true science could lose. The war has to be fought thru education of the common person. Common people have to believe that they do not have to give up their own personal religion, to accept the Scientific Truth.


Quote

Comment #52996

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 10:30 PM (e) (s)

so explain then how we so royally failed to educate the common person that we ended up with 64% of americans supporting the teaching of ID?

btw, could you quote your source for that stat, for the record?


Quote

Comment #52998

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 20, 2005 10:38 PM (e) (s)

   If anyone is scanning them like the day 6 am transcript it would be greatly appreciated if it is made available.

If there are more like that, I’m going to have to see about scripting more of the process. The first one was painful enough. Maybe I should just call Wes, the court reporter, and see if I can turn him on to better tools for PDF production. :-)


Quote

Comment #52999

Posted by Jit Gill on October 20, 2005 10:49 PM (e) (s)

Well I will give you a few articles about the poll results. There are many and most Americans believe that ID should be thought in Science class. How did we fail the common American. Not sure, maybe because we thought we lived in the year 2005 and I for one thought that Evolution was a given, and the best support for the Origin of Species we have right now in the Scientific Community. Who knew that faith could overcome Science, and in turn be the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Read on. Do you not think it odd that the lower you educational level or income is the more likely you are to believe in ID?

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050901_e…

http://www.etaiwannews.com/showPage.php?setupFil…

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-…

If you need more Poll data ..look it up

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53004

Posted by sir_toejam on October 20, 2005 11:19 PM (e) (s)

right… so tell me again how education is gonna fix this? really, i’ve been through all angles on this; even attempted to start my own nonprofit to increase the resources available for teachers to teach evolution…

the issue isn’t that simple. you can’t convince a “true believer” that science is just a functional method that works. they will always think god trumps science, regardless of anything their senses tell them otherwise.

you must be lucky enough to have relatives that mostly agree that evolutionary theory has value and is essentially correct.

I come from a family where i can argue and show evidence until blue in the face, and it counts for zip in the end.

We DID spend decades attempting to teach our kids evolutionary theory in biology class… with the end result that 64% end up rejecting it in favor of their parent’s beliefs.

You do point out one major factor in a lot of this; the level of education in this country is directly related to income levels.

now all we need to do is eliminate poverty…

got any ideas?


Quote

Comment #53005

Posted by Jit Gill on October 20, 2005 11:32 PM (e) (s)

Nope sorry..I can only tell you “what” needs to be fixed…in this case Education; I have no idea “How” to fix it. I am only a lowly computer technician with a 4 year old daughter who one day will be in the 9th grade and I worry whether she will be taught the truth. Well the Scientific truth at the time anyways. See I also believe that science is not static, it will change and maybe one day we might disprove Evolution..maybe..who knows..but for it to be disproved I want it to be within the scientific community and not public opinion, or based on faith.

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53006

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 12:05 AM (e) (s)

well, your best bet is simply to make those around you aware of how science actually works, and how theories are tested and discarded.

simple but effective. if you want to do more than that, contribute time to organizations like NCSE who have devoted themselves to furthering quality education.

keep reading.

volunteer to help at your local school.

oh, and don’t go voting for folks like GW (i’m sure you didn’t).

;)

i really can’t think of anything else that’s been effective in the long term, and you still will run into a great many who simply will NOT listen to you.


Quote

Comment #53012

Posted by Kim on October 21, 2005 02:29 AM (e) (s)

When I came to the US a year ago to work at a university, I was shocked by the ignorance in this country, and that ID is even an discussion. Where I come from, it is not at all. And I think the worst case scenario is that in the future, the US is not counting anymore on Science but that countries in Europe and Asia are the places to be for real science. On the other hand, I am not really afraid of that. Science will go on and even when ID teaching would become mandatory in schools after an constitution amendment, ID will only be adopted of a few rotten apples. As Micheal Ruse (Florida State University) already indicated (love that guy), not knowing things now does not mean we are not going to solve the problem later.

The whole ID case is akin in saying that a murder case is to complex to solve, so the hand of an intelligent murderer (i.e. supernatural murderer) must be in play. But for the solution, it is not necessary to name the IM, because the case itself shows that there is irreducible complexity and is therefore by definition unsolvable. Nice, case closed!


Quote

Comment #53014

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on October 21, 2005 06:03 AM (e) (s)

   (Cross-ex transcript Prof. Behe) wrote:

   A: Well, that´s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I´m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
   Q: I couldn´t be a mind reader either.
   A: I´m sorry?
   Q: I couldn´t be a mind reader either, correct?
   A: Yes, yes, but I m sure it would be useful.
   Q: It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
   THE COURT: You´d have to include me, though.

Hilarious! I didn´t know that court transcripts could be this funny. I´m looking forward to the next clown (of IDC fame) appearing.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:28   

Quote

Comment #53017

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 06:53 AM (e) (s)

   most Americans believe that ID should be thought in Science class.

Most Americans also think that flying saucers, ESP and astrology are real. Most Americans can’t tell you how long it takes the earth to go once around the sun (or even THAT the earth goes around the sun). Most Americans can’t tell you what a “molecule” is. Most Americans think Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks.

Most Americans are pig-ignorant uninformed uninterested dolts.

Think you’re gonna change that by “educating” them? Well, good luck with that. (shrug) As a society, we decided long ago that we simply don’t care about educating our citizens.

So, I guess one could say that, as a society, we are now getting what we deserve.


Quote

Comment #53018

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 07:01 AM (e) (s)

   You do point out one major factor in a lot of this; the level of education in this country is directly related to income levels.

   now all we need to do is eliminate poverty…

   got any ideas?

It also doesn’t help that everyone in the US, from the corporados on down, views “education” simply and solely as “what you need to know to get a job”. People who spend their lives doing the same thing over and over on an assembly line, or entering data at a computer screen, or flipping cheeseburgers, don’t NEED much of an education (and, co-incidentally, don’t GET one).

Our collective attitude seems to be, “why waste money giving people an education that they will never use at their jobs anyway?”

Me, I’ve always thought that college-level education should be free to anyone who wants it.


Quote

Comment #53020

Posted by bystander on October 21, 2005 07:07 AM (e) (s)

   Or could just be that I am an atheist which makes me naive as we don’t have reasons to lie.

   That’s a new one.

Yeah, Well atheists are always portrayed as evil etc… But really I am an atheist because I don’t think the universe needs a god and nobody has a convincing argument for the existence of a god. I don’t however have my reputation staked on being an atheist so if somebody comes up with any real evidence (of the reality of his noodliness) I’ll change my opinion consistent with the evidence

It’s like the big bang theory. When it was confirmed, all of the scientists who supported steady-state didn’t quit, they largely absorbed the new theory and moved on.


Quote

Comment #53022

Posted by Gary Mac on October 21, 2005 07:35 AM (e) (s)

College education should be free, Lenny the Fraud ? Just like your welfare check, right ?

I see you have come out of your drug- induced coma, to share with your in-bred evos, yet again, your infamous projectile-vomiting.

I thought this was the Behe Bashing Board.
It has since diminished itself into another session of mindless, psycho-babble from a collection of moronic fools.
Don’t worry Loony, I know your M.O.
You’ll come back with your standard response, wanting the sci-theory of ID.
I will provide it. You will then run and hide. Just like clockwork.
Oh well, there’s always tomorrow.


Quote

Comment #53023

Posted by Grey Wolf on October 21, 2005 08:25 AM (e) (s)

   Gary Mac wrote:

   You’ll come back with your standard response, wanting the sci-theory of ID.
   I will provide it. You will then run and hide. Just like clockwork

Oh, so you have a scientific theory of ID? Interesting, maybe you should inform Behe and D*mbski, who have admitted there is none. Tell me, what experiment do you suggest to determine whether a biological creature was designed? And while you are at it, when did this happen? Before Cambrian?

See, I think I am going to call your bluff for the lie it is. You have no scientific theory of ID, and what you present - if you dare present it - will be some vague, loosely worded and poorly defined sentence about design, demonstrating you have no idea of what science is.

You know, if you were so sure, you could’ve saved a post and include the theory at the end of the post, instead of waiting for us to have to request it of you.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: ad hominems don’t strengthen your position.


Quote

Comment #53024

Posted by ben on October 21, 2005 08:28 AM (e) (s)

It’s obvious you have so much more to offer, Mac. Pretty hypocritical to bitch about the content of others’ posts by doing nothing but insulting.

Can you provide an example of this so-called psycho-babble? Here, try this definition:

   Psycho-babble is a pejorative term applied to jargon from the field of psychology, intended to imply that the jargon means little of consequence (Wikipedia)

I don’t see anyone discussing psychology, with or without knowledge of the subject.

Can you give us any evidence Lenny is on welfare, or that anyone here is inbred? How about substantiating your prediction that Lenny “runs and hides?” In my experience he responds to points made against him, sometimes to the point of exhaustiveness. You might not like what he says or think he’s predicatble or repetitive, but running and hiding? You claim you will provide the scientific theory of ID as though you’ve done it a million times, but Google says:

   Your search - “pandas thumb” “gary mac” - did not match any documents

If you don’t appreciate the “Behe Bashing,” how about providing some support or defense of his disastrous testimony or convoluted ideas?

Or maybe you’re just a pathetic angry person who reacts to people saying things he disagrees with by spouting vicious invective that has little to do with the matter at hand. Nice ad hominem.


Quote

Comment #53026

Posted by evopeach on October 21, 2005 09:32 AM (e) (s)

Wesley,

I realize your pitiful meaningless existence depends on kissing up to the other sychophant’s in this forum who actually believe what you write, through its probably a case of mass group hypnosis akin to the Jim Jones cult following.

Actually your continuing delusional ego based postings are music to my ears as the public poll nimbers continue to reflect overwhelming support for the principle’s at stake in Dover.

You morons in your socialist mindset forget that we have a representative democracy and sooner rather than later the people get what they demand and in this case the courts will soon be in full support of us.. if not in the instant case.

Are you as big a squirrel as your picture and writings portray?


Quote

Comment #53027

Posted by Pygmy Loris on October 21, 2005 09:36 AM (e) (s)

Everyone is talking about education, and that the corporate powers that be don’t care if ID is taught or about creating a theocracy.

Here’s the thing about that. If we continue to fail in educating the American people, the ignorant, poverty stricken classes will grow. Soon there will no longer be an educated middle class. This is ideal for corporations. Lack of education makes people willing to work for a pitance and as our economy becomes more and more dependent on the service sector (as in McDonalds cooks and the like), no one will need an education to get a job. However, that job will be virtually worthless and provide only enough money to maybe pay rent and bills and buy some food.

The corporations win and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the very few continues unabated.


Quote

Comment #53028

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 21, 2005 09:45 AM (e) (s)

   Everyone is talking about education, and that the corporate powers that be don’t care if ID is taught or about creating a theocracy.

Which corporations? Some corporations require science-educated workers. The biotech industry comes to mind.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:34   

Quote

Comment #53029

Posted by Kim on October 21, 2005 09:58 AM (e) (s)

evopeach wrote: “You morons in your socialist mindset forget that we have a representative democracy”

So, you think Nazi Germany was OK because Hitler was chosen by the majority to be their leader?

Besides that, what the majority BELIEVES does not make it the TRUTH. Fortunately, science is not democratic, but method and argument based leading in general to wide consensus among scientists (and the rest of the civilized world).


Quote

Comment #53030

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on October 21, 2005 09:58 AM (e) (s)

   evopeach wrote:

   Wesley,

   I realize your pitiful meaningless existence depends on kissing up to the other sychophant’s in this forum who actually believe what you write, through its probably a case of mass group hypnosis akin to the Jim Jones cult following.

   Actually your continuing delusional ego based postings are music to my ears as the public poll nimbers continue to reflect overwhelming support for the principle’s at stake in Dover.

   You morons in your socialist mindset forget that we have a representative democracy and sooner rather than later the people get what they demand and in this case the courts will soon be in full support of us.. if not in the instant case.

   Are you as big a squirrel as your picture and writings portray?

“My, what an amusing performance.”


Quote

Comment #53031

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 09:59 AM (e) (s)

Gary just a quick reminder I think you need it.
Behe “The man who thought he saw god”
Swore on a stack of bibles he didn’t see god or any evidence for god on the witness stand in court and the whole world heard it except paranoid people haters.

All that proves is Behe lied to YOU.

But I’ve got a little secret for you, no ones listening, and please don’t tell anyone else…..look into my eyes….. you won’t find him either because your looking in the wrong place.

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.


Quote

Comment #53032

Posted by AR on October 21, 2005 10:02 AM (e) (s)

The “love letter” from that hissing coward “evopeach” (comment 53026) shows that Wesley and Friends have very effectively been hitting the ID crowd. Congratulations, Wesley, good job.


Quote

Comment #53033

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 10:13 AM (e) (s)

Gary just a quick reminder I think you need it.
Behe “The man who thought he saw god”
Swore on a stack of bibles he didn’t see god or any evidence for god on the witness stand in court and the whole world heard it except paranoid people haters.

All that proves is Behe lied to YOU.

Psst … You know when it all comes out I think the Behe will have to say he was tricked by Satan.

But I’ve got a little secret for you, no ones listening, and please don’t tell anyone else…..look into my eyes….. you won’t find him either because your looking in the wrong place - change to a church that doesn’t look for god in a box.

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.

Dickinson.


Quote

Comment #53034

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 10:16 AM (e) (s)

dang
ooops sorry
lenny’s bloody crickets playing on my keyboard


Quote

Comment #53035

Posted by James Taylor on October 21, 2005 10:16 AM (e) (s)

Looks like the creo’s are losing their cool. The trial is starting to take its toll. They aren’t even trying to debate anymore. Now, they just pop onto the board and spew vitrol and hate. Glad to finally see what really lies at the core of creo belief and behavior.


Quote

Comment #53036

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 21, 2005 10:18 AM (e) (s)

   evopeach wrote:

   Are you as big a squirrel as your picture and writings portray?

I’ve wondered why Rusty seems to like me. I guess I’m just a bit too large to eat.


Quote

Comment #53038

Posted by shenda on October 21, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

Kim wrote:

“Besides that, what the majority BELIEVES does not make it the TRUTH”

The fundies know this very well; after all, the majority of Christians do not believe in the same things as the fundies.

What is important to the fundies is that they *know* the Truth and it is their god given mission to force that Truth on everybody else.


Quote

Comment #53042

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

Don’t forget all the free publicity


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:39   

Quote

Comment #53044

Posted by Frank J on October 21, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)

   evopeach wrote:

   …we have a representative democracy and sooner rather than later the people get what they demand…

Which is why in the long run we must reduce the demand for ID pseudoscience, not just the supply, as the Dover trial seeks. Besides, this is not 1987, the year (classic) creationism was banned from public school. Any student can get all the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID tactics and mutually contradictory creationist arguments with a few mouse clicks on a home, school or library computer.

If what I hear about Behe’s testimony is accurate, I think that IDers eventually will do a better job at turning the public off to their nonsense, and classic creationism, than us critics will.


Quote

Comment #53045

Posted by K.E. on October 21, 2005 11:33 AM (e) (s)

Frank I hope your right.

ID seem to think Dover is a minor bump on the road for them.
They don’t seem to acknowledge any set back on their site.
Expect a step up in the barrage of BS to the favorable press,
everywhere there are kids through their “clubs”, cigarette girls at the gates of colleges with glossy handouts and sunday school “kits” plus BS up and down the internet.
Just your typical PR blizzard of BS. What’s in it for the press? The same as the rest of their converts free Mindjobs.


Quote

Comment #53049

Posted by Flint on October 21, 2005 01:29 PM (e) (s)

Another fascinating exchange:

   Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that’s what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?

   A that’s what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.

   Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?

   A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.

   Q So you were reviewing your own work?

   A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.

   Q Which was your own contribution?

   A that’s — yes, that’s correct.

   Q that’s not typically how the term “critical review” is used; would you agree with that?

   A Yeah, that’s correct.

   Q So when the publishers of Pandas indicate that you were a critical reviewer of Pandas, that’s somewhat misleading, isn’t it?

   MR. MUISE: Objection. Assumes that he understands what their purpose for listing him as a critical reviewer.

   THE COURT: He just answered the question that that’s not a critical review, so the objection is overruled. You can ask that question.

   BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

   Q Advertising you as a critical reviewer of this book is misleading to the students, isn’t it?

   MR. MUISE: Objection, that’s argumentative.

   THE COURT: it’s cross examination. it’s appropriate cross. Overruled.

   THE WITNESS: I m sorry, could you repeat the question?

   BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

   Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn’t it?

   A I disagree. As I said, that’s not the typical way that the term “critical reviewer” is used, but nonetheless, in my opinion I don’t think it is misleading.



Quote

Comment #53050

Posted by Henry J on October 21, 2005 01:33 PM (e) (s)

Oh what a tangled web they hast woven…


Quote

Comment #53051

Posted by Norman Doering on October 21, 2005 01:47 PM (e) (s)

This mechanism thing is a bit more subtle and many of you are over simplifing. Behe said:

“B: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

R: But it does not propose an actual mechanism?

B: Again, the word “mechanism” — the word “mechanism” can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the history of the structure.”

Intelligence would be part of the mechanism. Forethought, seeing in your “mind” how you want something to work then making it using an as yet unknow manipulative mechanism…

What makes this thing unscientific is that Behe doesn’t have enough to say about the intelligence. But he could if he weren’t a theist.

Maybe a lawyer should ask Behe if he is familiar with William Calvin’s work:
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm

“… a bold new theory for how Darwin’s evolutionary process could operate in the brain, improving ideas on the time scale of thought and action.”


Quote

Comment #53053

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

   If what I hear about Behe’s testimony is accurate, I think that IDers eventually will do a better job at turning the public off to their nonsense, and classic creationism, than us critics will.

I think the public’s too ignorant for that. In this trial as well as the Kansas Kangaroo Court we’ve seen many quotes from creationists, where something we pointed at to ridicule, they held up as compelling evidence for ID.


Quote

Comment #53056

Posted by improvius on October 21, 2005 02:24 PM (e) (s)

BeheSpeak:

   I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I m of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, “I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I’ll say this.”

   But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this. So I disagree that that s what I said — or that’s what I intended to say.



Quote

Comment #53057

Posted by geogeek on October 21, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

Behe actually said something I agree with (if he meant what he said):

“We cannot - and the history of science shows this time and time again, we cannot say that because we don’t have a natural or an explanation for a certain event now, that we won’t have one in the future.”

A little grammatically odd, but then most of us are when speaking rather than writing.


Quote

Comment #53058

Posted by Flint on October 21, 2005 02:41 PM (e) (s)

More BeheSpeak:

   Intelligent design certainly is not the dominant view of the scientific community, but I’m very pleased with the progress we’re making. As I’ve tried to make clear in my testimony, although some — many scientists do not like it, if you look at their statements, you do not see any scientific evidence which, when examined closely, is — when examined closely, shows that intelligent design is incorrect.

Not the dominant view is code for “set out only by those with a religious agenda.” Pleased with the progress we’re making in context refers to scientific progress, but in actuality refers to PR progress. You do not see any evidence which…shows that intelligent design is incorrect means “ID can’t be falsified by any possible evidence” but in context is used to imply “has proven correct so far.”

The entire transcript is a marvel of doublespeak, self-contradiction, misdirection, and evasion. Every now and then Rothschild catches Behe in a flat contradiction and says “Here you said black, now you’re saying white, don’t you see a problem here?” and Behe replies “No, I don’t agree.” Over and over.


Quote

Comment #53060

Posted by geogeek on October 21, 2005 02:47 PM (e) (s)

BTW, it’s certainly true that any cool new scientific hypothesis initially has many skeptics and eventually leaves a few hard-nosed refusniks, even amongst the people expert in the over-turning area. The example I’m most familiar with is plate tectonics. But it really only took about 10 years between publication in scientific journals of the first papers and acceptance within the geological community to the point where it was being taught in college-level classes. If the ID people want to follow that path, they really need to get on the stick with publishing those convincing papers that provide checkable data/testable hypotheses.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,18:44   

Quote

Comment #53063

Posted by geogeek on October 21, 2005 02:57 PM (e) (s)

BTW, it’s certainly true that any cool new scientific hypothesis initially has many skeptics and eventually leaves a few hard-nosed refuseniks, even amongst the people expert in the over-turning area. The example I’m most familiar with is plate tectonics. But it really only took about 10 years between publication in scientific journals of the first papers and acceptance within the geological community to the point where it was being taught in college-level classes. There was still the guy (Jeffreys?) who refused to accept plate tectonics for decades, despite being a great seismic researcher. If the ID people want to get to the time when only one brilliant crank out of the whole scientific establishment disagrees with them, they really need to get on the stick with publishing those convincing papers that provide checkable data/testable hypotheses.


Quote

Comment #53064

Posted by geogeek on October 21, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

Oops, sorry about the double post, I thought I was editing. Read version 2, please.


Quote

Comment #53067

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)

   Me, I’ve always thought that college-level education should be free to anyone who wants it.

ditto. and it wouldn’t be that hard to do, either.


Quote

Comment #53076

Posted by Frank King on October 21, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

In 1984 I was the superintendent of schools in the district adjoining the Dover district. A group of born agains was elected to the board that I served and immediately began to demand the inclusion of creationist materials in the school library. The high school principal, the high school librarian and myself would not allow this to happen. The born agains had supporters in the community, some were clergy. Do not assume that the judge hearing this case will render a decision in favor of evolution. You must consider that central PA is comparable to any Bible thumping area of the South when it comes to religious convictions. This could be on the mind of the judge in this case.


Quote

Comment #53077

Posted by Frank King on October 21, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

In 1984 I was the superintendent of schools in the district adjoining the Dover district. A group of born agains was elected to the board that I served and immediately began to demand the inclusion of creationist materials in the school library. The high school principal, the high school librarian and myself would not allow this to happen. The born agains had supporters in the community, some were clergy. Do not assume that the judge hearing this case will render a decision in favor of evolution. You must consider that central PA is comparable to any Bible thumping area of the South when it comes to religious convictions. This could be on the mind of the judge in this case.


Quote

Comment #53078

Posted by Frank King on October 21, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

In 1984 I was the superintendent of schools in the district adjoining the Dover district. A group of born agains was elected to the board that I served and immediately began to demand the inclusion of creationist materials in the school library. The high school principal, the high school librarian and myself would not allow this to happen. The born agains had supporters in the community, some were clergy. Do not assume that the judge hearing this case will render a decision in favor of evolution. You must consider that central PA is comparable to any Bible thumping area of the South when it comes to religious convictions. This could be on the mind of the judge in this case.


Quote

Comment #53081

Posted by Flash Gordon on October 21, 2005 04:53 PM (e) (s)

   sir_toejam wrote:

   Me, I’ve always thought that college-level education should be free to anyone who wants it.

Wait’ll you see how expensive it is then.


Quote

Comment #53082

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 04:59 PM (e) (s)

expense is all relative.

you might want to check out some other countries that do offer this as a service.

now of course, most of these countries’ populations are much smaller than the US, but OTOH our GNP is orders of maginitude higher (even in relative terms).

I’m sure with a little work you could find someone who has crunched the numbers already, if you are really curious.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,20:58   

Quote

Comment #53089

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 05:39 PM (e) (s)

   You’ll come back with your standard response, wanting the sci-theory of ID.
   I will provide it.

Please do.


Quote

Comment #53090

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

   Which corporations? Some corporations require science-educated workers. The biotech industry comes to mind.

Yes. But they don’t care what color those workers are, or what language they speak, or where they live. If they can get educated Chinese workers cheap, then that’s what they’ll do. It’s lots easier than educating Americans.

After all, it’s what US indiustries have been doing for the past thirty years now.


Quote

Comment #53093

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

   sir_toejam wrote:

   Me, I’ve always thought that college-level education should be free to anyone who wants it.

I wouldn’t mind some of my taxes paying for useful college educations. It would bother me that my taxes would help churn out a lot more useless English BAs.


Quote

Comment #53094

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 05:45 PM (e) (s)

Gee, I think I might have touched a nerve with all the nutters. (yawn)


Quote

Comment #53095

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 21, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)

Frank King pointed out:

   You must consider that central PA is comparable to any Bible thumping area of the South when it comes to religious convictions. This could be on the mind of the judge in this case.

Frank, it’s great the way you stood up to the pressure from the fundies in your school district.

With regard to the religious convictions of the community weighing on the mind of the judge, that’s certainly always a possibility. We need to keep remembering, however, that this is a federal district court judge with lifetime tenure. Federal judges were given lifetime tenure as a deliberate measure to immunize them against the threat of being turned out of office in reaction to a controversial decision that ran against the mood of the moment or the mindset of the majority.

Federal district court judges regularly block the actions of federal agencies, break up monopolies, desegregate schools, and order other sweeping and unpopular actions. They tend not to be swayed by adverse public sentiment.


Quote

Comment #53096

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

   Me, I’ve always thought that college-level education should be free to anyone who wants it.

   Wait’ll you see how expensive it is then.

I think one day’s worth of expenses for the Iraq War would cover it nicely.

Anyway, why would it be all that much more expensive than, say, free high school for anyone who wants it? If we expanded secondary high school by four years, would that bankrupt the US? Somehow, I don’t think so… .

The simple fact is that, as I noted before, people in the US *talk* about “improving education for our kids”, but don’t want to get off their ass and actually DO it (and they CERTAINLY don’t want to PAY for it).

Hence, we get what we (collectively) deserve.

Education costs what it costs. Either pay up, or shut up about not having it. (shrug)


Quote

Comment #53098

Posted by Jit Gill on October 21, 2005 05:55 PM (e) (s)

Some of you might have already seen these Videos, but I thought I’d repost the links. This is the famous presentation by Professor Behe and Professor Miller. This is the one that Professor Miller turns a mousetrap into other things. Professor Miller is a genius. Professor Behe on the other hand seems to just want to do his presentation and get the #### out of there before ANYONE can question him. These 2 videos are hilarious.

First Behe’s Presentation
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/presmb-fr…

Now Professor Miller’s Presentation and rebuttal to Behe’s presentation

http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/preskm-fr…

I hope they might play this in court..

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53099

Posted by Jit Gill on October 21, 2005 05:55 PM (e) (s)

Some of you might have already seen these Videos, but I thought I’d repost the links. This is the famous presentation by Professor Behe and Professor Miller. This is the one that Professor Miller turns a mousetrap into other things. Professor Miller is a genius. Professor Behe on the other hand seems to just want to do his presentation and get the #### out of there before ANYONE can question him. These 2 videos are hilarious.

First Behe’s Presentation
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/presmb-fr…

Now Professor Miller’s Presentation and rebuttal to Behe’s presentation

http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/preskm-fr…

I hope they might play this in court..

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53100

Posted by Jit Gill on October 21, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)

Some of you might have already seen these Videos, but I thought I’d repost the links. This is the famous presentation by Professor Behe and Professor Miller. This is the one that Professor Miller turns a mousetrap into other things. Professor Miller is a genius. Professor Behe on the other hand seems to just want to do his presentation and get the #### out of there before ANYONE can question him. These 2 videos are hilarious.

First Behe’s Presentation
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/presmb-fr…

Now Professor Miller’s Presentation and rebuttal to Behe’s presentation

http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/preskm-fr…

I hope they might play this in court..

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53101

Posted by sir_toejam on October 21, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)

   It would bother me that my taxes would help churn out a lot more useless English BAs.

lol. or liberal arts majors?

just kidding. any education is better than none. all are welcome.

useless is only as useless does.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,21:04   

Quote

Comment #53103

Posted by Jit Gill on October 21, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

Dam..I got erros the first 2 times..sorry about posting that 3 times.


Quote

Comment #53107

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 06:19 PM (e) (s)

“I think one day’s worth of expenses for the Iraq War would cover it nicely.”

Nope. Tuition and books and such, at a state college, for an in-state student, run about $6k a year. The Iraq war costs about a $200 million a day. So a day’s Iraq expenses could fund a year of college for 33,000 or so people. Meanwhile, the US has about 4 million births a year. And there are other hidden costs, like the fact that the state typically adds several thousand dollars to the 6k for existing students.


Quote

Comment #53110

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on October 21, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

All right, all right, so it would take a third of a year of the cost of the Iraq War to pay for college, assuming that every one of the kids born in the country wanted to go (hey, some kids like delivering pizza, heh heh…!).

Still seems worth considering.


Quote

Comment #53114

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)

I would agree, as long as totally worthless degrees like English and Gender Studies were excluded from the deal.


Quote

Comment #53116

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 21, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

   Tuition and books and such, at a state college, for an in-state student, run about $6k a year. The Iraq war costs about a $200 million a day. So a day’s Iraq expenses could fund a year of college for 33,000 or so people. Meanwhile, the US has about 4 million births a year.

OK, 100 days worth, then. (shrug) In any case, it’s not that we don’t HAVE the money; it’s that we don’t want to SPEND it.

If we can spend money to blow people up who didn’t do anything to us, why can’t we spend money to educate our citizens?

Or, do we just PREFER blowing people up, to educating our citizens?

Like I said, education costs what it costs. Either pay up, or quit bitching about not having it. (shrug)


Quote

Comment #53117

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)

And yeah, I really do think that degrees in biology, chemistry, finance, etc, should get much higher priority than the humanities. If there’s going to be no standard for what kind of education you publicly fund, then why stop at an undergrad degree? Fund everyone through their Ph.D. That way all the English BAs I used to work with at Borders can now have Dr. on their little nametags.


Quote

Comment #53129

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on October 21, 2005 08:35 PM (e) (s)

A reminder from the very beginning of this topic:

   Comments in this thread are for pointers to KvD resources only; all others will be deleted at the PT administration discretion and convenience. Please utilize the After the Bar Closes forum area for wider-ranging comments.



Quote

Comment #53135

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 09:19 PM (e) (s)

Aye Aye Captain. Reposting to After the Bar Closes. Over and out.


Quote

Comment #53136

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 21, 2005 09:20 PM (e) (s)

Quoting: The defense decided to continue with Dover Area Supt. Richard Nilsen’s testimony this morning rather than call expert witness Dick Carpenter, an assistant professor of leadership, research and foundations at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

Some very basic questions.
1. Whet the heck is ‘leadership, research and foundations’
2. In what respect is this guy an expert on the teching of biology?


Quote

Comment #53138

Posted by bigtalker on October 21, 2005 09:40 PM (e) (s)

I was pleased to see the usual poopoo-ing of BigTalk in posts 52341-52345.

In response, the best example of FSC in computer programming is genetic algorithms. Anyone who has tried it knows that the programmer must make heuristic judgements that cull the herd. These heuristics are by definition of much higher FSC than any resulting organization produced my the algorthim. Meta-FSC if you like.

It is very easy to make programs (FSC) that produce endless amounts of OSC and RSC (ordered and random sequence complexity). I stand by the statement that designing Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) remains in the realm of intelligent design. Implications towards a winning strategy for the Turing test?

Water does not run uphill for very long.

http://bigtalktheory.blogspot.com


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,21:07   

Quote

Comment #53139

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 21, 2005 09:55 PM (e) (s)

   Water does not run uphill for very long.

lol. why is it that “big talkers” always end up using quotes that they should write on their own tombstones?

keep on pushin’ that boulder uphill…


Quote

Comment #53143

Posted by H. Humbert on October 21, 2005 10:19 PM (e) (s)

   Steve S wrote:

   I wouldn’t mind some of my taxes paying for useful college educations. It would bother me that my taxes would help churn out a lot more useless English BAs.

Hey! Some of us English BAs are quite interested in science and in seeing good science taught. We just suck at math.


Quote

Comment #53147

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 10:42 PM (e) (s)

   Water does not run uphill for very long.

Go talk to Chaudhury and Whitesides about that.

(Sorry, Surface Physics joke there. Chaudhury, M.K. and Whitesides, G.M. “How to make water run uphill”, Science. 256 1539-1841 1992.)

   Posted by H. Humbert on October 21, 2005 10:19 PM (e) (s)

   Hey! Some of us English BAs are quite interested in science and in seeing good science taught. We just suck at math.

Hey, it’s not like I said you’re ugly. ;-) I continued the discussion at After the Bar Closes, after Pete rightly chastised me for being so off topic.


Quote

Comment #53149

Posted by Flash Gordon on October 21, 2005 11:57 PM (e) (s)

To “Wait’ll you see how expensive it is when they start giving it away free,” I would add, TANSTAAFL


Quote

Comment #53161

Posted by God on October 22, 2005 05:44 AM (e) (s)

“It would bother me that my taxes would help churn out a lot more useless English BAs.”

Of course it would, imagine how much more usefully the funding could be spent on getting people biology degree’s so they could spend their time ineffectually posting here when they should be out actually making a difference ( I think the bush administration would luv this idea)! Imagine how much more vital that is then say, preserving the flame of western civilization.


Quote

Comment #53162

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 22, 2005 06:44 AM (e) (s)

   Of course it would, imagine how much more usefully the funding could be spent on getting people biology degree’s so they could spend their time ineffectually posting here when they should be out actually making a difference ( I think the bush administration would luv this idea)! Imagine how much more vital that is then say, preserving the flame of western civilization.

Indeed. If “usefulness” is the criterion by which we judge how much education to give to people, well heck, most people do nothing more with their lives than flip cheeseburgers, so any education beyond that which allows them to flip said cheeseburgers is “wasted” and “useless”.

Which is exactly why our education system is in the sorry state it’s in, and exactly why we are all here bitching and moaning about the effects of this.

Of course, no one seems to think it odd that the very ones who are here bitching and moaning about the effects of the lack of education, are also here bitching and moaning that they don’t want to pay for “useless education”.

Like I said, education costs what it costs. Either pay up, or quit bitching about not having it. (shrug)


Quote

Comment #53166

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 22, 2005 07:13 AM (e) (s)

   You’ll come back with your standard response, wanting the sci-theory of ID.
   I will provide it.

   Please do.

Well?


Quote

Comment #53176

Posted by Bob O'H on October 22, 2005 10:13 AM (e) (s)

A pdf of day 12’s morning transcripts are up at the Pennsylvania ACLU site, you can get them from here. As they say “It’s surprisingly entertaining.”

Bob


Quote

Comment #53185

Posted by Steve S on October 22, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)

God:

   rigirous…Imagine how much more vital that is then say…biology degree’s

People wonder why I’m not religious. Well, I just can’t respect a diety whose English is so awful.


Quote

Comment #53186

Posted by Steve S on October 22, 2005 01:11 PM (e) (s)

   Of course, no one seems to think it odd that the very ones who are here bitching and moaning about the effects of the lack of education, are also here bitching and moaning that they don’t want to pay for “useless education”.

Simply put, I don’t see “education” as a homogeneous quantity. There’s nothing odd about that.

   Like I said, education costs what it costs. Either pay up, or quit bitching about not having it.

I paid up through the student loan system. I have it. The student loan system, I suggested on After the Bar Closes, is a better system than just giving it away free. Anyway, money is not the big obstacle to having an education. People in the US just don’t value education enough. Compare the ratings of a PBS show on evolution, to the ratings of Desperate Housewives, or Oprah. Compare the sales of Chris Mooney’s new book, to the sales of “The Purpose Driven Life”


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,21:11   

Quote

Comment #53187

Posted by Steve S on October 22, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)

Anyway this, as Pete reminded us, is not the forum for these comments. Take it to After the Bar Closes if you want to continue. Sir TerribleName needs someone to argue with, his comments are too nuts for me.


Quote

Comment #53188

Posted by Frank J on October 22, 2005 01:21 PM (e) (s)

   Frank King wrote:

   Do not assume that the judge hearing this case will render a decision in favor of evolution. You must consider that central PA is comparable to any Bible thumping area of the South when it comes to religious convictions. This could be on the mind of the judge in this case.

I do not share the confidence of victory that most fellow ID critics appear to have. ID is slick rhetoric. All its defenders need to do is convince a judge that it is not establishing religion. Even an atheist judge could conceivably agree with that.


Quote

Comment #53191

Posted by the pro from dover on October 22, 2005 01:29 PM (e) (s)

This is hot off the press!!! I’m sure you’re aware of the famous “wedgie document”, but what youre probably not aware of is that the wedgie is just part of a larger book soon to be published called “Origin of the specious by means of intelligent design or the profitability of fear mongering in the struggle for donations”. I don’t have the full book but I did get the last paragraph which I’ll share with my beloved PT readers as part of my civic duty. “It is uplifting to witness complex litigation obscured by many experts with no pertinent credentials, with fundamentalists singing in the churches, with various schoolboards kowtowing to political pressure, and with lawyers crawling out from under damp rocks and to believe that this elaborately constructed baloney so different from mainstream science and dependant on wealthy conservative donors has all been produced with ideas from the Discovery Institute. These ideas taken in the the greatest sense being complexity with specification, mathematical improbability which implies a supernatural power, dishonesty from the out-of-context mining of quotes, and from denial of published peer-reviwed data: a rationalization of saving souls which leads to a struggle for values and as a consequence to Intelligent Design entailing faith-based textbooks and the extinction of the scientific method. Thus from the war of culture from ignorance and fear the most exalted object we are capable of concieving namely a fundamentalist Christian theocracy directly follows. There is no technological advancement in this view of science, powerless to generate even the simplest of testable hypotheses and as America goes circling the drain of inadequate basic education from so productive an economy endless litigation so costly and so detrimental has been and is being created.” TPFD


Quote

Comment #53201

Posted by Peggy on October 22, 2005 04:09 PM (e) (s)

The October 21st edition of NPR’s Science Friday has coverage of the trial.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Oct/hour…

It has a bit about an administrator from a different school district who wanted to learn more about intelligent design, so came to hear Behe’s testimony. He apparently came away convinced that ID was a good thing to teach in the classroom! (It’s not clear if he attended the day Behe said his definition of “theory” would include astrology).


Quote

Comment #53231

Posted by Mona on October 22, 2005 08:05 PM (e) (s)

ID is slick rhetoric. All its defenders need to do is convince a judge that it is not establishing religion. Even an atheist judge could conceivably agree with that.

Federal district judges fear, more than anything, reversal. This case will almost certainly be appealed, regardless of who prevails — Judge Jones knows that, and will act to protect himself. He will apply the facts presented to him to the controlling case law. How well he understands the (scientific and complicated) facts presented depends on the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who appear to be doing a fine job.


Quote

Comment #53241

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 22, 2005 09:27 PM (e) (s)

The most complete list of availiable transcripts that I know of.

This list links to transcripts from the ACLU, NCSE, Talk.Origins Archive, and the Discovery Institute.

Being part of the Wikipedia, anyone can edit the document to link to more copies as they appear. Or help expand the table of contents.


Quote

Comment #53242

Posted by God on October 22, 2005 09:30 PM (e) (s)

“People wonder why I’m not religious. Well, I just can’t respect a diety whose English is so awful.”

The lord your god was posting this at eleven a clock at night, even gods get tired sometimes.


Quote

Comment #53250

Posted by Lurker on October 22, 2005 10:46 PM (e) (s)

“[…]The argument for the evolution of something like the bacterial flagellum, just to use that as an example, is that, at sometime it had a subset of proteins, maybe looking something like the type III secretory system, and eventually it evolved to become the bacterial flagellum? That’s the argument, right?
A. I would have to see the argument written down. As you characterize it, I’m not quite sure what it is.
Q. Okay. But you’re not disputing that the theory of evolution says, at some point we had a subset of
proteins, then we had eventually all the proteins that make up whatever system we’re discussing?
A. That sounds okay.
Q. Good. In slow design, same thing. At some point, we had a subset of the proteins, and eventually, we got to the whole thing?
A. That’s right. The crucial question — the only question is the mechanism.”

Excuse me? Crucial question is mechanism? But you also testified that ID cannot give a mechanism.

Someone give Rothschild a raise. This is the most entertaining court transcript that I’ve read in a while.


Quote

Comment #53262

Posted by Mike on October 23, 2005 12:47 AM (e) (s)

I think that the blood-clot cross-examination on day 12 AM was a draw. It seemed that Rothschild did not adequately address Behe’s distinction between the four proteins being a necessary, instead of a sufficient, subset.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,23:43   

Quote

Comment #53262

Posted by Mike on October 23, 2005 12:47 AM (e) (s)

I think that the blood-clot cross-examination on day 12 AM was a draw. It seemed that Rothschild did not adequately address Behe’s distinction between the four proteins being a necessary, instead of a sufficient, subset.


Quote

Comment #53268

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 23, 2005 02:16 AM (e) (s)

Mike,

If it is not “sufficient”, then it is not a system performing a function, and there is neither “irreducible complexity” nor the synonymous “purposefully arranged parts”.

I take it that there may be a sizeable number of onlookers to whom that is not clear?


Quote

Comment #53270

Posted by Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) on October 23, 2005 02:58 AM (e) (s)

I have a procedural question I hope someone can answer for me. It’s my understanding that the choice of a jury trial or a bench trial is the defendant’s, in this case the Dover Board of Education. If that’s so, why did they choose a bench trial, when their arguments and strategy seem more appropriate for a trial by jury?


Quote

Comment #53300

Posted by Alienward on October 23, 2005 12:33 PM (e) (s)

Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

   If it is not “sufficient”, then it is not a system performing a function, and there is neither “irreducible complexity” nor the synonymous “purposefully arranged parts”.

   I take it that there may be a sizeable number of onlookers to whom that is not clear?

Rothschild had Behe explain how the blood clotting system is not IC:

   Q. We’re leaving the stuff aside that we know the puffer fish can do without. And you’re saying, The blood clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. That is, it is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causing the system effectively to cease functioning.

   It talks more about the function. It says, The components of the system beyond the fork in the pathway are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. That’s your irreducibly complex system, isn’t it, Professor Behe?

   A. No, it’s not. Again, I was confining my discussion to the point after the fork in the pathway because, as I said in the book, much more is known about that. But the fork in the pathway is essentially two different ways to activate the pathway.

   And while you can do without one way to activate the pathway, you can’t do without both ways to activate the pathway. Something has to activate it.

   Q. So you have to have those four, right?

   A. Yes, those four are needed for the system to work. But — and I confined my discussion to them. But they’re not sufficient for a functioning system.

   Q. You need the stuff before the pathway, too?

   A. You need some of the stuff, yes.

   Q. Except for the puffer fish?

   A. Well, again, like I said, some of the stuff. The puffer fish itself has the extrinsic pathway, which is one way to trigger the remaining steps. It’s missing the intrinsic pathway. But nonetheless, it still has one way to turn the pathway on.

   Q. It has those four things?

   A. It does, yes.

   Q. Which we know, by themselves, cause death?

   A. By themselves, they would cause the system to start stop functioning.

   Q. Sounds like a bigger mistake than Dr. Doolittle made, Professor Behe?

   A. I’m not sure what you are referring to.

   Q. Well, you spent a lot of time trashing Dr. Doolittle and his work, his article in the Boston Review. Your mistake here is quite a bit more substantial than misinterpreting a mice study, isn’t it?

Pretty clear to me, and I’m no biologist…


Quote

Comment #53301

Posted by Mona on October 23, 2005 12:51 PM (e) (s)

It’s my understanding that the choice of a jury trial or a bench trial is the defendant’s, in this case the Dover Board of Education. If that’s so, why did they choose a bench trial, when their arguments and strategy seem more appropriate for a trial by jury?

The primary reason inheres in the nature of the relief the plantiffs have requested, namely, an injunction barring the Dover School Board from continuing with its reading of the ID statement to science classes. Civil jury trials are generally reserved for matters arising “at law,” while cases arising in “equity” may usually only be bench trials. (There are exceptions, but those are not relevant here.) An injunction is equitable relief.

These distinctions all go back to the mists of time, when common law was evolving in Britain. The (very) simple version is if you seek money damages, then your case arises at law and you are entitled to a jury; if not, not.

I am quite certain the IDists would vastly prefer a jury trial, but the ACLU ain’t no fools, and they confined their requested relief to remedies that do not permit it.


Quote

Comment #53304

Posted by Steve S on October 23, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)

So I can’t tell—was Behe saying that blood clotting isn’t IC? It seems that it can’t be IC, because he says the parts below the fork can’t function independently, while above the fork are two redundant systems.

Whether or not it fits the latest definition of IC, I hope he got hammered on the fact that he’s never shown that IC things can’t evolve.


Quote

Comment #53318

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on October 23, 2005 03:27 PM (e) (s)

Don’t forget the York Daily Record.

It looks like the reporters who tattled on Buckingham (remember Buckingham? The school board’s leading creationist until he flew the coop) will testify next week, perhaps sooner than scheduled since creationist witnesses are off visiting Buckingham in the witness protection program.

Notes on Behe/Doolittle


Quote

Comment #53327

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on October 23, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

Missing Links? The Boston Globe has a four part article and asks for your input.


Quote

Comment #53344

Posted by JohnK on October 23, 2005 05:28 PM (e) (s)

On 10/21/2005, C-SPAN carried 6 hours live “On the Teaching of Intelligent Design in Public Schools” at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington – discussing, among other things, Dover testimony.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e102105_aei1.rm (1 hr. 20 min)
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e102105_aei2.rm (2 hrs)
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e102105_aei3.rm (2 hrs. 45 min)
(C-SPAN uses Real Player format)

The first video is Ken Miller debating Paul Nelson.
The second begins with Vatican astronomer George Coyne (who bashes Cardinal Schoenborn’s (sp?) ID scripted statement and then gives his general evolutinoary/religious perspective) and conservative Catholic AEI fellow Michael Novak. The last hour Barbara Forrest vs. Kansas’s ID lawyer John Calvert. Yikes.

The third begins with Lawrence Krauss against ID.
But the most important is the last half: Steve Gey (establishment law expert), Dover’s lawyer Richard Thompson who explains what was behind the DI fellows dropping out, and DI fellow Mark Ryland who is caught falsely claiming the DI never suggested ID be taught - Thompson himself demonstrates that false. Ken Miller joins at the end and laughs at the ID in-fighting, among other things. (Ex-lawyer Ryland also claimed new deist Anthony Flew still buys origin-of-life skepticism, on which which Flew has reversed himself.)

If only there were transcripts…


Quote

Comment #53372

Posted by Mike on October 23, 2005 07:46 PM (e) (s)

   transcript wrote:

   Q. So you have to have those four, right?

   A. Yes, those four are needed for the system to work. But — and I confined my discussion to them. But they’re not sufficient for a functioning system.

I think Behe’s point is that the four components of the system are necessary to “a” system, thus by definition of “necessary” if one removes a component, the system fails.

   Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

   If it is not “sufficient”, then it is not a system performing a function, and there is neither “irreducible complexity” nor the synonymous “purposefully arranged parts”.

From a machine viewpoint, one can have “irreducible complexity” in a part of the machine that does not function apart from another part of the system (e.g., a motor cannot function apart from a power supply, e.g. it is not a closed system). So I think it is a staw man to ascribe the conditions of necessary AND sufficient (e.g., closed system) to all “irreducible complexity” systems, which I think is Behe’s point.

I think the central point is that a system might have an “irreducible complexity” subsystem with parts that are necessary, and which contributes to the functioning of the larger system as a whole.

For the record, I am not an ID proponent. I just want to understand. I have read the transcript so please don’t post it and say “clear to me.”


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,23:51   

Quote

Comment #53409

Posted by Alienward on October 23, 2005 10:38 PM (e) (s)

Mike wrote:

   From a machine viewpoint, one can have “irreducible complexity” in a part of the machine that does not function apart from another part of the system (e.g., a motor cannot function apart from a power supply, e.g. it is not a closed system). So I think it is a staw man to ascribe the conditions of necessary AND sufficient (e.g., closed system) to all “irreducible complexity” systems, which I think is Behe’s point.

Behe’s point through all of his tap dancing in court is that a four part component of the blood clotting cascade is an IC system. This was a serious blunder.

   Q. Now let me just make sure I understand the argument. What I think you said was, when I looked at — the subset of the blood clotting cascade included fibrinogen, prothrombin, proaccelerin, and activated Stuart factor. Those are the things you say in Darwin’s Black Box constitute the irreducibly complex system?

   A. Okay.

   Q. Is that correct?

   A. Yes.

   Q. And could you look on page 145 of Pandas?

   A. Yes.

   Q. Okay. And, Matt, could you highlight in the middle of the first column where it starts, We may try many smaller sets. You say here, We may try many smaller sets of components to get started; fibrinogen, prothrombin, activate the Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. And then you give some other alternatives. But then you say, death is nearly always the certain result, right?

   A. Yes, I did.

   Q. Okay. So that’s actually saying, those four parts of the system, if that’s all you got, not good enough?

   A. Excuse me a second. Let me read this, please. Yeah, with those four, the system would not work.

   Q. With those four, the system would not work?

   A. Yes.

Pretty hard to call something that has no function (and would cause death) IC, even by Behe’s definition, don’t you think?

   I think the central point is that a system might have an “irreducible complexity” subsystem with parts that are necessary, and which contributes to the functioning of the larger system as a whole.

Yes, that’s what Behe was trying to say to get himself out of a jam. But he failed miserably. He wound up explaining how the blood clotting cascade is not IC by trying to get away with calling a four part component of the cascade that has no function, other than to cause death, an IC system.

   For the record, I am not an ID proponent. I just want to understand. I have read the transcript so please don’t post it and say “clear to me.”

So, not only is the blood clotting cascade not IC, the four part component is not an IC anything either. Don’t let Behe’s attempt to bs his way out of being exposed as a fraud posing as a scientist confuse you.


Quote

Comment #53410

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 23, 2005 10:49 PM (e) (s)

   Mike wrote:

   So I think it is a staw man to ascribe the conditions of necessary AND sufficient (e.g., closed system) to all “irreducible complexity” systems, which I think is Behe’s point.

Really?

In order to claim something is a “strawman”, one needs to know what the original argument was. I do. Does Mike?

Consult page 39 of Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box:

   By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Then read the rest of the book to see how Behe deploys the phrase. Does Behe ever use the connotation Mike assigns within the pages of DBB? I don’t think so. Wherever Behe discussed a “system” within DBB, he included the “parts” that made not just a “necessary” sub-system, but a system “sufficient” to obtain the “basic function” at issue: clotting of blood in humans, human disease immune response, cellular locomotion, etc.

Behe could, and did, set about saying anything at all, no matter how inconsistent, to avoid admitting error on the witness stand.


Quote

Comment #53414

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 23, 2005 11:05 PM (e) (s)

in the continuing drive to laud at least decent press coverage of the issues surrounding the politicization of evolutionary theory, here’s a decent article attempting to address specific claims of creationists, and outlining the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion on the ID scam.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/…

If you find the author’s words useful, I suggest you write the paper with compliments to Peter Dizikes.


Quote

Comment #53431

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 01:23 AM (e) (s)

hmm, this is interesting.

I decided to take a tour through how DI was presenting the dover testimony.

anyone else find it odd that if you click on the link for behe’s testimony:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-…

you actually get Ken Millers testimony.

honest mistake?

doubtful


Quote

Comment #53434

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 01:35 AM (e) (s)

btw, that is the current first link to the testimony titled:

Testimony

Testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, expert witness for the defense Afternoon session, day two
October 18, 2005

I also note that the next link is correct, so maybe it is an honest mistake. i suppose anything’s possible.


Quote

Comment #53465

Posted by improvius on October 24, 2005 09:03 AM (e) (s)

So does anyone have a good idea about how a judge will treat Behe’s testimony? It seems like every step of the way, Behe says that something he said or wrote earlier was either “not what I was thinking”, “not what I really meant”, “not 100% accurate because I was trying to be brief”, or for some other reason not to be taken at face value. At what point can a judge determine that a witness is so completely full of crap that his testimony can be ignored? I’d love to hear an objective legal analysis of his testimony.


Quote

Comment #53467

Posted by Flint on October 24, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

Not to mention all the times the questioning was as follows:

Q: So you say this is black?
A: Yes, that’s right.
Q: But earlier, in exhibits A,B,C… you said it was white.
A: I think I’m being completely consistent here…


Quote

Comment #53475

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 10:30 AM (e) (s)

hah.

Q: Would you say that up is up?
A: what’s the question again?
Q: Is up, up?
A: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Q: The direction up.
A: Oh that, yes.
Q: Yes, up is, in fact, up?
A: No, not as such.
Q: Matt, can we see page 34? Here you said, in DBB, that up was up.
A: I was referring to things which are better understood.
Q: Matt, do we have the transcript of yesterday? Yesterday you said that up was down.
A: Well, nobody has proved that everything which is up is up. There are inexplicable gaps in upness.
Q: So now you say that up is down?
A: No.
Q: But in yesterday’s testimony you said that up is down. Were you wrong yesterday?
A: No. Yesterday’s testimony was in fact peer-reviewed.
Q: And what about up today? Is up, up?
A: No.
Q: What is it?
A: Sideways.


Quote

Comment #53477

Posted by improvius on October 24, 2005 10:35 AM (e) (s)

Steve, you forgot to add:

A: Before I answer, am I allowed to read what I said yesterday regarding up?


Quote

Comment #53478

Posted by Alienward on October 24, 2005 10:36 AM (e) (s)

improvious wrote:

   So does anyone have a good idea about how a judge will treat Behe’s testimony? It seems like every step of the way, Behe says that something he said or wrote earlier was either “not what I was thinking”, “not what I really meant”, “not 100% accurate because I was trying to be brief”, or for some other reason not to be taken at face value. At what point can a judge determine that a witness is so completely full of crap that his testimony can be ignored? I’d love to hear an objective legal analysis of his testimony.

Here’s some things I can remember from what I’ve read in the transcripts with Behe so far:

Intelligent design is not a theory – unless you use a new definition of the word theory that also makes astrology a theory
The bacteria flagellum is not IC unless you pretend cooption can’t happen
He is inconsistent in his claims of IC for the blood clotting cascade in DBB and Panda’s
The blood clotting cascade is not IC and the component he claims is IC has no function
He deliberately leaves out known mechanisms of evolution in his own research
He has no peer reviewed research on ID
He claimed his book was peer reviewed when it wasn’t
His employer has published a statement describing him as a crackpot.

I think the judge will determine the goofball has no credibility.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,23:55   

Quote

Comment #53480

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on October 24, 2005 10:47 AM (e) (s)

Further down on Steve S’s transcript:

A: Also, I forgot to mention, Big Bang cosmology dispenses entirely with the concept of “up” and “down”, since space is the same, limitless and finite in all directions … and gravity curves it around .. and time too … er … or something like that I read somewhere. So, if “up” does not apply to the Big Bang, it shouldn’t apply to ID either, because… you know, ID is just like the Big Bang, in that it can be used by some for theological arguments… but it’s science, so it doesn’t use “up”.


Quote

Comment #53483

Posted by improvius on October 24, 2005 10:58 AM (e) (s)

Q: And I had actually made a blood pact with my
co-counsel not to ask you about ‘sideways’, but now
I had to violate it.


Quote

Comment #53503

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on October 24, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)

[reading the day 12 transcripts of cross of Behe] …

LOL. Going to have to call him “Big Bang” Behe from now on…..

Cheers,


Quote

Comment #53507

Posted by Gary Mac on October 24, 2005 01:13 PM (e) (s)

Attn: Wes and fellow evos in-breds.

As a devout IDer, I occasionally tune in to the PT Ivory Tower, looking for new material. As usual however, it continues to be nothing more than collection of the same, delusional rantings of irrational evos-egotists. Therefore, I have just learned to accept it as status quo and read the posts, mostly for comic relief.

The latest attempt to discredit the ID movement, by attacking Behe, is par for the course. Do you actually think that challenging the credibility of one, single individual, is going bring the entire ID position to a grinding halt ?
Not quite. Look in the mirror.
Every time, over the decades, when YOUR theory has been exposed for lack of credibility, there have always been a steady stream of propaganda pimps to carry the torch forward.
Examples you ask ? No problemo.
The list is endless, but we could start with a few. Monster mutations, now that will fill in all the gaps to Darwin’s Swiss cheese model. No wait, that doesn’t do it alone. How bout Co-Evolution. No, that has flaws too. OK, how bout Piltdown man. No, sorry that was a lie too. OK then, we can fill in the gaps with Stevie Wonder’s P.E. theory, that will fully explain it. Wait, not all evos accept PE theory. Rats ! Oh well, we know the evos creed; if the puzzle pieces don’t always fit, grab a hammer.

In modern years, the trend as of late, has been to simply go on the offensive and constantly be in attack mode. With this game plan, you no longer have to defend your position.

Therefore, please keep it up. Wasting your collective energy on Behe is very amusing. However, ten years from now, this latest evos ploy, like all others, will not have amounted to jack-squat. The ID movement by then will be stronger than ever.

Adios for now, my evos in-breds.
I’ll be watching from time to time.
Panda’s Thumb is always dependable for a good laugh now and then.


Quote

Comment #53509

Posted by improvius on October 24, 2005 01:24 PM (e) (s)

   Gary wrote:

   The latest attempt to discredit the ID movement, by attacking Behe, is par for the course. Do you actually think that challenging the credibility of one, single individual, is going bring the entire ID position to a grinding halt ?

It’s not our fault that the DI is afraid to put anyone else on the stand. If it were up to us ‘evos’, they’d all be testifying.


Quote

Comment #53510

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 01:27 PM (e) (s)

   Therefore, please keep it up. Wasting your collective energy on Behe is very amusing. However, ten years from now, this latest evos ploy, like all others, will not have amounted to jack-squat. The ID movement by then will be stronger than ever.

—Gary Mac, 2005

   Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.

—Eberhard Dennert, 1904


Quote

Comment #53514

Posted by Flint on October 24, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)

Steve S:

An interesting parallel, but I think there’s a qualitative difference. Dennert felt that Darwinism would fail on the merits, among “men of science.” Gary Mac speaks instead of “the ID movement” somehow managing to quash Darwinism by depriving everyone of any exposure to it. That is, a political solution rather than a scientific solution. Maybe this reflects a realization that evolutionary theory works, has essentially unanimous approval among “men of science”, and won’t go away naturally, but only with determined assistance. If so, we have a case of creationists actually learning something, which is a rare bird indeed.


Quote

Comment #53515

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 24, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

   Every time, over the decades, when YOUR theory has been exposed

Waterloo !!!! Waterloo !!!!! Waterloo !!!!!!

(yawn)


Quote

Comment #53519

Posted by jeffw on October 24, 2005 02:30 PM (e) (s)

   Therefore, please keep it up. Wasting your collective energy on Behe is very amusing. However, ten years from now, this latest evos ploy, like all others, will not have amounted to jack-squat. The ID movement by then will be stronger than ever.

In your dreams. ID has nowhere to go. It has nothing to build on. Nothing to contribute to society. It throws its hands up in the air and says “god dunnit, end of story!”. It gives up.

Evolution continues as it has for millenia. It hasn’t survived 150 years of attacks for nothing. It’s the *truth*. Get used to it and stop living in a state of denial.


Quote

Comment #53521

Posted by dre on October 24, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)

regarding a minor point of gary mac’s bit:

i have always understood that the piltdown man was in fact a hoax perpetrated by creationists to discredit darwinists. am i wrong?


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2005,23:58   

Quote

Comment #53526

Posted by Alan on October 24, 2005 02:49 PM (e) (s)

Dr K. John Morrow has responded to an email enquiry concerning his review of Behe’s DBB here.


Quote

Comment #53535

Posted by Pete on October 24, 2005 03:19 PM (e) (s)

   i have always understood that the piltdown man was in fact a hoax perpetrated by creationists to discredit darwinists. am i wrong?

Yes
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.…


Quote

Comment #53536

Posted by Jit Gill on October 24, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

2 things I have noticed about the DI website. http://www.discovery.org .

First off, if you go to the news section, top news topic “Dover Intelligent Design Trial Information” it list the date as October 30th. Now can DI also see into the future?. If they can I need to get on this band wagon.

Second they state a free DVD on their website..I want this DVD, just to see what they have to say in it..But alas it’s not really free, you need to pay $50 to become a member. You would think DI would give out the DVD’s for free..really free to the public to convert non-believers into the Theory of ID. Why give a member a DVD?, when they are already a member!!. Humm..well I guess it’s allot easier to convert a member into the Teachings of ID, rather then giving it away for free so that non-members might believe. They know it will be a waste of money.

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53537

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 24, 2005 03:43 PM (e) (s)

   OK, how bout Piltdown man.

(sigh) It always makes me smile when the fundies yell about “Piltdown Man”.

Let’s point out a few things about that, shall we?

(1) Piltdown was never accepted by all biologists. Right from the beginning, there were a large proportion of paleo-anthropologists who assumed that the skull and jawbone did not belong together. This is because Piltdown never fit into the evolutionary lineage that was being illustrated by the other hominid fossils that had been found. Oddly enough, it was most of the British scientists who wanted to accept Piltdown, and most of the rest of the world that rejected it. That may or may not have something to do with where it was found.

(2) the Piltdown fraud was discovered and publicized by EVOLUTIOANRY BIOLOGISTS, not by creationists. The creationists just stood around looking stupid, while the EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS did all the lab work and investigations that uncovered the fraud.

(3) The Piltdown fraud was discovered using the sequence of the fossil record and dating techniques, BOTH of which were (and still are) rejected by creationists. As noted, most biologists (while not suspecting a hoax) asserted that the skull and the jaw did not belong together, because they did not fit into the evolutionary sequence that was known from other fossils. Indeed, one of the reasons that Piltdown was flourine-tested in the first place was to see if the skull and jaw were really the same age (if it could be shown that they were different ages, then they did not belong together, as many scientists were assuming). The flourine testing revealed the fraud, and later radiodating confirmed it —— the very same radiodating techniques, take note, that CREATIONISTS keep telling us are so wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy. The odd thing is that if one rejects the dating processes and the fossil sequence (as creationists do), then there is NO REASON to conclude that Piltdown IS a fraud. So not only did creationists NOT discover the fraud, but they COULD NOT have. They “did not believe in” the very methods that were used to uncover the hoax.


Quote

Comment #53540

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 03:50 PM (e) (s)

   You would think DI would give out the DVD’s for free..really free to the public to convert non-believers into the Theory of ID.

yup. that strategy works well for microsoft and AOL; you’d think they would have learned from BG, since i hear he made a monetary contribution himself.


Quote

Comment #53541

Posted by Flint on October 24, 2005 03:51 PM (e) (s)

About Piltdown, we see (through creationist eyes) that paleontologists make errors because they ADMIT they make errors. Without that admission, creationists would never have known the difference. Similarly, creationists are never wrong because they never admit error. It’s the caesar’s wife syndrome, which every politician knows by heart. Wrongdoing is fine, but the *appearance* of wrongdoing is fatal, whether or not you did anything wrong.


Quote

Comment #53543

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

nice job, lenny. I wish any of that would actually sink into these folks’ skulls, but i doubt it. Most of them appear to be as intractable and dense as Blast.

at least the ones that feel the need to post here, anyway.


Quote

Comment #53545

Posted by Russell on October 24, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

   First off, if you go to the [Discovery Institute’s] news section, top news topic “Dover Intelligent Design Trial Information” it list the date as October 30th.

I’ve noticed this quirk is a fairly consistent one on their site. A lot of “news” items are assigned seemingly random future dates. Anyone know why?


Quote

Comment #53549

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)

i’ll take a guess:

i think it’s because of the way they use links; they use each link to represent a particular “theme”, and then fill in around a week’s worth of related materials around it. secondly, they don’t want the links to seem “out of date” so they pre-date them to what they expect the most recent set of info related to the links topic will be.

functionally, the purpose for creating links like this is in order to sell viewpoints related to, but not directly on topic. for example, if you click on any of the links on the front page supposedly linking to trial information, you get pages of diatribe and links relating to DI op ed pieces BEFORE you actually get to any direct information on the trial itself.

it’s a marketing ploy. nothing more.


Quote

Comment #53552

Posted by Flint on October 24, 2005 04:26 PM (e) (s)

An interesting legal document is found here, wherein Judge Jones agrees that the amicus curae submitted by the DI was nothing more than the testimony the DI folks had prepared to present as witnesses, which they were attempting to sneak in the back door without opening themselves up to cross-examination. Judge Jones booted it.


Quote

Comment #53553

Posted by improvius on October 24, 2005 04:33 PM (e) (s)

Has everyone seen this Thomas Moore vs. Discovery Institute tidbit yet? It’s brilliant.

Also,

   A lot of “news” items are assigned seemingly random future dates. Anyone know why?

They can see into the future. Didn’t you read Behe’s testimony?


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:03   

Quote

Comment #53560

Posted by Alienward on October 24, 2005 04:57 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

   An interesting legal document is found here, wherein Judge Jones agrees that the amicus curae submitted by the DI was nothing more than the testimony the DI folks had prepared to present as witnesses, which they were attempting to sneak in the back door without opening themselves up to cross-examination. Judge Jones booted it.

From the Memorandum and Order:

   As all parties and amici filers are well aware, both Mr. Dembski and Mr.
   Meyer are no longer expert witnesses for the Defendants. Over the course of this
   trial we have provided both parties with every opportunity to present their expert
   witnesses, and accordingly the parties have engaged in thorough cross-examination
   of the opposing experts. We thus find it to be fundamentally unfair to receive a
   brief that frequently references an expert report, that was originally prepared for use
   in this case when Mr. Meyer was to be offered as a defense expert witness, and
   which contains the full revised report of Mr. Meyer as an attachment to the brief.
   The inclusion of such information in an ad hoc unsolicited fashion, when Plaintiffs
   have not had the opportunity to cross-examine such expert witness is clearly
   inappropriate under the circumstances. In fact, “Appendix A” of the amicus brief is entitled “Revised Report of Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D., May 19, 2005” and it is
   clearly an expert report prepared in anticipation of Mr. Meyer’s testimony at trial.
   We will not countenance what is clearly a “back door” attempt to insert expert
   testimony into the record free of the crucible of trial and cross-examination.

And now from the ID the Future blog:

   Part 1 of Expert Report Rebutting Darwinists Filed With Legal Brief in Dover Trial
   Stephen Meyer

   Last week Discovery Institute filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover federal trial. Appended to that was my expert report which I have decided to post in several installments. Here then is the first section.

Pssst. Hey Meyer, your brief, it’s in the trash because the judge’s “back door attempt to subvert the judicial system” detector went off.


Quote

Comment #53561

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 04:59 PM (e) (s)

Obviously there are differences, Flint, my point just being that people have predicted the imminent demise of “Darwininism” for the last century, and that creationists should learn from history.

Or even the recent history of the ID movement itself. Dembski said around 1998 that molecular darwinism would be dead within 5 years. Nelson said in 2002 that Common Descent would be dead in 2-3 years.


Quote

Comment #53568

Posted by Gary Mac on October 24, 2005 05:27 PM (e) (s)

Kudos to Lenny for pointing dre in the right direction, based on his mis-deed in the original post # 53521.

However, Lenny the Fraud, as usual, quickly continues with the evos propaganda.
The good doctor of the dark side claims that all Creationists reject the fluorine testing method, used by Oakley and the boys, back in 1953. Maybe some YEC fundies, but not this Old Earth IDer.
I have no problem with the fluorine testing technique. It helped to expose a fraud, perpetrated by a group of evos, remember ? ? ?


Quote

Comment #53569

Posted by RBH on October 24, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)

Steve S wrote

   Or even the recent history of the ID movement itself. Dembski said around 1998 that molecular darwinism would be dead within 5 years. Nelson said in 2002 that Common Descent would be dead in 2-3 years.

I don’t doubt it, but do you have references for those predictions?

RBH


Quote

Comment #53570

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 05:40 PM (e) (s)

Lenny, of course, was correct, when he said:

“The flourine testing revealed the fraud, and later radiodating confirmed it —— the very same radiodating techniques, take note, that CREATIONISTS keep telling us are so wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy.”

Because skepticism of radiometric dating does come from the creationists, both YECers and Intelligent Designers. Lenny never said all. He said that creationists doubt it. And they do.


Quote

Comment #53573

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)

Sure RBH http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm


Quote

Comment #53582

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 24, 2005 06:42 PM (e) (s)

   The good doctor of the dark side claims that all Creationists reject the fluorine testing method, used by Oakley and the boys, back in 1953. Maybe some YEC fundies, but not this Old Earth IDer.
   I have no problem with the fluorine testing technique. It helped to expose a fraud, perpetrated by a group of evos, remember ? ?

Glad to hear it.

I take it, then, that you accept the order of the fossil record (the other reason why many paleo-anthropologists didn’t accept Piltdown)?

If so, I have a simple question for you:

Where were all the dinosaurs and humans while the Burgess shale organisms were being fossilized?

Where were all the humans while all the dinosaurs and Burgess shale organisms were being fossilized?

I won;t bother to ask you whjat the scientific gtheory of old-earth creationism is, since I already know that you don’t have one.

But I *would* be curious to know why all the YECers think the OECers are full of crap?


Quote

Comment #53588

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 06:57 PM (e) (s)

Doctor of the Dark Side ™

hmm, I’d be proud to wear that mantle myself.

will you make t-shirts, lenny?


Quote

Comment #53593

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

The Dembski quote isn’t in that reference I gave. well it is, but it’s referenced to 2004. But i recall from somewhere he said it in the late 90’s.


Quote

Comment #53594

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 24, 2005 07:18 PM (e) (s)

New transcript:

Day 12 PM

Do note that this file is damaged as parts are unreadable. Now we know what the ACLU was referring to when it said it got damaged PDFs as its explanation for the missing PDFs. If someone knows how to fix this kind of problem, you have the chance to be a hero. I think the problem is a faulty embedding of fonts.

BTW, this file is in NCSE webspace. This entry tries to link to it but the link is broken. The file was saved as 2005_1018_day12_pm.pdf instead of 2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf.



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:06   

Quote

Comment #53596

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)

Here’s a good one

   “The world has had enough of evolution …The Science of the future will be creationism….The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science,”

   — Harold W. Clark, 1929

That sounds identical to what the Discovery Institute says right now, 76 years later.

   “What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?”

   —Dembski, 1998



Quote

Comment #53603

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 07:58 PM (e) (s)

w/r/t Dover,

‘New recruits’ said needed for intelligent design
Witness says introducing theory in schools could make it more mainstream

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9805776/


Quote

Comment #53608

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 24, 2005 09:07 PM (e) (s)

   Doctor of the Dark Side ™

“If you only knew the power of the Dark Side … … “

;>


Quote

Comment #53613

Posted by Koly on October 24, 2005 09:34 PM (e) (s)

If there is a high point of the Behe testimony, it has to be the end of the cross examination, no doubt. I guess Rothschild had more questions, but then he thought something like “well, this poor guy has just committed a seppuku, I won’t kick the dead body.” The file is corrupted, but I rewrite the last part of the cross here, I think such a grandiose suicide is worth it (sorry for any errors):

   [Rothschild is talking about the difference between archeology and ID, especially targeting the “inductive argument” for the “purposeful arrangement of parts” dogma]

   Rothschild: But in any event this is another difference, we can test whether humans could make these archaeological objects, but even with modern technology most biological systems we cannot recreate in a lab, right?

   Behe: Yes. They are beyond are ability to design.

   Rothschild: So if a strength of an inference depends on the similarities, this is a pretty weak inference, isn’t it Dr.Behe?

   Behe [The Suicide, emphasize mine]: No, I disagree completely. Again if something shows strong mark of design, and even if a human designer could not have made it, then we nonetheless would think that something else have made it. LOTS OF SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES ARE BASED ON SCENARIOS LIKE THAT, and again the, I think similarities between what we find in designed objects in our everyday world and the complex molecular machinery of the cell HAVE A LOT MORE COMMON THAN DO EXPLOSIONS WE SEE ON EARTH SUCH AS CANNON BALLS AND SO FORTH AND THE EXPLOSIONS OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and that the induction seems to have been fairly successful in trying to explain some features of the world. SO I THINK IT’S NOT AT ALL UNCALLED FOR TO MAKE A SIMILAR INDUCTION IN THIS CASE.

   Rothschild: Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?

   Behe: That’s correct, they are not. But they certainly try to base themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some points.

Behe’s only clarification for his “inductive argument” for “purposeful arrangement of part” is to compare [yet again] the Big Bang to cannon balls (!!!) and ID to science fiction. Wow.


Quote

Comment #53614

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 09:44 PM (e) (s)

   But they certainly try to base themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some points.

exactly. Behe just summarized the ID strategy in a nutshell:

spin out what your audience would consider plausible… for some points.

yup, make points with a biased audience. that’s all they care about.


Quote

Comment #53616

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 09:50 PM (e) (s)

earlier, i posted a link to behe’s testimony that actually linked to Miller’s testimony.

Don’t ever doubt that the DI guys monitor this site on a regular basis - they just fixed it.


Quote

Comment #53618

Posted by evan.yeung on October 24, 2005 10:07 PM (e) (s)

Quick question… is this the Sir_Toejam that helped me with great suggestions for my Neverwinter Nights Module? If it is… it’s a small world! :)

Love TalkOrigins… been following it for years, and I’ve been clicking the Dover Update link about every 4 hours just to see what’s been going on. Thanks for the great job, everyone!


Quote

Comment #53619

Posted by Ken Willis on October 24, 2005 10:51 PM (e) (s)

Question about Piltdown Man. As I understand it, at that time paleontologists believed humans evolved from apes but there were no transitional fossils to prove it, thus the “missing link.” The Piltdown fraud was offered by an opportunist seeking notoriety [and perhaps money]for discovering the link that was missing. The fraud was uncovered.

But later paleontologists rejected the idea that humans evolved from apes, and now hold that apes and humans diverged from a common ancestor into two separate lineages and therefore there is no “missing link.”

A majority of the non-science educated public hasn’t gotten the word on this and still thinks that modern evolutionary biologists believe that humans evolved from apes. Hence, ID is appealing to them.

Do I have any of this right?


Quote

Comment #53620

Posted by Ed Darrell on October 24, 2005 10:51 PM (e) (s)

Please don’t forget Barbara McClintock’s Nobel. The claim that the Nobels haven’t honored evolution is just plain wacky, as well as false.


Quote

Comment #53622

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 11:15 PM (e) (s)

   Quick question… is this the Sir_Toejam that helped me with great suggestions for my Neverwinter Nights Module? If it is… it’s a small world! :)

ROFLMAO!

yup :)

You found another of my favorite distractions!

small world indeed.

for those unaware, evan is from Australia, I’m from CA, and we have never spoken to each other about this site before, but have swapped information about various computer game modifications and scripts.

Carl Jung would call this a case of synchronicity, I’m sure.



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:10   

Quote

Comment #53623

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 24, 2005 11:18 PM (e) (s)

er, correction about the Australia thing, i think, but everything else holds.


Quote

Comment #53631

Posted by Evan K Yeung on October 25, 2005 12:21 AM (e) (s)

It’s good to ‘see’ you, Sir_Toejam!!! I thought you looked familiar!

I’m actually from Cincinnati Ohio, but I sometimes type with an Australian accent. :)

If you don’t mind my asking, what got you interested in the whole evolutionary theory/intelligent design ‘controversy’?


Quote

Comment #53632

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 12:38 AM (e) (s)

I’m a zoologist, plain and simple. Like most scientists, i never could understand why there was any “controversy” being discussed to begin with, as I had been using evolutionary theory in my behavioral studies for years.

then i started seeing local high schools begin discussing this ID crap, and saw the writing on the wall.

since then, it’s become obvious to me that most of the folks behind the ID movement are intextricably tied up in neocon politics for the last 25 plus years, so i come here and spend some time every once in a while to catch up on the latest.

I use this site as kind of an “indicator species” if you will, that gives me an overall feel for how far the fundies have gotten.

I keep hoping beyond hope that there will be some shift in the preponderance of ignorance in america that allows this ID stuff to even get off the ground to begin with.

feel free to email me if you want to swap stories.

cheers


Quote

Comment #53639

Posted by DrFrank on October 25, 2005 04:42 AM (e) (s)

Gary Mac:
The latest attempt to discredit the ID movement, by attacking Behe, is par for the course. Do you actually think that challenging the credibility of one, single individual, is going bring the entire ID position to a grinding halt ?

Well, if either Meyer or Dembski had been man enough to take the stand we’d be laughing at their testimonies too ;) Anyway, as far as I’m aware Behe is 50% of the ID movement, as only he and Dembski have produced anything new over the good ol’ standard Creationist crap. Additionally, he’s the only one who could pass for a scientist in the right light.


Quote

Comment #53640

Posted by DrFrank on October 25, 2005 05:09 AM (e) (s)

From http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91142/

Evolutionary theory is a monolith of ideas that excludes other concepts from competing on a level playing field, Steve Fuller testified this morning
Yes, it’s so unfair to expect other arbitrary hypotheses to produce evidence, isn’t it?

Fuller said the concept’s chief supporters “can’t spontaneously generate a following” unless they get it in the schools first.
Odd that, I don’t remember any other successful scientific theory having to be forced into schools politically in order to gain a following.

Fuller is a sociology professor from the University of Warwick in England.
####, I thought we Brits were relatively free from this crap. I personally apologise on behalf of the UK.


Quote

Comment #53642

Posted by dre on October 25, 2005 05:39 AM (e) (s)

re my earlier post on piltdown man,

i suppose, now that i’ve read some clarifications, i thought conan doyle (a creationist) was directly involved and responsible for supplying the bones in question. i can see now that i had accepted someone’s (who? when? i don’t remember…) speculation on that. my bad.

the brief discussion that my post led to at least reinforced the case AGAINST using piltdown man to discredit science, and i am most satisfied with that. as a bonus, some id guy accused me of a “mis-deed” and used the word “kudos” in the same sentence. i love that.


Quote

Comment #53643

Posted by Ginger Yellow on October 25, 2005 06:06 AM (e) (s)

“####, I thought we Brits were relatively free from this crap. I personally apologise on behalf of the UK.”

Likewise. I’d also like to apologise for Tony Blair - in general, and specifically for his endorsement of teaching creationism in his ill-advised city academies.


Quote

Comment #53646

Posted by DrFrank on October 25, 2005 06:28 AM (e) (s)

Thanks, Ginger Yellow, I’d somehow missed reading about that until you pointed that out: the main links I could find were from 2002, though, so I don’t know whether it’s still going on.

I hope we don’t need our own Dover trial sometime in the future


Quote

Comment #53651

Posted by Steve LaBonne on October 25, 2005 07:21 AM (e) (s)

Fuller is one of the worst of the pomo sociology of science cranks. He makes a guy like Bruno Latour look like a font of brilliant insights by comparison.


Quote

Comment #53652

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 25, 2005 07:26 AM (e) (s)

   Evolutionary theory is a monolith of ideas that excludes other concepts from competing on a level playing field, Steve Fuller testified this morning in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg. Fuller is a sociology professor from the University of Warwick in England.

Oddly, this “the big bad scientists won’t let us publish, boo hoo hoo” spiel is EXACTLY the same as that presented by the creation “scientists” in Arkansas and Louisiana, who also tried to argue that “the scientific establishment” was unfairly excluding their radical new ideas.

Once again, we can see that there simply is no demonstrable difference between ID and creationism. Same goals, same arguments, and, in many cases, same people. (shrug)



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:14   

Quote

Comment #53653

Posted by Ross on October 25, 2005 07:29 AM (e) (s)

DrFrank,

“I hope we don’t need our own Dover trial sometime in the future”

They may have more Fundies than us but they’ve got a much better constitution. On what basis could we sucessfully challenge either creationism or ID being taught in UK schools without constitutional support?

We’re lucky the Church of England (or those parts of it represented by her Maj) is a liberal church and one that’s not threatened by evolution or Reg Vardy’s cash would have us all searching the law for decent grounds for a court action.

Has anyone thought how we might defend against such an eventuality? What would be the position for the US if ID-ers could point over here and say “England’s teaching it”?

Take care,

Ross


Quote

Comment #53655

Posted by Flint on October 25, 2005 08:16 AM (e) (s)

Ken Willis:

I’m by no means an authority, but my understanding and yours are certainly different.

   Question about Piltdown Man. As I understand it, at that time paleontologists believed humans evolved from apes…

Humans ARE apes. I can’t speak about what paleontologists may have believed at the time, but they may have been seeking evidence of a gradual transition to modern man from something a bit different.

   But later paleontologists rejected the idea that humans evolved from apes

No, humans ARE apes. I don’t think this has ever really been a matter of speculation. Like rejecting the idea that tuna evolved from fish. Yes, basically all fish evolved from other fish. Humans are apes who evolved from earlier apes. Fossil evidence indicates that the hominid branch of the ape clade was once considerably more luxuriant, and that as many as six different species of hominids may have lived concurrently. Nobody knows how many different species may have evolved and gone extinct — I think the last count was about a dozen? Nobody knows which, if any, of these discovered species may have been in our direct line of ancestry.

   and now hold that apes and humans diverged from a common ancestor into two separate lineages and therefore there is no “missing link.”

Not exactly. The ape clade (which currently consists of humans, a couple species of gorillas, a couple species of chimps, orangutans, and gibbons) is considered to have had a common ancestor which branched into the ape clade and the monkey clade. Most paleontologists (according to my reading) think this common ancestor was itself a card-carrying member of the (much older) monkey clade.

There is some doubt as to exactly when the various apes split from one another, so the resulting different cladograms reflect this uncertainty. I think the latest analysis, based on molecular methods, is that humans split off before chimps did. So humans are cladistically speaking spang in the center of the ape clade.

   A majority of the non-science educated public hasn’t gotten the word on this and still thinks that modern evolutionary biologists believe that humans evolved from apes. Hence, ID is appealing to them.

If you are an example of the non-science educated public, you may be right. So once again with feeling: humans didn’t “evolve from apes”, humans are genuine mainstream apes, part of a clade whose original ancestor branched from the monkey clade perhaps (estimates vary) 16 million years ago. But the actual biological history of the various ape species seems to be of very little interest to the general public. ID appeals entirely for religious reasons; it is a practical result of the evangelical thrust of fundamentalism having been thwarted by the courts from gaining a foothold in public education. The evangelists are simply repackaging the same Old Time Religion under a new banner and trying again. Evangelism never sleeps.

   Do I have any of this right?

I don’t think so, but I welcome second opinions.


Quote

Comment #53661

Posted by Mona on October 25, 2005 09:52 AM (e) (s)

On Monday, the defense brought in Steve Fuller, to give the postmodernist version of why “intelligent design” should be taught in the classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania.

I wonder whether the ACLU has considered using Paul Gross as a rebuttal witness? He co-authored Creationism’s Trojan Horse w/ Barbara Forrest, but a decade before exposed pomo and far-left feminism’s attacks on science in another co-authored book, Higher Superstition.

Back some years ago when I was studying religion in America as an undergrad and we got into the whole creationism thing, one of the profs in the Women’s Studies dept expressed some admiration for the creationists, since she objected to “privileging science.” Judge Jones is a Bush 43 appointee, and there could be some persuasive benefit in having Gross explore how ID dovetails nicely with attacks on science from the other (far) side of the political spectrum; Fuller’s testimony opens that door.

(And, with appeals, possibly to the SCOTUS, in mind it would not be a bad idea for Scalia, Thomas & etc. to see such testimony in the record.)


Quote

Comment #53667

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 25, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

The Nobel Prize has, unambiguiously, been given for evolutionary biology: the 1969 Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Luria, Delbruck, and Hershey showed unambiguously in 1948 that mutations arise spontaneously in a population prior to selection, not in response to it. In other words, the 1969 Nobel was awarded for an experiment that addressed the very core of the modern synthesis.


Quote

Comment #53670

Posted by Ginger Yellow on October 25, 2005 11:22 AM (e) (s)

Ross - it’s vaguely possible that you could challenge it under the human rights act, which I think has a religious freedom clause, but I’m no lawyer. Also given that we (and other European countries) have an established church (even though said church supports evolution) and publicly funded religious schools, it would probably fall under the national discretion exemption. I think the only way to oppose it effectively would be to embarrass the government into kicking Vardy out, or Blair for that matter. But that hasn’t worked so far with any of their other hare-brained schemes - witness the latest schools policy.


Quote

Comment #53676

Posted by Ken Willis on October 25, 2005 11:48 AM (e) (s)

I appreciate you answering my question, Flint. You seem a little full of yourself, but thanks anyway.

By the way, I may or may not be a part of the “non-science educated public,” [we are all part of the non-something educated public, aren’t we] but surely you wouldn’t think the evolution section of PBS.ORG is part of that would you? Here is a statement from their website:

   Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point — scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago — this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today.

Maybe I’m not as uneducated as you’d like to think, Flint. Maybe my good-faith question deserved a bit more respect than you were willing to give it. And maybe humans are not apes. At least not all of them.


Quote

Comment #53681

Posted by Ginger Yellow on October 25, 2005 12:11 PM (e) (s)

What on earth are you on about, Ken? Nothing in the PBS spiel contradicts anything Flint said. Humans are apes. All of them. Later palaeontologists didn’t “reject the notion that humans evolved from apes”. They rejected the notion that humans evolved from present day apes. As did earlier palaeontologists. Only non-science educated people think evolution says humans evolved from present day anything - hence the incredibly annoying and stupid refrain “Why are there still monkeys?”.

As for accusing Flint of being full of himself, again you’re being absurd. Flint goes out of his way to emphasise the limits of his authority.


Quote

Comment #53688

Posted by Anton Mates on October 25, 2005 01:08 PM (e) (s)

“But during cross-examination, he said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is “too young” to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science.”

A couple thousand years older than Darwin is “too young?” How incompetent does Fuller think the current crop of ID theorists are, that they need more than a two-millennium head start on their idea to keep up with the rest of biology?


Quote

Comment #53690

Posted by Flint on October 25, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)

Ken Willis:

It might be an interesting question whether any present-day organism can be said to have evolved from any other present-day organism. Perhaps this is a matter of degree — our model says new species originate primarily by branching events, while the parent species remains in stasis. So presumably the world is full of species branched from existing parent species recently enough to say they “evolved from a present-day organism.” But it’s my understanding that any substantial divergence (where we might find a fully isolated, clearly different species) has itself resulted from numerous branching events, all of them so minor we probably wouldn’t classify a one-step branch as a separate species at all.

Fossil evidence of our history, at least as I read it, reflects this categorizational confusion. Imagine going to some old graveyard, being told in advance that 12 hominid species are buried there, and trying to classify the bones accordingly. I suggest you could do this fairly successfully! If you’d been convinced there were 2, or 5, or 20 species, you could STILL do it successfully. People vary quite a bit, and bones by themselves tend to capture only a subset of the necessary information. Imagine some homo erectus biologist being transported to our time. Would he consider Chinese, Swedes, and Nigerians all one species? Where would he draw the line? If a technological collapse led to reproductive isolation of these populations, THEN would they be separate species? I think if we were talking about, say, sparrows, we WOULD call them separate species in that situation.

I imagine it’s entirely reasonable for us to look at all these not-quite-modern-human remains and face this same problem. Just how different is different enough for them to have been our ancestors, or not our ancestors, but N single-step branches from one of our direct-line ancestors? As N shrinks, the distinctions become arbitrary. Genetically, humans are closer to chimpanzees than either of us is to a gorilla.

So the chimp/human branch of the bush split from the gorilla/other branch at some earlier time. Then the chimp and human sub-bushes split, probably somewhere in the middle of the chimp-like bramble, and sprouted a relatively fecund bush of their own, the hominid bush. We are the sole surviving twig of that bush, whereas two chimp species survive from the chimp bush. Clearly, the ape clade hasn’t been particularly successful in generating new lineages, and the lineages that it HAS sprouted haven’t been very good at surviving.

I don’t really understand what you mean about some humans not being apes. This really IS like saying that not all tuna are fish. What ELSE would they be? Are you using the word “ape” not as a science-educated person would, but rather as some kind of, I don’t know, generic insult or something? Like maybe calling someone an ass? But you’d have to go back a very long way indeed to find a common ancestor between apes and asses, WAY outside the ape clade.


Quote

Comment #53693

Posted by Gary Mac on October 25, 2005 01:21 PM (e) (s)

Hey Lenny,

Sorry dude.
However, you continue to step in your own schijten.

In post # 53652 you claim that Creats and IDers are often the same people, with the same goals and arguments, blah, blah, blah !

Yet, in # 53582, you implied that YECs and OCers don’t agree.

Wait, I thought they were often the same people, with the same goals, etc. etc.
Using your idiot’s logic, that must mean that atheists and Catholics have the same goals, and are often one in the same people, correct ? I mean, since they are both Pro-evolution, they have to agree on everything else, right ? Just like Creats and IDers share common ground, atheists and Catholics are often the exact same people, right Loony ?

Also, you asked in that post why no humans or dinos are found in the Burgess Shale discovery ? Let’s see. The time line distributes them at about 540 mya; early dinos at about 230 mya and Ramidus at about 4.4 mya. So, we would not expect them to be inter-mingled.
Therefore, your question here too, is bogus.

By the way Lenny, you still have schijten on your shoes.
No, WAIT ! Don’t use your tongue …….!
####. And you should know better by now, being a doctor and such, right Reverend ?



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:20   

Quote

Comment #53694

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 01:26 PM (e) (s)

   I don’t really understand what you mean about some humans not being apes

perhaps he meant that as a subtle joke directed towards yourself, by reverse implication?

I could be wrong.

I for one have no problems being labeled an ape. but then i have no problems labeling myself Sir_Toejam either.

:)


Quote

Comment #53696

Posted by K.E. on October 25, 2005 01:29 PM (e) (s)

Strange bedfellows indeed pseudo-science and postmodernism
But there is a method to the madness

Snip from:

“Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?”
Alan Sokal
Professor of Physics, New York University

   “advocates of pseudo-science -at least the most sophisticated of them -sometimes fall back on postmodernist arguments when the reliability or credibility of their evidence is challenged “

on this page

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.h…


Quote

Comment #53697

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on October 25, 2005 01:29 PM (e) (s)

   Gary Mac wrote:

   Therefore, please keep it up. Wasting your collective energy on Behe is very amusing. However, ten years from now, this latest evos ploy, like all others, will not have amounted to jack-squat. The ID movement by then will be stronger than ever.

1000 times nothing is still nothing. Revel in your ignorance.

Cheers,


Quote

Comment #53699

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s)

@gary,

hmm, not to speak for lenny (he has no problems doing that for himself), but:

one can imply the same long term goals for a group of organizations while still pointing out differences in their individual philosophies, can you not?

especially when you are using an apples/oranges mixed analogy like you are.

YEC and OEC would more likely be lumped under the entire IDC umbrella, but that doesn’t mean that the YEC and OEC philosophies agree with one another on the specifics, to be sure.

further stretching your mixed analogy to include comparison to atheists/catholics, can’t you imagine cases where the two disparate groups might work together on a common cause?

I can.

It’s called the destruction of the ID movement.


Quote

Comment #53700

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

   It’s called the destruction of the ID movement.

(better known as the desire to teach REAL science to students)


Quote

Comment #53703

Posted by Gary Mac on October 25, 2005 01:39 PM (e) (s)

Hey Lenny,

In other parts of the world, that stuff on your shoes is also called sir toejam.

Just thought I would pass it along.

Cheers.


Quote

Comment #53706

Posted by K.E. on October 25, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)

Change hands Gary


Quote

Comment #53708

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)

hmm, I’m compiling all the meanings of the word “toejam” from all around the world. could you specify which parts of the world your definition comes from?


Quote

Comment #53712

Posted by improvius on October 25, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

   Sir_Toejam wrote:

   further stretching your mixed analogy to include comparison to atheists/catholics, can’t you imagine cases where the two disparate groups might work together on a common cause?

   I can.

   It’s called the destruction of the ID movement.

Psst… you’re not imagining it!

Anyway, IIRC, the Kansas kangaroo court transcripts seem to indicate that a majority of the ID proponents are, in fact, YECs.


Quote

Comment #53719

Posted by K.E. on October 25, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)

As well as being some sort of kooky fruit cake “extreme lunatic-fringe second coming evangelistic rapture” crowd.

Just google whats inside the quotes or for a real laugh (well cry actually) the whole lot.

Kind of reminds me of the sermon on the mount in
“The Life of Brian”

when a few people on the outside of the crowd (extreme, far away from the center) couldn’t hear the word (s).

The Messiah:
“Blessed are the Peace Makers”

Cleese:
“What did he say?”

Bystander:
“I think he said ‘Blessed are the Cheese Makers’”

Cleese:
…very confused
‘Blessed are the Cheese Makers’!!???



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:26   

Quote

Comment #53729

Posted by bill on October 25, 2005 03:28 PM (e) (s)

Well, rats!

I was so looking forward to reading the transcript of Nord’s cross.

Wasn’t he the one that said you could use “id” in teaching math?


Quote

Comment #53730

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 25, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

I thought Mike Argento was flagging a bit last week, but his latest column is back to mid-season form. Classic line: “Fuller said intelligent design “needed to be mainstreamed,” which I guess is a polite way of saying that in its current embryological state, it rides the short bus of science”

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91282/


Quote

Comment #53732

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 25, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

Are there any ideas about what has gone wrong with the transcript pipeline? The last clear copy I can find is Day 12 AM. I am having bad withdrawl symptoms.


Quote

Comment #53733

Posted by Mona on October 25, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)

William Dembski, John Angus Campbell, Stephen Meyer, Dick Carpenter, and Warren Nord have withdrawn

While he won’t cite it in his decision, this is absolutely the sort of thing a judge notices. Indeed, my lawyerly opinion is that the DI erred tactically in trying to sneak Dembski and Meyer’s “expert” views in as an amicus brief, because that opened an opportunity for the plaintiffs to stress heavily that they had withdrawn and feared cross-X. Judge Jones cited the cross-X issue in his grant of the plaintiffs’ (predictable, or should have been to DI) motion to strike said amicus brief, so it is on his mind.

Five withdrawing expert witnesses? Any other lawyers ever seen anything like that?


Quote

Comment #53744

Posted by bill on October 25, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

Could it be that Carpenter and Nord saw the devolution of Behe into a monkey?


Quote

Comment #53750

Posted by Mona on October 25, 2005 04:32 PM (e) (s)

Could it be that Carpenter and Nord saw the devolution of Behe into a monkey?

Or, the defense team determined they could not stand up to cross-X. Typically, lawyers run their own witnesses through a mock, harsh cross-X to prepare them before they take the stand. If those two couldn’t cut the mustard during a dry run, it may have been a tactical decision to cut them.


Quote

Comment #53752

Posted by improvius on October 25, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

Lots of speculation here:

I think they got cold feet and decided to let the defendants lose on the basis of their own religious agenda - i.e. the school board members themselves wanted to push religion into the science classroom. They know they’re going to lose at this point, so they’d rather make it a loss for the school board and not a loss for ID. So they’re trying to distance themselves from the case to avoid any sort of ruling that explicitly addresses ID. My gut feeling is that they tried to talk Behe out of testifying, too, but he was too arrogant to back down. Again, all of this is purely speculation on my part.


Quote

Comment #53753

Posted by improvius on October 25, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

I know it’s a repost, but this article on the Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center having a go at each other is a must-read regarding the witnesses dropping out.


Quote

Comment #53773

Posted by wad of id on October 25, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)

Rats jumping off a sinking ship…


Quote

Comment #53783

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 25, 2005 06:28 PM (e) (s)

   Hey Lenny,

   In other parts of the world, that stuff on your shoes is also called sir toejam.

   Just thought I would pass it along.

   Cheers.

(yawn)

OK, no need to pay any further attention to the twit.



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:30   

Quote

Comment #53786

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 25, 2005 06:58 PM (e) (s)

   Wasn’t he the one that said you could use “id” in teaching math?

From the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt:

   “I think there’s a justice argument to be made for including the
   voice of all major groups within our culture, including religious
   groups. We don’t do that. A few years ago we thought that it was all
   right to leave blacks and women out of the cultural conversation. I
   think we now all realize that’s wrong, but what we still haven’t come
   to realize is it’s wrong to leave religious voices out of the
   discussion. The problem is the same. It’s disenfranchising people.
   It’s saying, “We’re not going to take your values and your views
   seriously”… . Public education must take religion seriously, must
   include religious voices in the conversation, not just in the context
   of the distant past, but now as live alternatives, as a matter of
   liberal education, as a matter of civic justice, as a matter of
   constitutional neutrality… . .Simply the title of my second book,
   “Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum,” suggests that
   religion should be taken seriously in most all disciplines. I used to
   say except mathematics and driver’s education, but the Amish let me
   know that driver’s education is religiously very important. And,
   actually, a case can be made for mathematics because the philosophy—
   well, I’m not going to get into that… .

   Q. Is it also your opinion, sir, that it is important to have
   religion taught in economics?

   A. Oh, for sure.

   Q. Mathematics?

   A. That’s a harder case, but you can actually make a case for
   that. I’ll be happy to do it if you like.” (Nord testimony, Kansas
   Hearings transcript)



Quote

Comment #53789

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 25, 2005 07:06 PM (e) (s)

   Mona wrote:

   William Dembski, John Angus Campbell, Stephen Meyer, Dick Carpenter, and Warren Nord have withdrawn

   While he won’t cite it in his decision, this is absolutely the sort of thing a judge notices. Indeed, my lawyerly opinion is that the DI erred tactically in trying to sneak Dembski and Meyer’s “expert” views in as an amicus brief, because that opened an opportunity for the plaintiffs to stress heavily that they had withdrawn and feared cross-X. Judge Jones cited the cross-X issue in his grant of the plaintiffs’ (predictable, or should have been to DI) motion to strike said amicus brief, so it is on his mind.

   Five withdrawing expert witnesses? Any other lawyers ever seen anything like that?

How about this — in re. the DI’s attempted submission of a late amicus brief. From the Day 12 p.m. transcript, starting on page 110, line 1:

   MR. MUISE: Your honor I just want to be clear. We’ve had nothing to do with the filing of these.

   THE COURT: Oh, I’m not…

   MR. MUISE: We’re not trying to back-door anything. Understand. I just want to make it clear.

   THE COURT: I’m not saying you did, and that’s why I don’t want to blow this around the courtroom and imply that you did. I don’t believe that you did. I certainly understand that, but at the same time, you know, I’m not going to have, you know, some rogue cavalry come riding in here at the last instant. We’re not going to have that.

   MR MUISE: Agreed, your honor.

Of course, they wouldn’t need the cavalry if they weren’t in pretty serious trouble…


Quote

Comment #53790

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 25, 2005 07:09 PM (e) (s)

Whoops. Should have been line 14. By the way, Day 12 p.m. transcript including the last chunk of Behe’s cross, is up (though with a few glitches in the .pdf) at the Wikipedia page.


Quote

Comment #53798

Posted by the pro from dover on October 25, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)

I get to put my 2 cents in before this all gets whisked away to a spot i’m too stupid to find. That evolution deniers surely have used Piltdown to discredit Darwin certainly is true but scant evidence is present that the motive for the hoax was this in the 1st place. Although there is little doubt that C. Dawson was the main if not the only participant, it isnt clear that he did the hoax for any reason beyond “that he could”. He never admitted anything and my recollection is he died soon thereafter (and anyway WW1 interrupted the procedings and Teillard was in the ambulance corps). Did humans evolve from apes? I would like to know particularly for vertebrates the answer to this question: Is there any vertebrate species alive today that 1. meets the biological definition of a species (E. Mayr) and 2. is a direct decendant of a species that is also still alive today? There really isn’t such a thing as “The Ape” and “The Hominid” and these distinctions can be quite vague. Is a hominid anything more than an ape that walks upright during it’s adult life? I find it hard to believe that the hominid branch of apes separated from the african ape branch that later split into ONE species of Gorilla (with two subspecies) and 2 species of chimp. My recollection is that Linaeus (no evolutionist he!) initially placed both humans and chimps into genus Homo, and distictly separate from gorilla.


Quote

Comment #53807

Posted by RBH on October 25, 2005 08:40 PM (e) (s)

Warren Nord is the guy who thinks religion should inform the teaching of (among other things) economics. He told the Kansas Kangaroo hearings

   One might expect that within an economics text or Economic Standard there would be some reference to religious foundation of thinking for economics. Of course, that’s not the case. In 4,000 pages of ten economics texts which I reviewed, if you add up all the references to religion, they total two pages, and none of the references are pertaining to any period later in time than the Protestant Reformation. So religion has no role to play at all in economics texts, nor does it in the Economics Standards, which only made one reference to religion in 45 pages, and that was an example of a nonprofit institution.



Quote

Comment #53813

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 09:00 PM (e) (s)

er, to correct my own crassness tpfd, you can find the moved posts here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/i…

look for the posts started by wesley titled “waterloo in dover”


Quote

Comment #53815

Posted by Eric H on October 25, 2005 09:03 PM (e) (s)

First let me say that Im against the teaching of any form of creationism in any schools ever.

That said, take this to the extreme. Say for argument sake that people no longer believe in God. What underpinning would you put in place? Having been raised Catholic and once a believer I know that Religion has many dimensions that are useful to society. A law to follow before you learn that there is law. A friend to the friendless. Hope for the hopeless. The promise of a happy life when there is no realistic hope at all. It may be that religion is the opiate for the people and this life would be utter chaos without it.

What would you replace Religion with? Can it be replaced?


Quote

Comment #53816

Posted by Brian Spitzer on October 25, 2005 09:13 PM (e) (s)

   Pro from Dover:
   I would like to know particularly for vertebrates the answer to this question: Is there any vertebrate species alive today that 1. meets the biological definition of a species (E. Mayr) and 2. is a direct decendant of a species that is also still alive today?

If I understand what you’re asking, you want to know if there’s a case in the vertebrates where one species splits in two, but one of the two daughter species remains much the same as the ancestral stock. That seems like a bit of an odd question: when two species diverge, they both keep evolving— why would either one know that it had to remain “the same species”?— so the species “that is also still alive today” is not likely to be the same as the species that was the ancestor of the two daughter species.

The question is made even more difficult when you bring in the “biological species concept”. Since Mayr’s species concept rests on reproductive isolation, it’s not really possible to apply it to organisms that lived at two different times. We can’t be sure that the ancestral species could have (or couldn’t have) interbred with its descendants.

It seems to me that the only cases where these ambiguities don’t get in the way are cases of “instant speciation”. This seems to happen frequently in plants: a new individual or individuals arise with a double helping of chromosomes. This makes them reproductively isolated from their parents and their parents’ species, so they’re a perfectly valid new species according to Mayr, but their parents’ species is still around.

This happens a lot in flowering plants, but less so in vertebrates. However, I do know of some cases where asexual “species” of fish (and amphibians and reptiles, too, if I recall correctly) have arisen from what seems to be a single mutation event. These new, asexual groups live alongside the species from which they arose.

(I write “species” in quotes because, if you’re dealing with Mayr’s species concept, an asexual organism is a separate “species” from, well, everything. So the cencept doesn’t apply very neatly in these cases.)

—B


Quote

Comment #53817

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 25, 2005 09:18 PM (e) (s)

   First let me say that Im against the teaching of any form of creationism in any schools ever.

   That said, take this to the extreme. Say for argument sake that people no longer believe in God.

Huh? What on earth does “not teaching creationism in schools” have to do with “people no longer believe in god”? I have no idea at all how the heck you got from “A” to “B” here … .

Perhaps you are unaware that the vast majority of Christians, worldwide, have no problem with evolution or any other part of modern science, and view creationists and fundamentalists as a tiny lunatic fringe within Christianity? Perhaps you are unaware that most of the plaintiffs in the Arkansas case that kicked creationism out of schools were ministers, clergy, and representatives of Christian churches and denominations?

You seem to have some sort of silly idea that “anti-creationist” means “atheist”.

You are quite wrong about that.

   A friend to the friendless. Hope for the hopeless. The promise of a happy life when there is no realistic hope at all. It may be that religion is the opiate for the people and this life would be utter chaos without it.

Heck, if THAT is all “religion” is, we could replace it with heroin or crack cocaine or massive amounts of Jack Daniels. People would feel good all the time then. (shrug)


Quote

Comment #53818

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 09:32 PM (e) (s)

sure thing it can.

there are many lessons taken from religious teachings that have NOTHING to do with any deities or whatnot. and there are many “religions” that have little to do with deity worship in and of themselves.

golden rule, for one.

I, as well as a large part of the world, function just fine without the need to account for anything by the reliance on a deity.

However, it’s quite probable that the preponderance towards this type of attitude and functionality is inversely proportional to the amount of religious teachings one is exposed to when growing up.

I often laugh when i hear people raising their kids on constant sunday school lessons, then saying they have a “choice” when they get older to believe or not.

all of that pyschology becomes firmly ingrained into one’s personality, and becomes the basis for how one views the world “intuitively”.

ask yourself this question:

How would you compare religion vs. science in how each contributes to your own quality of life?

imagine stripping everything out of your life that had to do with science, and trying to fill the void with everything that religion contributes.

what would your life be like? regardless of what they say on the surface, the vast majority of americans wouldn’t be able to give up all the trappings that science has produced for us.

now, if we truly raised our children with the idea that they are free to choose, we would teach them to think objectively from the get-go, yes?

then they really could make the choice for themselves.

This then, becomes the real fear of those who feel that “materialism” will replace religion. However, if they can’t find the value of religion for themselves even, how on earth can they claim materialism to have no stabilizing value in society, and religion to have more value?

the flaw is in comparing religion to materialism wrt practical value to begin with. I personally always thought religion to be a totally seperate thing myself, more equated with personal spirituality than an organized political force. In that, it still has value from my perspective. However i would not consider that value in a pragmatic sense. The whole point of creationism/Intelligent design is to try to assign pragmatic value to spirituality.

To me, that is the ultimate hypocrisy; to have to measure one’s spirituality in terms of its pragmatic value to society.

We ALL are already materialists (we always were), some of us just haven’t realized it, and some of us have but think it’s somehow “bad”, but there is no evidence to support that either.

sorry to ramble on so;

i would recommend doing a search for “secular humanism” to see the many ideas surrounding what could replace organized religion as a “structural adhesive” so to speak.



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,00:34   

Quote

Comment #53819

Posted by Eric H on October 25, 2005 09:33 PM (e) (s)

Well Put ‘Rev Dr’.

I view science’s rejection of religious explanation of fact and Constitutional Law’s rejection of religious influence as a trend of deconstruction of our religious past. Also the slow destruction of religion which will continue well into the future. Its a slow attack on irrationality. Eventually, I think the vast majority of people will reject faith as nothing more than the quaint notions of primitive people.

What do you see in your faith that can be addressed in no other way than religious expression?


Quote

Comment #53820

Posted by Eric H on October 25, 2005 09:41 PM (e) (s)

secular humanism = thanks. Nice to see someone has been thinking ahead.

Go White Sox! 5-4


Quote

Comment #53824

Posted by Shadowram on October 25, 2005 09:47 PM (e) (s)

All the religions in the US need to watch out..ID might just bring modern Religion down with it. It might already be too late.

As we can see from the polls, most Americas believe in ID/Creation. Polls also show that as a “Society”, people who believe in ID/Creation tend to be less educated and lower on the economic totem pole. It does “not” say that applies to Religious people in general. Only those who believe in ID/Creation. But the problem is the ID/Creation movement is tied directly to religion. Notice I have been saying ID/Creation, that is because we as a society do not see a difference between ID and Creation.

So once the supreme court denounces ID as religious, Society will start saying, well if you want to be smart and make it in this world, we need to stop believing in the super natural and start believing in what we see. Religious people could start to be seen as a back woods type person. A Hillbilly if you will, the uneducated. I know this seems outlandish. But all this ID stuff can have a backlash on the religious community.

Religion and Science were just fine living in separate worlds. But now ID is trying to push religion into the realm of Science. It does not matter that the ID people say that there is no religion in their theory, society believes they are one in the same.

See in The scopes trial Science was not trying to disprove Religion, they even embraced it. They only fought to have Science taught in a Science class room. Not to mix the two. Imagine that!!!. Religion and science in the same class room would be the same thing as teaching Gym and Mathematics in the same class. They do not mix. One is Physical and the other Mental.

Now if ID does prevail in the Supreme Court, then God help us all, because we will be the next 3rd world country.

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53826

Posted by Eric H on October 25, 2005 09:56 PM (e) (s)

Let the backlash be unleashed! Take em all down now!

But be careful what you ask for. Fear of God’s wrath is one of the reasons why you dont have looters ransacking your house right now.


Quote

Comment #53829

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 10:00 PM (e) (s)

lol. creationism itself, regardless of whatever the current disguise, has singlehandedly been turning out secularists all by itself for hundreds of years before ID came into print.

like i said, the desire to make one’s religion into materialstic science is the real problem here, not religion in and of itself.


Quote

Comment #53830

Posted by Shadowram on October 25, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

I do not ask for it. Religion is very important in the world. It gives people faith, direction, purpose, and great philosophical teachings. Religion is part of our Art and our history. We need Religion, just as much as we need science. Just not in the same room. But in this case they might just kill themselves off. It will be a sad day.
Shadowram


Quote

Comment #53838

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

otoh, if we went to the opposite extreme, and allowed creationists to completely run this country, you can look at the history of South Africa as a great example of what happens when the primary architects of the law and government are creationists.

what did you get? Aphartheid.


Quote

Comment #53842

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 11:03 PM (e) (s)

quick question:

Does anybody know if creationists have ever tried to explain the existence of coelacanths?


Quote

Comment #53844

Posted by bystander on October 25, 2005 11:29 PM (e) (s)

“I often laugh when i hear people raising their kids on constant sunday school lessons, then saying they have a “choice” when they get older to believe or not.”

I’m raising my kids on constant quality science programs and they have a choice later whether to believe in religion or not.


Quote

Comment #53845

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 25, 2005 11:45 PM (e) (s)

bless you, my son.


Quote

Comment #53847

Posted by bystander on October 26, 2005 12:04 AM (e) (s)

Not hard to do though. Ask most six year old boys whether they would rather watch walking with dinosaurs or go to church and guess what the answer would be. Now eight he can quote whole slabs of it to me.


Quote

Comment #53849

Posted by Ked on October 26, 2005 01:14 AM (e) (s)

“But be careful what you ask for. Fear of God’s wrath is one of the reasons why you dont have looters ransacking your house right now.”

This is a very naive stance, the overused superior morality of religious people. If you do not loot people’s house because fear of god’s wrath and do good to earn your place in heaven, then it only shows you are irresponsible and corruptible. If religion was necessary, secular societies would be a total mess. Many european countries or Japan are good examples that such is not the case, whereas United States, where religion is so important, is not the paramount of moral and virtue.



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:02   

Quote

Comment #53862

Posted by the pro from dover on October 26, 2005 05:46 AM (e) (s)

Let me rephrase my question: are dogs and wolves different species? are common and pygmy chimpanzees different species? if the answer to these questios are different then what is the difference?


Quote

Comment #53863

Posted by GT(N)T on October 26, 2005 05:51 AM (e) (s)

Pro from Dover:
“I would like to know particularly for vertebrates the answer to this question: Is there any vertebrate species alive today that 1. meets the biological definition of a species (E. Mayr) and 2. is a direct decendant of a species that is also still alive today?”

One of many good examples are the grey treefrogs, Hyla versicolor and H. chrysoscelis. Morphologically identical, or nearly so, the two species can be distinguished by their vocalizations. Hyla versicolor, a tetraploid, evolved from the diploid H. chrysoscelis via change in chromosomal complements. This species pair, by the way, is almost certainly an example of sympatric speciation.


Quote

Comment #53865

Posted by Big kahuna on October 26, 2005 05:52 AM (e) (s)

If their is 10v16 prokaryotes in a ton of soil, how many of those critters would there be in a ton of bovine excrement? Perhaps the Wayne Newton of Information and the other riff-raff from DI could enlighten us on this subject they know so well.


Quote

Comment #53869

Posted by Antiquated Tory on October 26, 2005 07:06 AM (e) (s)

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but are you aware that the Discovery Institute’s run an ID symposium here in Prague? Evidently the brains behind it is an American who was a visiting prof at Charles U a few years back. Charles Thaxton, a physical chemist.
Czech scientists appear to have ignored the whole thing, not surprisingly.
I was thinking of putting something withering and pithy in The Prague Post’s comments, but if anyone else feels like sticking in a knife or two?


Quote

Comment #53885

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 26, 2005 09:44 AM (e) (s)

I did a Scifinder search on Charles B. Thaxton. Two papers, dating respectively from 1970 and 1971; one crystal structure and one apparatus for cooling crystals, both from his doctoral thesis.

Another academic poowerhouse weighs in on the ID side!


Quote

Comment #53898

Posted by Jeff G. on October 26, 2005 11:26 AM (e) (s)

Re: 58307 (Nord on Economics)

My God, is he serious?

“Neoclassical economic theory is the view that human nature— human beings are essentially self-interested utility maximizers, that the economic domain of life is a realm of competition between animistic individuals, that moral judgments have to reduce across cost benefit equations in which there’s some effort to maximize preference satisfaction. Well, none of that’s compatible with any religious tradition in the history of the world.”

How? What? Huh?

How is it not compatible? It’s precisely compatible! If something is wrong according to religion it’s got a significant reduction in its benefit to you! My God, does he even understand the subject upon which he speaks?

I guess his argument is that an immoral act is automatically a negative regardless of the attitudes/opinion of the enactor. But that basically says that you have to exist within a predefined absolute cosmological system for it to be true.

Thus economics could not possibly encapsulate these ideas because not all “religious traditions” agree.

How? What? Huh?


Quote

Comment #53911

Posted by Shadowram on October 26, 2005 01:27 PM (e) (s)

Primate fossils shed new light on human evolution.
Just goes to show we have not found everything yet. But the pieces still fall into place

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnew…


Quote

Comment #53925

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 26, 2005 02:49 PM (e) (s)

I don’t know what trial schedule the judge may have laid out and the parties may have agreed to, but most judges will allow some minimal time for rebuttal and sur-rebuttal testimony, in addition to direct and cross-examination. Usually this would be limited to refutation of particular passages of testimony that could not have fairly been anticipated when the sequence of witnesses was originally set.

Again, I don’t know whether that sort of followup will be available to the parties here, but you folks who have been tracking down the more egregious mis-statements by Behe and the other defense, cough, “experts” could still find your research being put to good use by plaintiffs’ counsel. Good work!


Quote

Comment #53950

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 26, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

   I did a Scifinder search on Charles B. Thaxton. Two papers, dating respectively from 1970 and 1971; one crystal structure and one apparatus for cooling crystals, both from his doctoral thesis.

   Another academic poowerhouse weighs in on the ID side!

Thaxton was one of the originators of the whole ID strategy, way back in the wake of the Aguillard decision.

Nelson can, I’m sure, tell us the whole story.

BTW, I’m curious — does anyone have any idea at all who it was who leaked the Wedge Document to the Internet? It was THE single most lethal blow that anyone has ever inflicted on the ID movement, and whoever it was, he or she deserves our unlimited thanks.


Quote

Comment #53960

Posted by SEF on October 26, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)

This is Barbara Forrest’s commentary + a later note:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_f…

   It surfaced anonymously and was posted on the Internet in March 1999;
   …
   Since publication of this study, Stephen Meyer has admitted that the document is genuine.

I didn’t see the start but I think I saw
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.htm…
before
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/24…



    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:05   

Quote

Comment #53961

Posted by Flint on October 26, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)

The Pennsylvania ACLU site has, apparently with great heaving and moaning, given birth to the Day 12 AM transcripts. As I write, that was *last Wednesday morning*. Over a week ago. Here we are reading about the testimony of Fuller on Monday. Was there no testimony from noon last Wednesday through this past Monday? And no testimony again yesterday or today? What is going on?


Quote

Comment #53962

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 26, 2005 07:11 PM (e) (s)

   I didn’t see the start but I think I saw
   http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.htm……
   before
   http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/24……

Well yeah, you did, since the second website you cite above is MINE. ;>

I can assure you that it was not leaked to ME.

Don’t I wish … .


Quote

Comment #53965

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 26, 2005 07:18 PM (e) (s)

lenny, lenny…

*wink* we KNOW you’re just deflecting suspicion away from yourself…

as would any Doctor of the Dark Side ™

:p


Quote

Comment #53969

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 26, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)

Trust me, if the Wedge Document had been leaked to ME, it would NOT have taken almost a decade to get it in front of a judge. ;>


Quote

Comment #53976

Posted by SEF on October 26, 2005 07:51 PM (e) (s)

   since the second website you cite above is MINE.

I know - that was what made it funny.


Quote

Comment #53985

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 26, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

Lenny asked:

BTW, I’m curious — does anyone have any idea at all who it was who leaked the Wedge Document to the Internet?

Using my superior search skills (ha ha) I traced the Wedge back to a usenet post on talk.origins by John Catalano on March 3, 1999. The post was copied from another list, and Catalano didn’t say who had done it, but the document was scanned from a hard copy ‘liberated’ by a “culture-jammer from our local cell.”

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/brow…

On the other hand, even mentioning this usenet post may be a bit foolish, as I suspect there are several people who hang out here that know a lot more about it than this.


Quote

Comment #54001

Posted by Cynthia Yockey on October 26, 2005 11:32 PM (e) (s)

I learned from Nick Matzke on Sunday, in our first-ever conversation, that some pro-evolutionists are not sure whose side Hubert P. Yockey is on because his work is quoted on the Discovery Institute’s site. [Note: Dr. Yockey is the author of Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992), as well as many scientific articles.]

Dr. Yockey supports evolution. He devotes a section of his book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, to explaining why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong. He also explains why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong at his new Web site.

BTW, Dr. Yockey is my father, but I feel silly calling him “Dad” in this context.


Quote

Comment #54003

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 26, 2005 11:48 PM (e) (s)

as a person who has seen this “debate” from a unique perspective, what’s your take on what the ID movement represents, and what will happen to it after Dover?


Quote

Comment #54010

Posted by K.E. on October 27, 2005 12:45 AM (e) (s)

Hmmmmm
Next DI stunt will be ace spaliens created DNA, naturally, by you know who.

That’s a gap so wide you could fly in fleets of you know who’s.

Makes you wonder why Bohr or Yockey never get a mention since it supports their ‘scientific-really scientific-no no I mean non ID-science’ case because it passes the falsifiable test.


Quote

Comment #54012

Posted by NDT on October 27, 2005 02:11 AM (e) (s)

According to Behe’s testimony under cross, there are “zero papers” demonstrating how somplex moleculary structures could evolve. Any truth to that?



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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:09   

Quote

Comment #54024

Posted by bystander on October 27, 2005 06:24 AM (e) (s)

The plaintiffs actually had stacks of papers in front of Behe when he was saying this. Behe basically said that none of the papers were convincing.


Quote

Comment #54029

Posted by Gary Mac on October 27, 2005 07:45 AM (e) (s)

Oh no !

Our master plan for the takeover has been discovered !

Oh well, back to reality.
Hey Toejam, you know the other day when you said that you could envision atheists and Catholics working together to defeat the concept of ID ?
Well, …… I think you stepped in yourself.

You see, most Catholics accept ID too, in conjunction with the mechanisms of evolution.

Therefore, why would they want to defeat the concept of ID ? They also, ( are you setting down ? ) now teach ID in some of their private school districts ! I know, I know, Lord Charles is rolling over in his grave. Sorry to break the news to you and your fellow, evos in-breds. But I thought a nice dose of reality was in order to start your day off right.

Now, tell your Comrades to get back to work. Defeating that major conspiracy, called the wedge argument, is paramount, PARAMOUNT I say !


Quote

Comment #54032

Posted by Grey Wolf on October 27, 2005 08:46 AM (e) (s)

The “ID” accepted by Catholics is even more at odds with the ID peddled by IDiots like you, Gary Mac, than Evolution is. And before you even think of quote-mining the late Pope, be forewarned that others have tried before and have not been able to show any kind of defence for your ID. In fact, ID is completely against the Catholic view, and has said so often. Just because you can call them the same name doens’t make a grand plan for reality (Catholicism) the same as a ignorant God-of-the-gaps (ID).

And you would be wrong, anyway, since most Catholics are not from the States, but from countries were evolution is seen as simply another part of science, and thus see no problem whatsoever with it. Unless, that is, that you can produce a document signed by over half of the Catholic population stating otherwise (you would need, what, 500 million signatures? better get started…).

For those following at home, Gary Mac is an IDier who has been caught sprouting soundbits which have turned out to be completely false in every post he’s done. For example: he claimed there was a scientific theory of ID, in the face of the fact that there is none. He has, of course, not produced any.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf


Quote

Comment #54033

Posted by Marek14 on October 27, 2005 09:28 AM (e) (s)

Hmm… I study at Charles U in Prague, but I haven’t heard anything about the DI symposium.
Probably it’s better that way :)


Quote

Comment #54034

Posted by shenda on October 27, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

Sir_Toejam:
…… what’s your take on what the ID movement represents, and what will happen to it after Dover?”

Their new strategy is:

a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative

b) Push BOE’s to change the definition of science to include “non-materialistic” explanations

They are already shifting to this, especially in Kansas.


Quote

Comment #54035

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 27, 2005 09:52 AM (e) (s)

   The plaintiffs actually had stacks of papers in front of Behe when he was saying this. Behe basically said that none of the papers were convincing.

He was busy “moving the goal posts”. His original statement in DBB said there was no literature. Now he is saying the literature is not sufficiently detailed and convincing. Meanwhile he offers no mechanism at all for his alternative, let alone a detailed and convincing one.


Quote

Comment #54038

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 27, 2005 09:59 AM (e) (s)

   Gerard harbison wrote:

   the document was scanned from a hard copy ‘liberated’ by a “culture-jammer from our local cell.”

I suspected the use of scanning & OCR due to the number of unlikely typos, e.g “hurman” for “human”.


Quote

Comment #54039

Posted by Anton Mates on October 27, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)

   Bayesian Bouffant, FCD wrote:

   He was busy “moving the goal posts”. His original statement in DBB said there was no literature. Now he is saying the literature is not sufficiently detailed and convincing.

Actually, by the end of the cross-examination he’d moved again, to saying he’s “skeptical” that the literature is detailed and convincing. Having admitted that he couldn’t be sure it’s not, since he, y’know, hadn’t actually read the papers the plaintiffs produced. Even though some of them were ten or fifteen years old and he’s written a truckload on this subject since.

The best part was when he explained that you don’t need to actually read a bunch of scientific papers in order to make sweeping claims about their content, you just need to read a few of the most recent papers and they’ll tell you anything interesting the older ones had in them. Now that’s rigorous scholarship!


Quote

Comment #54040

Posted by Steve LaBonne on October 27, 2005 10:42 AM (e) (s)

At this point I simply cannot any longer accept that Behe could really believe the crap he’s saying. If he were that dumb he would not have been able to establish himself as a scientist. I think he’s got himself into a very tight box, and he has to keep saying this sh*t because he’s sold his soul for the DBB royalties and the DI support. Gotta feed those 9 kids, you know.


Quote

Comment #54042

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on October 27, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

   Cynthia Yockey wrote:

   I learned from Nick Matzke on Sunday, in our first-ever conversation, that some pro-evolutionists are not sure whose side Hubert P. Yockey is on because his work is quoted on the Discovery Institute’s site. [Note: Dr. Yockey is the author of Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992), as well as many scientific articles.]

   Dr. Yockey supports evolution. He devotes a section of his book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, to explaining why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong. He also explains why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong at his new Web site.

   BTW, Dr. Yockey is my father, but I feel silly calling him “Dad” in this context.

Thanks for the heads up on the book, and the new website. A “dot com” needs to be added to the link in the text of your paragraph.

Yockey is certainly one of the most misunderstood scientists.
Creationists take the line certain abiogenesis scenarios
have flaws = abiogenesis impossible, and impute that to be
what Yockey is claiming. Same goes for Robert Shapiro’s book.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:11   

Quote

Comment #54065

Posted by Gary Mac on October 27, 2005 01:46 PM (e) (s)

To the contrary Grey Wimp !

Everything I have posted to date, has actually exposed Lenny the Fraud and Toejam the Fool, to be incorrect.
Your reading comprehension is lacking today Wimp.

As far as your US-Catholic comment goes, I’ll let you take that up with them. After you insulted them, I’m sure a few million will be kicking you in the face soon.

You are no different than all the other evos in-breds. You continue to lie and lie and hope it comes true. That’s an exercise in futility, so keep it up Wimp.

You first claimed I have been falsified each time. NOT ! Then, you say I quote-mined the Pope in # 54029. Liar !
Next, you claim I support a God of the gaps.
Strike Three Wimp !

Now, listen to Loony. He said to grab a wet noodle and start attacking the wedge argument again.

I’ll be waiting. And laughing at you & your in-breds the whole time !

Thanks for the comic relief !


Quote

Comment #54068

Posted by Alan on October 27, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

@ Greywolf #54032

I see what you mean about Gary Mac. What a pillock.


Quote

Comment #54069

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 01:53 PM (e) (s)

   You see, most Catholics accept ID too, in conjunction with the mechanisms of evolution.

uh, boy are you confused.

If you read Dembski and Behe, you’ll see that the whole argument of ID is all about what the mechanism of evolution is (which is why Behe HAD to avoid any mention of what that “mechanism” is while he was in court).

perhaps you should actually learn what the #### it is you are supporting before you jump on board with it.

oh, and good luck with that since you seem to have gotten the short end of the stick in the intelligence department.


Quote

Comment #54071

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

oh please, please say you want to argue with me about that, Gary…


Quote

Comment #54072

Posted by Cynthia Yockey on October 27, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

Tracy, thanks for your comment. Let me try again with the link to Dr. Yockey’s new Web site: www.hubertpyockey.com. There he gives a simplified explanation of why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong.

I am the Webmaster and soon will be adding pages elucidating many aspects of his work. For example, there will be a page with copies of his papers as soon as I have permission from the original journals. I’ll also be adding an FAQ—and the first question will be, “Whose side are you on?.” (Answer: evolution.)

There also will be a glossary to ensure that readers of the site understand the scientific definitions of the terms used. One of the slickest tricks the IDers have pulled off is to hijack the vocabulary of science and redefine it. You can win any game if your first move is to change all the rules to favor your side. In politics, getting seduced by this tactic is called “accepting the premise of the question.” Dr. Yockey’s approach demolishes the IDers false premises. For example, on his Web site, Dr. Yockey summarizes points from his new book (Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life) showing why biology is not “irreducibly complex.”


Quote

Comment #54073

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

@shenda:

   a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative

indeed, i found it rather amusing that all the poll data that DI has listed in “support” of teaching ID actually has nothing at all to do with teaching ID. The poll questions simply related to whether people thought it a good idea to teach any SCIENTIFIC evidence against Darwin’s theory of evolution. Not surprisingly, most said yes. As would I. I often do, in fact, give students treatises on group selection and other scientific theories that have been disproven, as well as pointing out the veracity of current evolutionary theory even as new data continues to be discovered. However, since ID ISN’T scientific in any way shape or form, the DI obviously agrees it shouldn’t be taught as evidence against evolution (and actually have stated such several times, at least recently).

Of course, when they ask the real question: “do you believe that ID should be taught in science class… the poll data is, shall we say, just a wee bit lower *snicker*; which is of course exactly why they don’t list the real poll data on their site.

frickin hilarious.


Quote

Comment #54075

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)

Cynthia -

I apologize in that i shold have specified that my question was directed at yourself:

   As a person who has seen this “debate” from a unique perspective, what’s your take on what the ID movement represents, and what will happen to it after Dover?

thanks


Quote

Comment #54078

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)

hmm, Gary Mac’s posts sure look a lot like evopeach’s

does anybody know if they are related?


Quote

Comment #54082

Posted by Alan on October 27, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

@ Ms Yockey.

Your link doesn’t seem to work, but I can find your father’s webisite here: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/


Quote

Comment #54083

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

Wow I never thought The National Academy of Sciences would take a stance like this. But what does this mean for Kansas, or for Dover?. Can anyone explain what the implications are for the School Board?

Permission denied in Kansas

Anticipating the Kansas state board of education’s expected decision to adopt a set of science standards in which the scientific status of evolution is systematically deprecated, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have rejected the state department of education’s request to use material from the NAS’s National Science Education Standards and the NSTA’s Pathways to Science Standards in the Kansas Science Education Standards. In a joint statement dated October 27, 2005, the NAS and the NSTA wrote:

While there is much in the Kansas Science Education Standards that is outstanding and could serve as a model for other states, our primary concern is that the draft KSES inappropriately singles out evolution as a controversial theory despite the strength of the scientific evidence supporting evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and its acceptance by an overwhelming majority of scientists. The use of the word controversial to suggest that there are flaws in evolution is confusing to students and the public and is entirely misleading. While there may be disagreements among scientists about the exact processes, the theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and new evidence from many scientific disciplines only further support this robust scientific theory.

In addition, the members of the Kansas State Board of Education who produced Draft 2-d of the KSES have deleted text defining science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, blurring the line between scientific and other ways of understanding. Emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution — when in fact all modern theories of science are continually tested and verified — and distorting the definition of science are inconsistent with our Standards and a disservice to the students of Kansas. Regretfully, many of the statements made in the KSES related to the nature of science and evolution also violate the document’s mission and vision. Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science endorsed the NAS’s and the NSTA’s decision in a press release issued on October 27, 2005. Alan Leshner said, “We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology … We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.”

A story from the Associated Press (October 27, 2005) explains that “The two groups’ positions mean department attorneys must scrutinize any standards the board approves to make sure they do not lift language from the national groups’ material” and reports that board chair Steve Abrams (who favors the current draft of the standards) was unsure whether adoption of the standards would be delayed by the refusal to grant permission. The board is expected to discuss the standards at its next meeting, November 8 and 9, 2005.

October 27, 2005

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/85…

Shadowram


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:14   

Quote

Comment #54085

Posted by Stephen Elliott on October 27, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)

“Deja vu all over again” (he,he! I actualy got to use it).
:)

This

   To the contrary Grey Wimp !

   Everything I have posted to date, has actually exposed Lenny the Fraud and Toejam the Fool, to be incorrect.
   Your reading comprehension is lacking today Wimp.

reminds me of JAD


Quote

Comment #54091

Posted by Jason Spaceman on October 27, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

The defense took another beating today…

Former school board member ‘misspoke’ in advocating creationism

   By MARTHA RAFFAELE
   The Associated Press

   HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former school board member who denied advocating that creationism be taught alongside evolution in high-school biology classes changed his story Thursday after lawyers in a federal courtroom played a TV news clip that recorded him making such a comment.

   William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he “misspoke.”

   Buckingham’s testimony came in the fifth week of testimony in a lawsuit filed by eight families who are challenging the Dover Area School District’s policy that students hear a statement about intelligent design in biology classes. Critics say intelligent design is a repackaging of the biblical view of creation and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.



Quote

Comment #54093

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)

After reading my last post more, I seem to have this feeling that the stance of the National Academy of Sciences will have “HUGE” implications on School Boards around the country. It looks like and I’m not sure, maybe someone can verify this. But without the endorsement of The National Academy of Sciences. Would this mean they will lose an accreditation of some kind? And thus making it harder for their students to get into choice Universities?

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #54098

Posted by Anton Mates on October 27, 2005 03:21 PM (e) (s)

   William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he “misspoke.”

Well, at least he’s better than Behe. Behe would explain that previously saying creationism should be taught is “entirely consistent” with currently saying it shouldn’t be taught, because the way he reads his former statement that it should, is that it shouldn’t. And so, in closing, he disagrees.


Quote

Comment #54100

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

I too am curious about the answer to your question, Shadowram.


Quote

Comment #54101

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 03:32 PM (e) (s)

I think this article sums up Behe’s testimony nicely. Very Funny but true.
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #54115

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 04:24 PM (e) (s)

I know I keep going back to my post from NAS..But if I am right and please… please someone correct me..but “if” Kansas does adopt the new standards and according to NAS

“Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards”

That there will now be an entire US state, the State of Kansas, where their students will automatically be placed at the bottom of Admission lists at Major Universities.

That just blows my mind.

Please someone tell me I’m wrong in my line of reasoning, I can handle it, if I’m wrong, and in this case I want to be wrong. Maybe I’m too worried about the NAS statement and it’s implications are not as harsh as I think, and I’m just an idiot looking at this thing in a pessimistic way


Quote

Comment #54118

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 27, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

Gary Mack: is English your first language? Just wondering.


Quote

Comment #54119

Posted by His DSPness on October 27, 2005 04:53 PM (e) (s)

Buckingham may be sacrificing the DASD in order that it doesn’t take ID down with it. If the DI can make it look like the DASD - which is certain to lose - was actually promoting its own creationist agenda rather than “pure” ID, then perhaps ID can live another day to influence some other school district.


Quote

Comment #54122

Posted by K.E. on October 27, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

if worms could speak


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:20   

Quote

Comment #54123

Posted by Flint on October 27, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

   Well, at least he’s better than Behe. Behe would explain that previously saying creationism should be taught is “entirely consistent” with currently saying it shouldn’t be taught, because the way he reads his former statement that it should, is that it shouldn’t. And so, in closing, he disagrees.

Behe is an academic, and such people can never be admit error. They can, of course, lie and doubletalk and weasel and rephrase and misrepresent and change the subject, but they can NOT admit error. Fatal to the career.

Buckingham is a different story. I recall (does anyone else?) that after the wonderful pronouncements Buckingham and other creationists on the board made (in the presence of reporters, no less), the DI came and took them on some sort of retreat for a week or so. After which, nobody could recall anything anyone had said on the subject, and the records of the meetings somehow got misplaced, and everyone had become very careful to explain that religion wasn’t involved, oh no!

Buckingham is now retired, right? So his memory is worse than ever. He can’t even remember saying what he said when he watches the newsclip. He must have garbled his statements, he couldn’t have *meant* that. Oh, he said the same thing multiple times, using the same words, and is on record as doing so? Well, he must have misspoken *every time*.

Is Buckingham being more honest than Behe? Man, that is one tough call…


Quote

Comment #54125

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 05:18 PM (e) (s)

Lets put in a link Yockey site that actually works: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/

When giving a URL, it best to keep the “http://” with it since without browsers think the link is relative and hense will give broken link to a nonexistant Panda’s Thumb page.

   2005/10/26: Today, William Buckingham is set to testify. This is the highly controversial school board member who justified the ID policy by speaking about “someone” who “died on a cross 2000 years ago” and the need to “stand up for Him.” I can’t imagine why he was called by the defense and not the plaintiffs, and I’m curious to see how this testimony goes.

According to the court’s web site, Buckingham is a plaintiff witness:

   Thursday October 27 2005 - Plaintiff Witnesses Bill Buckingham, Joe Moldonado, and Heidi Bernard-Bubb.

There was a prior agreement between council and the court to go out of order here. I think (don’t quote me please) that this set of witness was not quite ready and thus rather than delay the trial the parties agreed to that the defense be allowed to start presenting its witnesses. Again that is my understanding that might not be correct. Of course the defense would not want Buckingham to be called, all the defense has made Buckingham a bit of a scapegoat.

Before clicking post I googled for “hostile witness” and dover and picked up Former school board member denies references to ‘creationism’

   William Buckingham, who was called by plaintiffs’ attorneys this morning as a hostile witness, said he and other board members referred only to “intelligent design” when they spoke of the need for the introduction of other scientific theories to balance evolution in high school biology classes



Quote

Comment #54126

Posted by Bulman on October 27, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)

   But without the endorsement of The National Academy of Sciences. Would this mean they will lose an accreditation of some kind? And thus making it harder for their students to get into choice Universities?

Accreditation can be given by any organization that schools or universities agree to use. Kansas will certainly not lose accreditation, the free market-of-the-gaps will create new accrediting organizations.

Kansas will however lose credibility and to restate your concern as an affirmtion:

The students of the State of Kansas will automatically be placed at the bottom of admission lists at major universities.


Quote

Comment #54128

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 27, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)

   a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative

They already tried that in Cobb County, and lost.

   b) Push BOE’s to change the definition of science to include “non-materialistic” explanations

That, by definition, is introducing religion, and won’t last ten minutes in court.


Quote

Comment #54129

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 27, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

   oh please, please say you want to argue with me about that, Gary…

Why on earth are you offering your intestine to the tapeworm?


Quote

Comment #54134

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

   Why on earth are you offering your intestine to the tapeworm?

why, to lose weight of course.


Quote

Comment #54138

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)

Minor maintainance issue: The “program” probably needs to be moved closer to the top of this page. (Feel free to delete this.)


Quote

Comment #54139

Posted by Grey Wolf on October 27, 2005 06:55 PM (e) (s)

   Gary Mack: is English your first language? Just wondering.

I know it was not your intent, but I feel insulted that me, as a non-English speaker, gets compared to Gary Mac. I mean, my English is not *that* bad, is it?

Joking aside, Gary Mac doesn’t sound so much foreigner as a petulant 10 year old who doesn’t undertand that name calling weakens his arguments, and that you have to provide data to strengthen it. Maybe he will learn enough English to realise I was predicting his next movements. Maybe the poor boy (gal?) has yet to ditinguish between past and future. Poor dear.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf


Quote

Comment #54157

Posted by bill on October 27, 2005 09:18 PM (e) (s)

Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.

Buckingham learned about the text, Pandas, after a visit by the Thomas More Law center, and, presumably, but not confirmed, Mark Ryland of the Discovery Institute.

Without doubt, Dover was engaged in an end-run of the Constitution, and most likely in collusion with the Discovery Institute, who, in the end, hung them out to dry.

The Discovery Institute is the Enron of creationism.


Quote

Comment #54168

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 11:20 PM (e) (s)

   bill wrote:

   Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

It was an “intelligent design” all right. The intelligent designers in this case was the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. It was the plaintiffs that called Buckingham, not the defense. By agreement of the court and the parties, the plaintiffs called some of their witnesses out of turn.

   The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.

I was going to ask for a cite, but Google works for me:

AP story:

   Buckingham testified that during a Sunday service at the church he attended, he stood up and told members of the congregation they could donate money to purchase the books if they wished. Harvey noted that in a January pretrial deposition taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Buckingham never mentioned his fund-raising request and said he didn’t know who donated the books.

   “You lied to me at your deposition,” Harvey said.

   “How so?” Buckingham asked.

   “By not telling me you knew a collection was taken at your church,” Harvey said.

   “I did not take a collection,” Buckingham replied.

Buckingham Deposition in January (PDF):

   Q: Do you know where that came from, who donated them?

   A: No, I don’t.

   Q: You have no idea?

   A: I have thoughts, but I don’t know.

   Q. What are your thoughts?

   A: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell who was board president at that time.

   Q: Why do you think—I know you’re not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell?

   A: Because he was the president of the board at that time, and I just deduced from that that.

(From page 57-58 of transcript; page 17 of PDF file; since it is a scan, I had to print out the page and type it. So there might be typos.)

Now I believe witness are not just supposed to give the truth, but they have to give the “whole truth.” In other words intentionally misleading answers are not allowed.

If Buckingham solicited donations from his church then he has failed to tell the whole truth. He was required to tell Mr. Harvey what he knew about the donation of the books.

But there is certainly something even more damaging that how honest Mr. Buckingham is. The books came from a fundamentalist church. I sure hope no one is expecting us to believe that a church is devoid of religious motivation!

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:22   

Quote

Comment #54178

Posted by Alan on October 28, 2005 01:13 AM (e) (s)

   Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

I believe Buckingham was called by the plaintiffs as a hostile witness.

@ Michael hopkins and #54125, see #54082


Quote

Comment #54201

Posted by Gary Mac on October 28, 2005 07:53 AM (e) (s)

Hey Wes E., Nick and or Gary H.

Next time y’all go to the latest public lynching, please remember to leave somebody at home with the keys, besides these amateurs.

Oh, a quick update for those who came late to the party. Toejam in many parts of the world, is slang for shit. This was in reference to Sir Fool, who attempted to defend Lenny the Fraud, in an earlier post. Therefore, he steppeth in himselfeth.
So, PAY ATTENTION NEXT TIME !

Also, please keep repeating the same lie that Bill and Mike speak for all IDers.
Here’s a hint. They don’t. But, keep it up anyway. It always exposes your blatant, collective ignorance.

Therefore, to Wes and the gang:
If you get a chance, hit Behe with a few rocks for me, would ya ? That dumb shit couldn’t defend himself, even if he were his own jury.

Now, for the rest of y’all, get back to work !
I reckon pimping the evos propaganda machine is all you’ve got to do.
Debating with IDers is not your cup of tea. I always know when evos have nothing left to provide. They get paranoid, as always, and start accusing us of being someone else. It happens every time !

Cheers in-breds !


Quote

Comment #54204

Posted by ega on October 28, 2005 08:25 AM (e) (s)

“I reckon pimping the evos propaganda machine is all you’ve got to do”

As opposed to the infantile personal jesus ‘I’m special my invisible friend told me so’ junk that evolution-deniers live with?


Quote

Comment #54209

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 28, 2005 09:03 AM (e) (s)

The tough part of being a lawyer - not that Thompson deserves anything better

   Outside court, defense attorney Richard Thompson said he believed Buckingham was trying to give specific answers to specific questions.

   He attributed the discrepancy between the testimony and the deposition to Buckingham’s treatment in December 2004 for an addiction to the painkiller OxyContin. Harvey deposed Buckingham in January.

   Buckingham knows he wrote the check to Donald Bonsell and he must have forgotten that during his testimony, Thompson said.

   “I don’t think it was damaging at all,” Thompson said of Buckingham’s comments on donations.



Quote

Comment #54212

Posted by Shadowram on October 28, 2005 09:16 AM (e) (s)

It really is scary as I see Gary Mac, members of the Dover school board, and supporters of ID, talk about their anti-evolution, ID/Creation views and some of the statements they made. In the statement below I have only substituted one word. Where ever this one “word” was mentioned I changed it to evolution/evolutionists.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these “evolutionists” for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the “evolution” poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

This statement sounds just like what ID/Creation people are saying today. Almost verbatim. Look at what Buckingham said in Dover. “Someone died for us 2000 years ago, is anyone going to stand up for him”
The word I replaced was “Jew”
This was a speech from 1922, the author was Adolf Hitler. I did not even know this monster was that religious, but it does explain a lot.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


Quote

Comment #54213

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on October 28, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

Mr. Mac, did

   Hey Wes E., Nick and or Gary H.

   Next time y’all go to the latest public lynching, please remember to leave somebody at home with the keys, besides these amateurs.

   Oh, a quick update for those who came late to the party. Toejam in many parts of the world, is slang for shit. This was in reference to Sir Fool, who attempted to defend Lenny the Fraud, in an earlier post. Therefore, he steppeth in himselfeth.
   So, PAY ATTENTION NEXT TIME !

   Also, please keep repeating the same lie that Bill and Mike speak for all IDers.
   Here’s a hint. They don’t. But, keep it up anyway. It always exposes your blatant, collective ignorance.

   Therefore, to Wes and the gang:
   If you get a chance, hit Behe with a few rocks for me, would ya ? That dumb shit couldn’t defend himself, even if he were his own jury.

   Now, for the rest of y’all, get back to work !
   I reckon pimping the evos propaganda machine is all you’ve got to do.
   Debating with IDers is not your cup of tea. I always know when evos have nothing left to provide. They get paranoid, as always, and start accusing us of being someone else. It happens every time !

   Cheers in-breds !

contain any actual intellectual content? I am sure that everyone here already understands that the ID movement (as opposed to the concept of ID is a ‘big tent’ operation, containing folks with a variety of views and concepts of ID. And the point being made that Behe’s testimony is confused, contadictory, etc. demonstrates that there is, in fact, no actual ID theory around which these folks can rally.

Other than that, if you have any actual response or point to make, perhaps you could make it?


Quote

Comment #54215

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on October 28, 2005 10:03 AM (e) (s)

Oops Shadowram, it´s Godwin´s Law! Really don´t need the Argumentum ad Nazium anyway…


Quote

Comment #54218

Posted by Shadowram on October 28, 2005 10:11 AM (e) (s)

Thank you Pastor Bentonit, Godwin’s law makes sense. I stand corrected. I guess the argument can be used both ways. I have tried to delete my post, but was not able to.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,06:19   

Buckingham's testimony as a hostile witness is stunning. It also shows the corrosive effect of long exposure to antievolution on morals.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:24   

This is a test message, mucking about with the code.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:28   

Another test message.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:32   

Yet another test message. Is it possible at this point for Judge Jones to rule in favor of DASD? That would be mind-blowing.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:44   

More testing. It is still up in the air whether Scott Minnich will testify as an expert for the defense. Stay tuned.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:03   

Another test. The trial should end by November 4th.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:31   

Another test.

One of the witnesses for the defense contributed her payment checks to the group seeking to replace the "intelligent design" faction on the DASD.

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91834/

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:36   

Another test.

Mike Argento on Buckingham's testimony: "Unbelievable."

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,10:37   

Another test.

A web site that is spinning the separation between ID and "creationism".

http://www.christianpost.com/article....tm

Yeah, like that's believable any more.

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

    
  44 replies since Oct. 21 2005,17:49 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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