AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:


form_srcid: Mr_Christopher

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 38.107.191.98

View Author detected.

view author posts:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Mr_Christopher

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Mr_Christopher%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/10 06:27:14, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all hello to the folks whose names I recognize from PT.  Second of all this topic has been bugging me for some time now.

I think everyone knows what a lousy PR job is being done by legitimate science/science organizations and I have a few specific area of distress.

Media and news communication:  If you look at the NCSE 2005 News Room page http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?year=2005 you'll note none of the press relases are dated.  You have to click on each press release and scroll to the bottom of that page to see when it was released.  Very ameature.

Also, Google News has an news alert feature where you can add identifying words so when Google picks up a news story that has those words you get an email notification and a link to the story(ies).  I have a news alert for "intelligent design".  I get Google news alerts daily, from ordinary news agencies as well as online magazines and many blogs.  I get notified by Google about all the cr@p spewed by thre Discovery Institute but I have never gotten one from the NCSE, Pandas Thumb, or any other science related news/opinion organization with one exception - The Skeptical Inquirer.

Why is this?

Also, the recent Ken Miller Case University talk is pure gold, it explains evolution, intelligent design creationism, the culture war (brought on by the intelligent design creationists), the Dover case, etc. and everyone but PT seems to be ignoring it and the PT thread will soon disapear into the archives...

Every science organization in the world should have a copy of that video on their website and be promoting it.  I do not see a word about it on the NCSE site or any other science related site, the ACLU makes no mention of it either.  

And it was a few regulars at PT who took the time to make video files from the stream and put it up on a temporary site so we could down load copies.  

So you have a handful of folks downloading that video and the general public and media still has no idea it exists.

Meanwhile I get Google news alerts from the Discovery Institute on a daily basis.  

Intelligent design creationism is not going away and to sit back and think the courts are going to protect us from this dishonest charade is short sighted.  Unless science groups and organizations figure out how to communicate with the rest of the world we will continue to be playing catch up.

Date: 2006/01/10 07:20:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is too funny.  Dave Scott is the Dembski worshipper in charge at www.uncommondecent.com now and he's obviously ban happy.

But what cracks me up is he banned me today, NOT for what I said on uncommon descent (I have never criticized IDC, Dembski or anyone at that site nor have I ever argued with anyone there) but for my opinions expressed at PT.  I said some naughty things about the theologian William Dembski and the brain washing sunday school classes he teaches at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary.  

So, at uncommon descent you get banned for what you write anywhere, not just what you say on uncommondescent.

I suspect soon they will ban people for having naughty thoughts about the theologian we call William Dembski.

Anyhow, when I went to www.uncommondescent.com this morning and saw the thread where Mr Scott had banned me I laffed so hard I spewed coffee all over my keyboard.  He even links to the offending PT comment I made on PT (which is well worth a read).  

It is very funny, check it out.  -> Mr Christopher Is No Longer With Us



.

Date: 2006/01/10 08:02:18, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with old Dave in this thread where I questioned the motives of the governor of my own state.  I think I did it in a very appropriate manner, you judge for yourself.  

It appears another unwritten rule at uncommondescent is you cannot question the motives of your own governor if Dave Scott happens to like that governor

Leave it to a Red State to come through in time of need



Simply too funny!

Date: 2006/01/10 09:08:12, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I am generally a big fan of the ACLU but I was dissapointed that the ACLU did not lend a hand when the New Orleans police department unconstitutionally started door to door confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens in New Orleans after the hurricane.  

*knock knock*

Who's there?

*New Orleans police departmen*

How can I help you?

*Hand over any guns you have in the house*

You're kidding?

*No. Hand them over now*

The NRA sued on behalf of law abiding gun owners and rightfully won. This was a no brainer.  

Sadly, this was a golden opportunity for the ACLU to demonstrate they defend ALL the constitutional rights and ammendments and not just the ones that appeal to the left.  I was dissapointed by their silence to say the least.

Unfortunaley the NRA (whom I am not a big fan of) seems to be one of the only organizations who defends the 2nd ammendment.

Date: 2006/01/10 10:02:29, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Flint, I am not a big fan of the NRA (yet I own a nice gun collection) but I don't think this is an accuate statement:

"And so the NRA thinks the amendment says that everyone is guaranteed an unlimited right to bear whatever arms they see fit, from poison gas to suitcase nukes"

And I could be wrong but I think constitutional scholars tend to read more than just the text of the constitution, such as reading the writings of those who wrote the constitution.  

Most all of the founding fathers who contributed to the constitution wrote about their feelings regarding private gun ownership and when we look at those documents they clearly mistrusted a government who did not allow private gun ownership and spoke highly of gun ownership.  I could dig up quite a few quotes from founding fathers if anyone has any interest in the subject.

The fact that the ACLU seems to ignore that historical data is what frustrates me.  And their silence during the New Orleans thing was most troubling, at least for those who like the 2nd ammendment AND the ACLU.  I really thought they lost out on a great case.

The NRA does tend to take things to an extreem thus my lack of support for them.

Date: 2006/01/10 11:44:45, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Flint, yes I read that ACLU statement, I orginally read it a couple of years ago.  

And I did not mean to hijack this thread, I am a big fan of the ACLU and thank them for their Kitzmiller efforts so I will leave it at that.

Cheers!

Chris

Date: 2006/01/10 12:16:41, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have seen Dave "I am warning you" Scott ban two people this week and they are big time ID supporters.  Neither were being jerks or doing anything that gave reason for their ban.  In fact I was going to write one of them an email.

Made me laff seeing him pull out the ban baseball bat.  When the intelligent design creationism cult starts eating their own you have to laff.

I suspect Dembski doesn't mind Dave pushing people around.  I sense Dembski is probably cut from the same authoritarian cloth.  Dembski is a sunday school teacher at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  He teaches religious subjects to people who already have deeply held religious beliefs but their beliefs and Demsbkis class subjects cannot be proven right or wrong.  In that environment the guy with the most power is the guy who holds the truth in his hand.  

I imagine Dembski loves teaching sunday school class at SBTS.  No one dare question him there.  Dave has the same thing going for him at uncommon poop.

Date: 2006/01/10 13:01:10, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey it gets better, Dave Scott admits he scans the internet looking for posters at uncommon poop who might say naughty things about the uncommon poop blog or naughty things about Demsbki, chief intelligent design creationism theologian.

Dave Scott Is Watching You

I feel like I owe them an admission fee for the free entertainment I am getting.

Date: 2006/01/10 17:39:11, Link 70.251.117.200
Author: Mr_Christopher
Here is a case and point.  By now you probably know a lawsuit is (or has been ) being filed in California to stop intelligent design creationism from being taught in a public classroom.

On this site Ken Hurst dissects the propoed intelligent design course outlined proving it is full of creationist garbage.  The link to that page is from Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Plenty of scientists and science organizations read and follow Dispatches yet I bet you a quarter not one of them publishes or advertises the work Ken Hurst has done reegarding the course outline.  I bet not a single scientific organization such as NCSE spends one minute actually explaining the details of what it being proposed in this class other than to say "id is religion" and "we already settled this in Dover". Alot of good that is going to do.

Here is a pro tip from me - John Q Public is not going to read a 139 page legal ruling, it just aint gonna happen.  And John Q Public is what drives this democracy, not the minority of scientists.  It is  scientific ignorance that allows this nutty intelligent design creationism to get a foot hold in the first place.  

And as far as I can tell most scientific organizations continue to ignore John Q Public, continue to not realize John Q Public does not have a PhD in molecular biology, they write things only for themselves and their peers (and probably absurdly think everyone reads their science blog)

Ken Miller knows the science PR/communication machine is terrible but unless you read PT you don't even know a video of his recent most excellent and very John Q Public friendly and educational presentation even exists.  

What the f***?

Because hardly no one in the science world seems to understand the general public does not seek out scientific opinions or science blogs, and the scientific community therefore tends to ignore fundamental communication with the general public, the public will continue to see the ACLU and AU as bullies who stifle free speech.  Soon we will see the public confuse the dreaded ACLU with evolution.  Their distaste for the ACLU will translate to a bitterness for evolution and science.

If we don't get better about *educating* and communicating with the public we're likely to one day see a back lash where the public gets fed up with hearing about intelligent design, darwin and ACLU lawsuits and they take that frustration out on the evolutionists and science.

After all,  in John Q Public's eye it is the evolutionist camp and the ACLU that keeps spawing these law suits and stifling free speech in school.  Why do they mistakenly think that?  Because science is too busy or too ignorant to try and educate and inform them.

Do any of you know anyone at the NCSE or any other science organizations or magazines that you could influence?

Anyhow, that's my story...I'll get off my soap box now...

Date: 2006/01/11 06:00:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
It doesn't take much time to format a news release properly (NCSE I am talking to you) or get your articles on Google News.  

It doesn't take much time to put Ken Miller's speech at Case University on a web page and promote it.

Date: 2006/01/11 07:33:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all I am in Texas.  The Discovery Institute came though our state a few years back in an attempt to censor our biology texbooks.  They fell flat on their face.

Around the same time ARN (located in Richardson Texas) tried to get the Plano school district to adopt off Pandas and People.  Fell flat on their face, the board unanimously said #### no to Pandas and Peeps.  It's worth noting Plano is a heavy Republican voting city.

So Texas has a history of thumbing their nose at IDC.  Note that two days after a well respected Texas Republican announced she was going independent and running against Governor Rick Perry he announced his support for IDC in the classroom.  An obvious vote grab for Perry.  Two days later Perry clarified by saying he has no intention of encouraging any legislation to teach IDC or "the controversy", he simply thinks IDC is a legitimate scientific theory.  Note Karl Rove is one of his advisors.

In spite of my beloved Texas' history of just saying no to creationism in the classroom, Governor Perry's comments will no doubt inspire the lunatic fringe in this state once again. Therefore  I am putting together a CD to send to all of the Texas state board members.

The CD will include

1) Ken Miller's Case University presentation

2) Judge Jones' ruling

3) William Dembski's Intelligent Design course materials he uses at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

4) The Original "philosophy" IDC course outline in California with Ken Hurst's comments as well as the most updated version of the class.

5) A copy of the Wedge Document

6) A copy of the Wiki page on Teach The Controversy

In my cover letter I am NOT going to claim intelligent design is creationism or religious, I am not going to tell them I object to any attempts to teach it in school.  Instead the tone will be I am a father of two who simply wants my school board to make informed decisions when it comes to intelligent design in the classroom.  I think the evidence is far more compelling that anything I could say in a cover letter.

And yeah I know you can lead a horse to water but not make him drink and I have no fantasies that this effort of mine is going to change the world, but at least I am doing my part to help inform my state's school board.  

Is there anything else that I should include on this CD?

Date: 2006/01/12 05:41:33, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks for the feedback and encouragement guys!

Mr C

Date: 2006/01/12 05:50:53, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ivins: As Texas schools suffer, Perry can only pander

Molly Ivins isn't happy with the obvious pandering to the creationist crowd by Texas Governor Rick Perry who is running for re-election.  Perry recently said IDC was a legitimate science theory that should be taught in public schools.

Two days later Perry said he had no intention of sponsoring or encouraging any legislation to promote IDC in Texas classrooms.  He has not explained what exactly is scientific about IDC.

Rick Perry has been pandering to extreem right factions ever since Karl Rove became one of his advisors a few years ago.

Date: 2006/01/12 06:03:05, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'd be interested in reading some of the blogs here that folks might have.  Post a link to it here?

I'm thinking about starting one myself and I am in the early stages of looking at software.

Date: 2006/01/12 07:21:52, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Priceless...

Thanks Steve.

Date: 2006/01/13 07:34:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Leave it to a bunch of kids to unmask the true meaning of Intelligent Design Creationism.  Even after they have been coached on what to say and what not to say.

This one still makes me laff.

Date: 2006/01/13 07:41:14, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks Wesley, this is most helpful.

Date: 2006/01/13 07:57:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I may have seen a list like this on the NCSE web site but I cannot find it now.  Somehwere out there exists a list of every legitimate science organization that opposes intelligent design creationsism.

Anyone know where I can find this list?

Date: 2006/01/13 09:34:25, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
That's what I was looking for.  Thanks Jim.

Date: 2006/01/13 11:22:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Since science itself is apolitical and skeptical, meaning it thrives on evidence and shuns assertions and could care less about your religious or political beliefs.  Unless of course your political/religiosu beliefs include hostility towards science.

That coupled with the fact that religious belief does not lend itself well to the scientific method (by definition faith has nothing to do with evidence)  I think science is an atheist friendly environment thus we see a higher percentage of them there than in other socio groups.  

I don't see the notion that science causes atheism.  Since science is not hostile to atheists, is based on skepticism (the root of atheism in my opinion) so it makes sense that they tend to collect in that arena.

I think if you poll atheists (who were former theists such as myself) they will tell you their disbelief had nothing to do with evolution theory or science.  

I was a believer the first 30 years of my life and when I drop kicked my belief in God (about 15 years ago) I knew absolutley nothing about evolution and paid no real attention to science or science writers.  

I could be wrong but I suspect that is the same for most atheist/agnostics.   But I must admit, even though I was a beliver I knew at the time no way in heck the universe was slapped together in 6 days.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a molecular biologist to figure that one out.

One need not "believe" in or even know about Darwin or science to reject theism as a way or life or world view.

Date: 2006/01/13 14:06:14, Link 70.251.106.54
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (haceaton @ Jan. 13 2006,18:37)
Quote
by definition faith has nothing to do with evidence


I found this parenthetical statement interesting. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I guess it depends on your definition of faith. If you can lose faith, then maybe that loss has a basis in evidence and so faith does depend on evidence.

I was not clear, I meant religious faith.  Religious faith is not based on evidence, by definition that is.  I recognize some people base their faith on what they call evidence or justify it with evidence, but I think if they had good evidence for a God they don't need faith.

Date: 2006/01/14 19:28:29, Link 70.251.106.54
Author: Mr_Christopher
With all the publicity, analysis and commentary regarding Dover, someone who is writing stuff like that isn't concered with being objective.  No one other than the Disco is that mistaken.  

The author is trying to sell an idea.

Date: 2006/01/16 04:19:07, Link 70.251.106.54
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like that California social studies teacher who was planning to teach intelligent design creationism was compelled by the Lord himself:  

"I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach"

When did the Lord (aka intelligent designer, space alien or time traveler) start designing "philosophy" classes in California hick towns?  

Fascinating how the Lord so effortlessly moves from creating systems of irreducible complexity to designing "philosophy" courses.  Who knew?

The Lord Made Her Do It



.

Date: 2006/01/16 10:33:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
:08-->
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,09:08)
Here's the bet,

Anyone who replies and accepts, regardless of any appeal, has to write a post admitting they lost the bet.

Then they have to honestly resign from this forum under any and all names for a period of thirty calendar days.

I will be lonely posting to no one.

Did evopeach ever admit defeat?  Did he admit he lost the bet?

And speaking of Behe, he also admitted on Hannity and Colmes that the intelligent designer could be a space alien or time traveler.  

Behe is a real humdinger of a credit to modern scientific thinking, no?  Why just the other day I was having coffee with a space alien friend of mine who was telling me about his time traveling pals from a distant galaxy.  I asked him if he or his time travel pals designed mankind and he said he wasn't sure but suspected it might have been Klingons.

Date: 2006/01/16 13:01:30, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I love that site.  And Dembscott is a loon to be sure.  It's so funny to see how their ideas natually attract all these open creationist who are scolded for admitting the intelligent designer is God.  

It has been said before but when it comes to denying the Lord, uncommon dissent (and the Disco) makes Peter look like a light weight.

And if you inquire if the intelligent designer is god, you get warned.  If you suggest it is a space man you get warned/banned.  if you suggest it is a time traveler you get warned/banned.  Yet Dembski, Behe and the rest of the lunatic fringe anti-science creationist cultists have all said that the intelligent designer may be a space alien/man.  Ask them to discuss that proposition and you get banned.

Clearly Dembscott, UD, and the Disco have shown that trying to be "clever as serpents" has its drawbacks.  I love watching them get cornered by their own theories.  The response is always the same, ridicule the one who asks questions or simply ban them.

Too funny.  They divide intelligent design creationists into two camps, those that think and those that preach.  The thinkers get banned or ridiculed, the preachers tell the thinkers what to think and what not to think.  They let them know right up front what questions they should not ask and what topics they should not discuss.  

They are promoting the existance of an intelligent designer and insisting their theory of an intelligent designer is scientific.  BUT...if you make the mistake of actually contemplating or even discussing what constitutes the/a intelligent designer you'll get banned in a heart beat.  Brilliant!

And although Dembski has earned a pocket full of PhDs (which proves he can pass exams and write papers), personally he strikes me as just another fundamentalist  simpleton armed with a fancy vocabulary.  And academic version of Pat Robertson. Yawn.  I cannot wait to go hear him when he comes to Fort Worth later this year.  Actually I can't wait to raise my hand and ask him questions in front of an audience.

I love that site.

Date: 2006/01/16 13:13:47, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
If you believe what Dembscott has been yapping about at uncoomon dissent, as soon as Alito gets the nod intelligent design creationism is going to bury evolution in the public schools.  Yeah and monkeys are waiting to fly out of my, um, monkey cage as soon as that happens!

Dembscotts mental illness aside, obviously the intelligent design creationists want to see a court case go to the Supreme Court.  What court case? What the heck would such a case look like and where would it come from?

As long as what they preach does not fall within the definition of what constitutes science, and it implies a supernatural creator, and they use obvious creationist garbage like of Pandas and Naive People,  how the heck do they think they will win a court case?

Alito or no Alito, I am looking forward to another court case, hopefully one that will go to the Supreme Court.  Perhaps someone like Chris "Divine Design" Buttars will give the Disco that opportunity.

Date: 2006/01/17 08:18:16, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Intelligent Design Creationism loses in Dover PA and now loses in Frazier CA.  

Class Dismissed!!!

Rural Calif. School to Stop 'Intelligent Design' Teachings

Tuesday, January 17, 2006



FRESNO, Calif.  — A rural school district agreed to stop teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution as part of a court settlement filed Tuesday, a legal group said.

Frazier Mountain High School will stop teaching a philosophy class discussing the theory of "intelligent design" this week and won't teach it in the future, said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

A federal judge in Fresno had been scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.

A group of parents sued El Tejon Unified School District last week for violating the constitutional separation of church and state by offering "Philosophy of Design," a course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the theory that life is so complex it must have been created by God.

"The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, 'intelligent design,"' said the lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court.

The high school in the Tehachapi Mountains about 75 miles north of Los Angeles draws 500 students from a dozen small communities.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State had successfully blocked Dover, Pa., schools last month from teaching intelligent design in science courses. El Tejon school officials had claimed the subject was proper for a philosophy class.

Date: 2006/01/17 08:37:22, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I kind of wish they had not settled and the matter would have gone to court.  Two IDC court case losses would have been fun to watch.  Of course had the California judge ruled sanely he'd be tarred and feathered as yet another "activist judge."

I wonder why the Thomas More Law Center didn't offer to help them this poor Christian social studies teacher out?  Maybe Richard Thompson's arse is still stinging to risk another judicial paddling (thank you sir, may I have another).

I hope they make the settlement details public.  It appears a a part of the agreement included no teaching intelligent design creationism in the future as well.  

This IDC in the classroom is a howler!

Date: 2006/01/17 11:18:02, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2006,15:26)
"Religion-based alternative"

wow, journalists really are starting to get it.

No kidding and it gets better:

A group of parents sued the school district last week, saying the class taught by a minister's wife violated the separation of church and state. The course taught that life is so complex it must have been created by God.

Yep, many in the media are now seeing through this intelligent designer as a space alien or time traveler nonsense.


.

Date: 2006/01/17 11:39:30, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Yet another howler!  Someone should post this on uncommon dissent where Dembscott and the two people left who have not been banned yet can whine and complain about an "activist" Catholic church.


Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article,

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.

The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.

The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.

The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.

The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools.

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said.

From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said. That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection.

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.

What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.

The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.

"Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.

From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."

END


Vatican Says "Just Say No" To Intelligent Design




.

Date: 2006/01/17 12:17:28, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
For the full on effect, read this one closely.  Then read it
again.

Luskin Speaks

Intelligent Design Not Disingenuous

(Casey Luskin)

January 17, 2006
I am glad that my letter to the El Tejon school board provided such large percentage of text for Wayne Adkins’ recent editorial attacking myself and the Discovery Institute. Lieutenant Adkins believes it is “disingenuous” to claim intelligent design does not postulate a supernatural or divine designer. But he clearly does not understand intelligent design.

Darwinists and materialists have been reminding their critics for years that science cannot study the supernatural. In fact, this was their primary critique of creationism during the 1980’s. Design theorists too have recognized that referring to the “supernatural” is not a form of scientific explanation. This is because science can only study things which we can observe, and the supernatural is beyond the observable realm.

While we cannot study the “supernatural” through science, we can study intelligence. We have a huge sample dataset to tell us how intelligent agents operate: technology produced by the human race. Design theorists observe that intelligent action produces large amounts of “complex and specified” information. Language and the finely-tuned, purposeful arrangement of parts in machines are prime examples of this encoded information. If the cell was designed, then we would expect to find language-like encoded information commonly throughout biology.

The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Moreover, the machines in our cell are often said to resemble human design machines—such as the rotary engine found in the bacterial flagellum. This is powerful evidence that an intelligence was at work.

I have always openly acknowledged that I am a Christian, and thus I believe the designer is the God of the Bible. Thus Adkins assertions that I am “disingenuous” about my beliefs about the identity of the designer are thus baseless. What Adkins doesn’t realize is that his position is self-contradictory: evolutionists cannot on the one hand attack creationists as unscientific for referring to a “supernatural” of “divine” creator, and then on the other hand slander design theorists as “deceptive” for refusing to appeal to unscientific explanations like the supernatural. Rather, design theorists should be applauded for constructing an approach to studying intelligent causes in the history of life which does not stray into unscientific territory.

Many design theorists, including myself, believe the designer is God. But that is my personal religious belief and not a proposition of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The explanatory category of an “intelligence” is a valid scientific form of explanation because we have much empirical experience with how intelligent agents operate. The observed products of intelligent agents are precisely what we observe in the cell.

The designer very well may God, or a supernatural divine being. But if that is true, it is not something which a scientific approach to studying origins can tell us. Intelligent design thus takes a bona fide scientific approach which is endorsed by a growing number of scientists and peer reviewed scientific publications.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

Date: 2006/01/18 07:38:29, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey *I* read your comments Larry, and they're still mindless.

Yep we should teach the controversy about intelligent design creationism, that non-scientific theory in crisis.  Let kids decide is my motto.  

As far as the course content goes, let's start with the Wedge Document.  Children should know that the Discovery Institute's two governing goals include:

1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Let's help kids learn the dangers of replacing our scientific understanding with "theistic understandings" (Pat Robertson's comments on a variety of subjects will be used as an example of "theistic understandings").

Then let's add the "Teach The Controversy" campaign championed by the Discovery Institute.  We'll follow up those lessons with an in-depth study of the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

Then let's teach what "peer reviewed" means.  Let's also teach kids what the "scientific method" is as well as devote some time to identifying what is a testable theory and what is not.  What is science and what is pseudo-science (intelligent design, healing crystals, cancer curing magnets, palm reading, etc).  We should cover what is natural and what is supernatural too.

Yep, we should be teaching about intelligent design creationism in public schools.  You will not get an arguement from me on that one.

Date: 2006/01/18 08:03:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
What a weird blog that guy has.  Other than a few isolated interruptions it consists of him talking to himself.

I was going to suggest there that if he added a Klingon, space alien or time traveler to his theory he'd get the attention and support he wants from Dembsky, Behe, Wells, etc.  But Mr Christopher is not available and I simply refuse to adopt a new handle!

Date: 2006/01/18 08:28:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well it would sure make God look like a goof ball if it turned out the intelligent designer was in fact a space alien or time traveler (as Behe suggest) and not God.

Someone should ask Luskin if it is not God, and in fact a space man, where does that leave God's role?

Did God create the intelligent designer or was it the other way around?

Also, does Intelligent Design Creationism Theory tackle the important question of whether or not we were designed in the intelligent designing space alien time travelers image or not?

Date: 2006/01/18 10:31:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 18 2006,16:18)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 18 2006,14:28)
Well it would sure make God look like a goof ball if it turned out the intelligent designer was in fact a space alien or time traveler (as Behe suggest) and not God.

Someone should ask Luskin if it is not God, and in fact a space man, where does that leave God's role?

For that matter, how could we even tell the difference between God and a technologically advanced alien or time traveler? ???

Well according to scripture, God looks sort of like us.  And according to Star Trek, space aliens look more like iguanas on a real bad hair day.

So I think we'd be able to tell who is who in a line up.  Assuming of course scritpure and Star Trek are reliable sources.

Too bad this subject is off limits for ID cultists.  Talk about a science stopper, they are not allowed to dive into what/who the intelligent designer is.

Is there any other "scientific theory" other than intelligent design creationism that states

B proves A exists but you are not allowed to discuss or contemplate A.  

And of course discussing A will get you banned from Dembskis intelligent design creationism blog.  Why does the Dicovery Institute and their loyal army of true believers try to stifle free speech and scientific inquiry into the nature of the intelligent designer?

Date: 2006/01/18 11:06:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The nice thing about PT and this forum is you don't get booted for asking logical questions that intelligent design creation begs.

Speaking of begging the question...Is the intelligent designer dead or alive?  True or False?

If he/she/it/ is still living, what is that lizard man up to nowadays?  Seriously, his last "invention" seems to be quite dated now, what it is 10s of thousands of years old or is it millions of years?  

What the heck is he doing with all his free time?  Other than snacking on small rodents and insects that is.

And is the intelligent designing lizard man made of the same irreducible complexity, DNA and encoded cells he is theorized by Dembski, Behe, et al to have invented?  Meaning did he invent himself?  

Maybe I'll send Dembski an email and ask him to break out his HP science calculator and answer that one for me.  Or maybe one of his science students at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary could answer that one for me.  I hear they have an awesome science program at ol' SBTS!

Date: 2006/01/18 11:12:35, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembscott just gave John Davison his own thread

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis - John A. Davison via uncommon dissent

Date: 2006/01/18 11:31:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
STJ, I believe you are looking for this thread.  Funny that I read and bumped this thread yesterday, or maybe the day before.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....14;t=39

But evo peach is still posting on PT.

Date: 2006/01/18 11:42:04, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Nope, go to his blog and read about it.  Basically he invited quite a few people to write an 500 word essay and they all either turned him down (lack of time was the common excuse) or just ignored him.  

He saw this as evidence they have nothing scientific to bring to the table in the first place, otherwise they would have accepted his offer.

I went to his web site at whatever school in VT he teaches.  The man is a loon but I bet he would probably be fun to smoke a fattie with at 3 in the morning and have a bull session.

Date: 2006/01/19 02:18:44, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 19 2006,02:59)
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

intelligent design is a craetion theory in crisis.  It has been booted out of two school districts and newpapers all over the worl are carrying stories indicating intelligent design is about super naturalism and higher powers.  

What we may be seeing is an IDC melt down.  The desperate news releases from the Disco indicte this as well.

Date: 2006/01/19 02:54:30, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 19 2006,07:01)
More information on the Intelligent Designers = Space Aliens theory here.

I'm glad someone else sees this.  The IDCers keep theorizing about space men but the Raleians are having coffee with them. Why does the Disco ignore this?

Date: 2006/01/19 11:19:00, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Keep in mind those guys do not play by the same set of rules that science plays by.  If you read the sunday school course materials Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you'll note things like not letting logic get in the way of Christian truths and other nonsense.

And not long ago when it appeared Dembski and Ken Miller might debate, Dembski said something to the effect of he did not have to stoop to Ken Miller's "pathetic" level of detail regarding his ID theories.  He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

Logic and reason are the IDists biggest enemies so their assault on those who use logic and reason as a means of understanding and sorting fact from fiction is predictable.  

It is still astonishing to observe though.

Date: 2006/01/20 06:30:53, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm not sure if this topic is cool here but here goes...

Google Refuses Demand for Search Information
Government Asked 4 Firms for Data in Effort to Revive Anti-Porn Law

By Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A01

The Justice Department said yesterday that it subpoenaed four major Internet companies for data on what people search for on the Web as part of an eight-year battle over a federal law designed to shield children from online pornography.

Three of the companies responded to some degree, but Google Inc. said it was resisting the demand. Privacy advocates said the subpoenas raised deep concerns about the government's ability to track what ordinary people view on the Internet...


Read Entire Article

This is weird on many fronts.  First of all, let's talk about the strong arm tactic being employed by the Federal government.   Give us your records or else...

Why are they not approaching Google and other search engines and offering to pay for this kind of proprietary and private data like everyone else would?

Second of all, what gives them the right to demand this kind of data.  Google has not broken any laws, is not a party to a lawsuit, so why are their records subject to a subpoena?  You lawyer types will have to help me understand that one.

And I am stunned that Yahoo and MSN apparently rolled over for the Feds and handed them their search records.  I loath anything Yahoo or MSN and would not search for bread crumbs on their site if I were starving to death, but come on.  What are they now, honorary G-Men?  Did the feds give Bill Gates a Junior Deputy Badge to wear after MSN handed them their search records?

If the Feds want to monitor seach habits they should build a search engine, or buy a search engine, or contract with a search engine to provide them that data.

We live in scary times and just because Bush will be leaving the White House in a few years does not mean another one just like him will not be taking his spot.  

In fact in view of where he and his kind have taken us over the last 6 years I suspect his replacement will be cut from the same cloth.

Date: 2006/01/20 06:45:39, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This could be interesting.  
        Nick News Explores Issues Surrounding the Teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in Schools

Nick News Explores Issues Surrounding the Teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in Schools

Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School - Sunday, Jan. 22, 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT) on Nickelodeon


NEW YORK, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- In Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School, airing on Nickelodeon, Sunday, Jan. 22, 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT), award-winning journalist Linda Ellerbee and Nick News take a look at the on-going controversy surrounding the teaching of the theory of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classes.

"The goal of this show is not to debate the issues of evolution, intelligent design, or creationism," said Ellerbee. "We just want to give kids a better understanding of what all the shouting is about, not to mention the court cases that have resulted already, and some that are shaping up. We also wanted to hear from kids affected by these disputes."

Recent events have put the teaching of evolution on the front page of newspapers everywhere again. Since the Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of religious ideas (creationism) in science classes in 1987, another group has come forward to challenge evolution. Intelligent design supporters say that their idea is a scientific, non-religious challenge to evolution. But what exactly are evolution and intelligent design? What is science?

Traveling to Kansas and Dover, Pennsylvania, Nick News takes a look at how intelligent design is being opposed or supported. In Dover, PA, for example, Nick News looks at a legal challenge to intelligent design that lost. In Kansas, supporters of intelligent design won. Nick News also focuses on other places where challenges to evolution exist or might soon, including Georgia and Alabama.

Ellerbee speaks with several experts throughout the show, some on the subject of intelligent design, including Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, and others on the evolution perspective including Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, an organization which is dedicated to the teaching of evolution, and Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

Ellerbee and Nick News make certain to also get one of the most important perspectives on the matter -- from kids themselves. The episode ends with kids from different religions and cultures around the world speaking about their beliefs of how the world began.

Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School will also air on Nickelodeon's Cable in the Classroom on February 3 and 10 at 6 a.m., and will available on TurboNick, Nickelodeon's online broadband service on Nick.com as of Jan. 25.

Nick News, which is in its 14th year -- the longest-running kids' news show in television history -- has built its reputation on the respectful and direct way it speaks to kids about the important issues of the day. A recipient of a 2005 Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming, the program has covered the tough topics, including the Sept. 11 attacks, the Columbine tragedy, divorce, bullying, learning disorders, all the presidential elections since 1992, the Balkan war, the Iraq War, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and AIDS. In 1992, Ellerbee's special, "A Conversation with Magic," which featured Magic Johnson, set the standard for talking with kids about AIDS. In 1994, the entire series, Nick News, won the Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming. In 1998, "What Are You Staring At?" a program about kids with physical disabilities, won the Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming. In 2002, "Faces of Hope: The Kids of Afghanistan," won the Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming. In 2004, two Nick News Specials, "The Courage to Live: Kids, South Africa and AIDS" and "There's No Place Like Home," a special about homeless kids in America, were both nominated for the Outstanding Children's Programming Emmy. In fact, Nick News has received more than 20 Emmy nominations. Nick News, produced by Lucky Duck Productions, is also the recipient of two Peabody Awards, including a personal one given to Ellerbee for her coverage of the President Clinton investigation; a Columbia duPont Award; and more than a dozen Parents' Choice Awards.



Website: http://www.nick.com/



[unrelated mild rant]BTW, if anyone here is associated with the NCSE please note how this Nick news release above is formatted.  And note that is was picked up and publicly broadcast.  It was probably submitted (correctly) as well.  There is probably a reason thatas far as I can tell no one in the media has ever read or quoted any of the NCSE "press releases."
[/unrelated mild rant]




.

Date: 2006/01/20 08:42:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Last week, any evidence of online ID crimespeak, regardless of where you might commit it,  would get you banned from Demsbki's smile-a-while-a-creationist blog.

And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?

Good lord man this is so_freaking_funny.   Dembski is the cult leader of a bunch of mindless automatons.  How cool is that?  

Side note, should the Disco go ahead and commit themselves to the specified religion they are in fact promoting and simply call it Christian Scientology?

After all, they are blending Christianity with Science Fiction.  Does this not make them Christian Scientologists?

Date: 2006/01/20 10:18:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Discovery Institute's senior fellow and resident poodle, DAVID KLINGHOFFER, wrote in yestedays Seattle PI:
"Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling. Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help."
Why we care about Darwin wars

Well I have never met anyone who adopted "Darwinism" as a personal philosophy so I cannot say whether Mr Klinghoffer is on the right path or smoking crack (again).  

But on the subject of "uplifting" and "young Americans" I personally found the following article about some young Americans in Plano Texas in today's Dallas Morning News to be quite uplifting.

Teen's digging his fossil find
At Plano West, he uncovers ancient fish and love of science

07:42 AM CST on Friday, January 20, 2006
By KIM BREEN / The Dallas Morning News

PLANO – Brandon Alexander poked through the dried creek bed in his school's back yard searching for ancient oysters with his biology classmates last week.

Instead, he found an estimated 85 million-year-old vertebra from what once was one angry-looking fish, and unearthed an excitement about science that most teachers only dream about.

"You could not pay to have materials like these" in a classroom, said Wes Kirpach, Brandon's biology teacher at Plano West Senior High School and a paleontology enthusiast.

"It is about the most perfect 'in' to a lesson you could possibly imagine."

The fossil find that started with Brandon's discovery continued last weekend with the help of dozens of interested children, adults and teenagers. Several more vertebrae, a fin and other pieces of an estimated 12- to 15-foot-long Xiphactinus audax have since been recovered, and the campus hopes to find more in the coming weeks – if not months.

Although it's quite a find for the school, that fish's fossils are not uncommon in the area, said Kent Newman, director of laboratories at Southern Methodist University's Shuler Museum of Paleontology.

About 85 million to 90 million years ago, much of Texas was covered with a warm, shallow and clear ocean, Mr. Newman said.

The Xiphactinus audax were "probably the top dog," of fish, he said. "They were pretty much the top fish predator at the time. No one probably messed with them."

He said he hadn't heard of another school making such a discovery on campus.

"It's a great teaching tool," he said. Children grow up learning about scientific finds, but few get to see them up close. "So much of science takes place in a faraway place," he said. "It's never really real to them."

Outside of Mr. Kirpach's classroom is a picture of what the menacing fish would have looked like. Mr. Kirpach describes it as a marlin without the bill and with "a whole lot of teeth."

"Our kids call it 'Nemo with an attitude,' " said principal Phil Saviano. Mr. Saviano calls it a "home run more than one time" for Mr. Kirpach and his lessons. "We're capitalizing on the excitement," said Mr. Saviano, who showed off the fossils to other district administrators this week.

For Brandon, a 16-year-old Hurricane Katrina evacuee, the discovery has changed life on campus. It's given him an identity other than as just one of the evacuees.

"I'm a star," he said, laughing.

It's also recharged his long-dormant interest in science.

Mr. Kirpach said he never heard Brandon, a junior, mention college before last week. Now he's been asking about what it takes to become a paleontologist.

"I did not want to know anything about science," Brandon said. The fossil find, along with Mr. Kirpach's knack for explanation, has changed that. "I now have a thirst for science. It makes sense now."


Mr. Kirpach, who started looking for fossils across Texas as a hobby a few years ago, never expected to find much just past the student parking lot. He said he is not surprised, however, about the excitement the fish has drawn from youths and adults alike.

"Honestly, I've never seen a kid who didn't like dinosaurs," he said.



There are not many things more uplifting than seeing young kids discover the world of science.  Who knows how many kids will pay closer attention to what science has to offer as a result of this find.  And who knows if any of them will be the Ken Millers of tomorrow?

And note there is no mention of these kids wanting to destroy religion, deny god, or molest others due to their interest in science and this fossil discovery.  What is up with that?

On the flip side, had this been an intelligent design course they would not have been digging for anything and instead would have been hearing "uplifting" lectures about mysterious designers, mouse traps, and fuzzy math.  A science stopper to be sure.  

And I wonder how many kids who were exposed to the intelligent design creationism class in California thought about becoming scientists as a result of the course?  I wonder how many were "uplifted"?

And there is some IDC trivia in this story - Plano Texas is next door to Richardson Texas (both are suburbs of Dallas). ARN calls Richardson home and a few years back ARN tried to peddle Of Pandas and People to the Plano School disctrict.  Plano is a Republican dominated, conservative, affluent community.  They unanimously said "no" to Pandas.

For some reason, finding this fossil so close to ARN's back yard makes me smile.  Of course, the bones were probably put there by a "designer" to test our faith...

Date: 2006/01/20 10:25:14, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
:06-->
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2006,22:06)
Quote

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.


This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?

Date: 2006/01/20 10:45:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks Wesley.  That is nuttier than all get out.  

Pure Dembski for ya.  What a "scientist" he is.

Date: 2006/01/20 10:57:04, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Are any of you groovy hipsters planning to attend this?  I sent an email just now to see if it is going to be taped.


Lawyers to address I.D., science issues
Thursday, January 19, 2006

The lawyers who successfully battled to keep the teaching of intelligent design out of Dover, Pa., public science classrooms will speak Jan. 28 at an event titled “Intelligent Design, Kansas Science Education, and the Law.”

The event, presented by Kansas Citizens for Science and the National Center for Science Education will be from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Dole Institute of Politics on Kansas University’s west campus.

Attorneys for the Dover plaintiffs, Eric Rothschild, Steve Harvey and Richard Katskee, will speak. Jack Krebs, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, will also speak.

There will also be a question-and-answer session with the speakers joined by Steve Case, assistant director of the Center for Science Education at Kansas University.

Seating is limited. Registration is due today to Phil Baringer at baringer@ku.edu

Date: 2006/01/20 12:17:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Probably 99% of Pat Robertson's followers are the type of people who blindly embrace intelligent design and could care less about things like "verifiable" "testable" "scientific" etc.  In fact the less science talk the better as far as they are concerned.  They simply see stooges with PhDs like Dembski putting Darwin's head in a vise and get all excited.  Pat has publicly embraced IDC on several instances.

CBN (Pat's broadcasting company) claims a viewership of 1 million people a day.  

Pat won't be president anytime soon but in spite of his nutty public proclaimations, he has influence in this country.  He influences some of the least educated and most poorly informed folks, the type of individuals the Discovery Institute appeals to the most.

Besides, he's fun to watch.  I was watching the 700 Club the other night and Pat told us that evolution is a religion.  He said no one was around 15 billion year ago to witness fish walking out of the ocean so believing in evolution requires faith.  That faith proves evolution is a religion according to Pat.  He wonders why the Supreme Court allows a religion like evolution to be taught in public schools.  

The 700 Club is not as good as PTL but it has some entertainment value.

Pat is a nut case to be sure but don't underestimate him or hsi influence.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:46:10, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Do kids have an innate ability to think logically without training, and if so, how and when are they most susceptible to the superstitions of adults? "

Children are first introduced to superstitions at about age 1 or so when they are taught about Santa Claus who serves as a training diety.  A bait and  switch concept to be sure.  Bait them with Santa and later switch them to Jesus.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:48:44, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Did anyone watch this?  I missed it...

Date: 2006/01/23 07:12:25, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Areden you are correct.  I am raising both of my chrildren with the Sanata  myth as well, yet  I tell them Santa is make believe.  That probably goes over their head though.

And I forgot to answer Julie's question:

"Do kids have an innate ability to think logically without training"

I think so.  When I was between 4 and 5 my parents tell me I confronted them with the notion that Santa could not really exist, or if he did exist he was not responsible for all the presents children all over the world get.  My claim was no one could visit every house in the world in one single evening.  

I think that would be an example of untrained critical/logical thinking?

Date: 2006/01/23 08:35:35, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
We should make it perfectly clear -

Anyone from Dembski's uncommodescent creationist blog should note that Dave Scott will ban you from there if you post anything here or on PT that he doesn't like.

And whatever you do stay away from calling Dembski a theologian or pointing out there is no science whatsoever being taught or researched at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Don't discuss the idiotic religious propaganda Dembski teacher there.

And I suggest you avoid mentioning Behe hasn't come up with any new ideas in over 10 years.  Nor has he provided any new evidence for "his" irreducible complexity notion.  And I wouldn't say a word about the fact that Behe published his book on irreducible complexity back in 1996 but there is still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that supports it.   Yep, 10 years laters and it still lacks any scientific meat.

And I'd avoid talking about Dembski's lack of published peer reviewed scientific articles.  Dave won't like that.  Your best bet it to avoid any suggestion that Behe is a quack and Dembksi is a garden variety Christian Opportunist.  Mr Scott fancies Dembski as a legitimate "theorist/scientist" so let's not shatter his fantasy.

ps.  Dave Scott seems to be whining about his inability to read posts here.  If Mr Scott is jonesing that bad for a ATBC shot in the arm, will someone tell the technically challenged Mr Scott to Google "anonymous proxy"?

Date: 2006/01/23 11:18:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scott schooling creationists (and crackpots) on evolution.  Too funny.

Dave claims to be an agnostic but he insists a designers' signature is everywhere.  Hmmm..Since he rejects the God concept he must be from the ID Klingon Camp that proposes a time traveler or space alien done it.  He has yet to clarify whether he leans towards a time traveler or a space alien.

Oh, and uncommon dissent is still hostile to Christian ideas:

Quote
...I deleted two comments that appeared to be headed towards a dispute about the historical accuracy of the bible...
Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:18 pm

Date: 2006/01/23 12:05:14, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Dave is actually working as an intern at Dembski's creationism blog.  If all goes well he will soon he will be a full time editor at Minitrue (aka The Discovery Institute).

Date: 2006/01/23 13:10:26, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
On Oct 21st AEI hosted an event called

"Science Wars  
Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design? "


Well I was looking at the online transcripts and saw the link to the video.  It appears they taped the entire event and you can watch it all online!

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1169,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

(Click on the Video link of course)

Obviously this was put on well before th Dover ruling.  During the final questions and answers, the tit for tat exchange between the TMLC and the Ministry of Truth (Disco) is well worth reading/watching.

Here is the low down:

Start:  Friday, October 21, 2005  8:45 AM  

End:  Friday, October 21, 2005  3:30 PM  

Location:  Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

What should public schools teach about life’s origins? This debate erupted anew over the summer after President George W. Bush and Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) endorsed the teaching of intelligent design (ID)—the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. Proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution are now lobbying state legislatures and pressing school districts to incorporate ID into science curricula. Alarmed scientists and educators see ID as a disguised form of creationism and a direct attack on the scientific method and critical thinking. Is intelligent design religion or science? What should we teach in schools? Would the teaching of intelligent design violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? Panelists at this day-long AEI conference will discuss these and other questions.


8:30 a.m. Registration  
     
8:45 Breakfast  
9:00  Welcome: Sally Satel, AEI
9:10 Panel I: Science, Religion, and Intelligent Design    
 Discussants: Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute
   Kenneth Miller, Brown University
 Moderator:  Sally Satel, AEI
10:15 Break  
10:30 Morning Keynote: Father George Coyne, Vatican Observatory
11:00 Discussant: Michael Novak, AEI
11:30 Panel II: Should We “Teach the Controversy”  
 Discussants: John Calvert, Intelligent Design Network
   Barbara Forrest, Southeastern Louisiana University  
 Moderator: Frederick M. Hess, AEI
12:30 p.m. Luncheon Keynote: Lawrence Krauss, Case Western Reserve University
2:00 Panel III: The Dover, Pa., Case and Beyond: Legal and Public Policy Implications of the ID Controversy  
 Discussants: Steven Gey, Florida State University
   Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center
   Mark Ryland, Discovery Institute
 Moderator: Jon Entine, AEI
     
3:30 Adjournment

Date: 2006/01/24 05:01:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.

Date: 2006/01/24 05:18:57, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like those who do not wish to join the ID cult of conformity are now posting in coded language to air their concerns.

I wish you could download a decoder ring.  Doing the old fashioned way is time consuming....

I wonder if some of them will ban together and start meeting in secret?


Quote
Shane Was all..
Hy Dv, hvn’t sn wht thy’r syng nd dn’t ntnd t, bt s smn wh’s prtty pr D, wld pprct rthnk f yr mdrtn hr. Prhps jst lvng t ll t smn ls wld b bst. Th sgnl t ns rt hr hs chngd snc y’v bn mdrtng, nd ’m srt trng hrng bt y ll th tm nd sng thrs cmpln bt yr mdrtn, r y tllng s thy r. ’v bn n yr shs bfr, s knw wht’s t lk, trst m. thnk t’s bst y stp rght bck r stp t fr whl nd lt thngs cl dwn.

nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.

Comment by Shane — January 23, 2006 @ 5:24 pm

Date: 2006/01/24 05:54:51, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, Behe popularizes the notion of irreducible complexity back in the early/mid 1990s.  This was not an original idea, BWT, Behe forgot to credit the originator of the theory Behe claimed as his own..

Anyhow, since then Dembski has come out with a few theories that are dependent on Behe's.  In over 10 years the intelligent design cult still has yet to publish a single intelligent design peer reviewed data in any legitimate science journal.

They have not improved upon or come up with any new ideas or any new evidence.  Behe's nutty ideas have been refuted time and time again.  They still cling to the "if it looks shiny and new, someone musta done it" theory.

The Ministry of Truth (aka the "Discovery" Institute) continues to claim there are all these "design" theorists and "scientists" workin in labs and doing science.  In over a decade they have yet to provide a shred of evidence of a creator.

They have had over a decade and they have yet to bring anything legitimate to the table.  When are they going to produce?

Date: 2006/01/24 06:41:34, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quoting Russell..

Quote
I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer.


My point is/was that they are fooling no one with their "it could be space aliens or time travelers" theory.  They keep trying to fool the public so that they can teach their nutty notions in public science class, but no one is buying their Klingons might have dunnit nonsense.

Date: 2006/01/24 06:54:26, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.

Date: 2006/01/24 06:58:33, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Over 150yrs there has bee 0 evdiences for evolution [Darwin-in]. "

Charlie, perhaps others here will waste their time chatting with you about evolution.  I have better things to do.

best of luck to you and your intelligent design creationism cause.

Date: 2006/01/24 07:39:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, I am not saying what you believe is wrong, I am simply saying it is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science class.

And you and I can agree that much of nature is awe inspiring in its beauty.  There is also a lot of horrifying things in nature as well.  Neither the beauty nor the horror is scientific evidence of a designer.

And evolution does not answer every question.  You are free to offer a more scientific and better explaination than evolution has provided.  But note so far no one in the ID camp has been able to do so.

And I cannot help the fact that so many people reject testable, verifiable evidence when it comes to biology and evolution.  Have you read Behe's testimony?  He is the poster boy for rejecting overwhelming biological evidence.  He is not alone in his pursuit to believe what he wants in spite of the obvious contradictory scientific evidence which suggests he is mistaken.

People have the right to live in a make believe world but teaching make believe in science class is not cool.

Date: 2006/01/24 07:46:05, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2006,13:37)
So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".

Date: 2006/01/24 07:54:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
My favorite objections to evolution from creationists include:

1) Why are there no half man half monkeys walking around?

2) No one was around 15 billion years ago so evolution requires faith and is therefore a religion

3) Why haven't all monkeys evolved into humans?

4) Evolution has never been proven

5) Piltdown man proves evolution is wrong

And lastly, evolution is a theory in crisis...

Date: 2006/01/24 08:27:44, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Dave Scot was all...
Play It Again Sam - Darwimps Wuss Out Again
In an unsurprising act of cowardice, not a single Darwimpian defender of the faith scientist had the balls fiber to stand up to our fearless leader in Kansas yesterday...




This is the same neutered, "fearless" leader that dodged the Ken Miller science bullet at Case University AFTER he had originally agreed to the debate?  And Miller was left with an empty stage?

Dave Scot, until the intelligent design cult provides some scientific evidence supporting intelligent design creationism,  you should probably not expect too many scientists to show up at your campus crusade christian cult events.

Man I wish I could still post at uncommon poop...

Date: 2006/01/24 08:34:16, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,14:19)
I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.

Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.

You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.

Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

Date: 2006/01/24 11:07:06, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Flint was all like,

"Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?"


Flint, dude you are my hero and pass me that bong, will you?  If you're ever in Texas and want to sit around and contemplate the human hand, give me a ring.  That was too funny

Your whole post was good but that piece was especially fun.

Date: 2006/01/24 12:16:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Wesley, you inbox here is full and your email address is private.  How can I send you an email?

Date: 2006/01/24 12:44:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have the terms "intelligent design" set up as a Google News alert so I get notified of any new online article on the subject via email.  This one came from the Discovery Institute.  I wish people and organizations on our side of the debate would get hip to how the internet works...Obviously the Disco figured it out...Anyhow...

Have you guys read this "5 part series" by someone called "Viewpoint"? I got two Google News alerts for this, the first one the Disco credited John G West as the author, the second one credits "Viewpoint" yet the article appears to be signed with the initials RLC.  What gives?

The Disco links to it   here

And you find the whole enchilada Here

Be sure and click up a level when you get there, whoever this "RLC" person is he has some hard core fundamentalist beliefs you can read on the same web site.

Here is a tidbit from another article there called Christian Belief

If the atheistic materialist is right and death really is the end for each of us, then this life has precious little meaning. Death obliterates everything, nothing we do ultimately means a thing. Our lives are like the flash of a firefly's light in the dark night. It appears and then it's gone, forever. If death is the end then there's no reason at all why anyone should live one way rather than another. Nothing really matters, so whether one lives like Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa it's all the same. When Hitler and Mother Teresa died they both ceased to exist, their fate, their destinies were the same so what difference did their decisions about how they would conduct their lives ultimately make?


Now get this, I personally believe once I am dead I am done.  Finished.  Worm food.  In spite of this my life has much meaning, lots of things matter, and I have never advocated killing Jews, or anyone for that matter.  I have never injured another person or advocated it.  What gives?  Am I abnormal?

Date: 2006/01/24 13:14:04, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thank you sir and you have mail.

Cheers!

Date: 2006/01/24 17:27:38, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well that brings up yet another moral issue: which heaven should we be shooting for?  The one with toga clad angels playing harps, or the one with the elaborate bedrooms, fantastic wines, and 73..uh...female assistants.

Which is the right heaven? A mistake on which one you pick could send you straight to ####.  That's like someone putting a gun to your head and saying "pick the right answer or I'll pull the trigger"

Date: 2006/01/24 17:36:30, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!

Date: 2006/01/25 05:43:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This thread at uncommon poop is well worth reading

Looks like the IDCers have astronomy in their sights now.  Soon the IDCers will be telling is "look, all of the planets in the solar system are spheres...A coincidence?  Random outcome?  No, these obvious patterns in outer space suggest a designer is busy at work"

And I am amazed ftrp11 has not been warned/scolded/booted yet.

Date: 2006/01/25 05:48:07, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Interesting to note that the article he links to at LJWorld refers to them as Campus Crusade and not Campus Crusade for Christ.  They are a controversial Christian fundamentalist cult that has been around for some time.

Wiki has a pretty good article about them.

Date: 2006/01/25 06:46:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Based on the "logic" and definition PaV is suggesting (and he claims Dembski as the source of his understanding), a snowflake exhibits a pattern in nature which gives scientific evidence of an intelligent designer.


Crazy loons.

Date: 2006/01/25 08:57:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Although you did not specifically ask for my opinion, I'll offer it just the same.

You cannot reason with a true believer.  And keep in mind they are trying to convince you of your mistaken notions just as much as you are trying to convince them of their mistaken ways.  

True believers play with a different set of rules and reason and logic are not a part of their cultural currency.  "Debating" them is a complete waste of time.  They simply reject evidence that conflicts or contradicts their own beliefs and have no use for the scientific method.

Look at all the wasted space and energy granted to Larry over at PT.  Has Larry ever admitted he was wrong?  I have seen some brilliant minds take on Larry (and I learned quite a bit just listening) but those "debates" never benefited Larry in any way.  He is as close minded and dogmatic as he was the day he strolled in.  Yet many brilliant minds keep ignorantly thinking they can reason with Larry.  And substitute Larry's name for any of the intelligent design creationists here or on PT.

Although I have fed more than one troll in my life, I knew then and I know now doing so is simply a waste of time.  Again, a true believer has no use for things like reason and logic or the scientific method.  Heck one of Dembski's "science" courses at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary talks about recognizing how "logic" can dangerously keep you from "Christian Truths".

Although I think it is valid to point out bad arguements or mistaken notions that are promoted by ID cultists here, good luck to anyone who thinks they can reason with a true believer.  And a reality check may be in order for anyone who thinks reason has any value to a true believer.  

And to keep pointing out the same things to the same people over and over (as if the number of times you repeat the same thing will somehow magically make them "get it") is just plain silly.  I mean who is not in touch with reality in that scenario?

Anyhow, that is my unsolicited $.02

Date: 2006/01/25 09:43:52, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
And one final comment from me.  Pointing out these deep flaws is an important part of forums like this.  Thinking that effort will result in a true believer getting it borders on dellusional.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:53:06, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
War Against Reason: The “Intelligent Design” Scam by Owen Williamson.

Quote
Intelligent design itself is in essence a scam...

...As always, purveyors of right-wing pseudoscience rely on ignorance and lack of education as necessary preconditions for successfully peddling their poisonous product...


This is a good article...

Date: 2006/01/25 11:47:44, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
A common debating technique is the appeal to popularity. It goes like this:

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Therefore tatement p is true.



You're of course talking about the Discovery Institute.

Many scientists are now saying they doubt "Darwinism"...

Quote

Part of a debate or an "argument" is making "observations" which are meant to convince your opponent or your audience that your argument is superior.


Kind of like the Discovery Institute again and all their "observations" of "patterns" in nature, which of course suggests a pattern maker, or an intelligent designer

Zardoz, you're down with it.  The Disovery Institute won't be fooling you anytime soon.

Date: 2006/01/25 11:57:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 25 2006,17:46)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,23:36)
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!

Thanks, I'm not emotionally attached to proving my point, I enjoy debate. I know where you guys are coming from, I was born and raised an atheist and an evolutionist. Most ID or creationist people will think that you guys are blind fanatics, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that everyone's thought process has to do with how our memory works. See my article at  http://tinyurl.com/7922f

Not getting emotionally involved in proving your point - you are a wise soul.  I also avoid getting emotionally involved with my own ideas.  This allows me to easily change or modify them in view of new evidence or understanding.  

And you and I must be historical opposites, I was raised a believer and later drop kicked that belief around the age of 30 or so.  No big deal.

I just now read your article.  We should drink beer and chat some time.

Cheers!

Date: 2006/01/25 18:26:34, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 25 2006,19:19)
I must admit that sometimes I get frustrated. Especially when I forget who the real audience is and actually think some of the cranks might be persuaded by evidence.

Sheesh I know #### well by now they wont. Guess I just live in hope. I should remember to remove my rose tinted glasses. ;)

If they do not respond to reason by the second reply you can bet your money you're dealing with a true believer and not someone who is simply misinformed or one who has been hoodwinked.

That is my litmus test so to speak.  And trying to convince a true believer generally always ends up ugly or simply a race to see who can be more sarcastic.  Again, Larry is a good example.  But at least he doesn't get down right nasty in his replies like that evopeach did/does.

I figure lurkers seeing that ugly type of stuff are turned off to both sides of the arguement.  Don't get me wrong, I make fun on guys like Dembski and Behe for sport, and I can be snotty about it, but I try to avoid getting into it with true believers and that means mostly ignoring them once they demonstrate a resistance to using ordinary and accepted uses of logic and reason.  No reason in the world will overcome a belief grounded in magic that is not bound to natural laws.

Date: 2006/01/25 18:57:59, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
I am no expert but I am familiar with a few points...

Quote
• World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 are the only steel-framed skyscrapers to ever have suffered total structural failure—ever. While WTC 1 and 2 were hit by aircraft (certainly an unusual event), WTC was not. According to the official story, relatively minor structural damage and relatively minor fires caused the total collapse of WTC 7. By contrast, the Windsor hotel in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story hotel, burned for eighteen hours on ten floors last year without a total structural failure.


I am not familiar with the Windsor fire, but the first question would be was the center of the Windsor structure the epicenter of an explosion of a 747 jet with full fuel tanks?  

Quote

• All three towers collapsed vertically downward, into their own footprints. Normally it takes weeks of preparation from highly-experienced companies specializing in demolition to produce the same results.



There was a recent episode of Modern Marvels (History Channel) that explored catastrophic engineering failures.  The show was not conspiracy or controversy related.  The emphasis was purely from an engineering standpoint.  They also avoided the gore and horror aspect which I appreciated.

The Twin Towers was one of the subjects and they interviewed numerous engineers and architects including some who helped design and build it.  The also used some computer animation.  I am not an engineer but the explainations offered were compelling.  They speakers were very much "when we build/deigned this, we did not plan for X to happen"  They showed where the buildings were dedinged to withstand a lot of stuff, but jet fuel and a internal exposion was not one of them.

They also demonstrated how the impact affected certain braces, how once the temperature from the fire hit a certain level a literal structural melt down would occur.  Certain structures would melt or crumble and the floor would drop a certain bit as what was left was now holding up the entire floor/building.  They gave a pretty good blow by blow analysis including the final vertical drop.

It's worth watching if they ever show it again.


Quote

• The level of piloting expertise demonstrated by the hijackers was nothing short of breathtaking. Despite never having flown jetliners before, the pilot of Flight 11 managed to hit a 200-foot-wide target within 15 feet of its centerline at a speed of ~400 MPH. The pilot of Flight 174 managed to hit the south tower flying at almost 500 MPH, and while he didn't quite manage to hit the target on its centerline, he managed to hit it with the aircraft banked at almost 30 degrees, causing damage to four contiguous floors. The pilot of Flight 77 managed a spectacular 270-degree spiral dive, passed over an adjacent freeway at a low-enough altitude to clip the tops of streetlights, and impacted the Pentagon at exactly zero altitude (in the least-occupied part of the building).


a) I am not a pilot.  I'm sure someone here can speak to your question but do we know at what point during each flight exactly when the hijackers actually took control of the plane versus making the pilot manuever as they commanded?  

Also, I think the .Skeptical Inquirer has dedicated an issue or two to this subject within the last couple of years.  I take the hard copy but I think much of their stuff is online.  You might poke around there and see what kind of evidence they have come up with.

I always check them out for the latest on any fantastic claims.  Joe Nichols is my hero.  That's where I learned about the intelligent design hoopla.

Finally, my Iranian cab driver tells me Bush is behind 911.  The Twin Towers thing is a Bush conspiracy.  "Sam" claims Bush "wants the oil" and it was Bush who used controlled 747s to bring about 911.  Sam is always on time and greets me with a big smile and some Iranian pastries so I just smiled and said that was an interesting theory.  

Anyhow, it will be interesting to hear some of the engineers to chime in

Date: 2006/01/26 05:11:36, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
One of the comments (user name aldo30127 ) on Demsbki's blog takes him to task for not quoting the entire paper which apparently actually supports evolution.  Looks like Dembski only read the abstract, or simply quote mined and got busted for it.  

Aren't they accused of that all of the time, misquoting an author/paper/position so they appear to stae the opposite of what the author(s) actually meant?  

Could one of you science types confirm or deny that this is such a case please?  If Dembski is in fact quote mining or misrepresenting the article I think it deserves its own thread.

Speaking of the recently deceased....

Further Indications That Intelligent Design Creationism Is Dead

.

Date: 2006/01/26 05:52:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This puppy at UD is worth reading...

Review of Debating Design

Well worth reading.  I am amazed Dembski posted it.  And now I plan to buy the book.

Date: 2006/01/26 07:56:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
My background - I am not a biologist but I can spell it.

My bias - Intelligent Design to me is complete nonsense.

My comments and question -

Irreducible complexity (especially as it relates to flagella of certain bacteria) is the so-called "scientific" center piece and foundation of intelligent design creationism.  As far as I can tell without Behe they have no theory and Dembski own ideas are completely dependent on Behe's so they have a lot to lose if they lose the IC "war".

Ken Miller has refuted IC on several occassions, yet the IDers continue to claim Miller's ideas are mistaken.  See Dembski making such a claim here
Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller

My questions

1) Who else has refuted IC besides Miller?

2) And if IC can be disproven/refuted, IDC collapses no?  If this is true why isn't the entire scientific community pounding IC with a sledge hammer?

I don't see anyone in the science community taking the Disco or Dembski to task for claiming Miller is mistaken.  Nor do I see anyone other than Miller talking about how nutty Behe's IC is.  Or maybe I am missing something.

Sorry if my questions are naive, I said I was not a biologist and I meant it :-)

Date: 2006/01/26 07:59:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (MikeM @ Jan. 26 2006,13:53)
Just a quick question...

The posts by "physicist" on Dembski's board yesterday seemed particularly well-informed. I noticed that this user tried to enter a URL, presumably to his or her website, but that Dembski's board blocked this URL.

I would like to visit that website.

If "Physicist" would be so kind as to log on to this board and post that URL, I'd be much obliged.

That's all.

You might start a new thread here and ask him to respond.  Who knows...

Date: 2006/01/26 10:04:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Over at uncommon dissent user ftrp11 and aldo30127  continues to be one of about 3 voices of reason.  In this thread he/they clearly calls bullshat on the article posted, well he criticizes how the article is presented (as evidence for the demise of evolution theory)  and he offers some good lessons (for anyone) on scientific theory.  

I am amazed Dembscot has not warned or booted them yet.  And be sure to look where  Dembscot replaces the word Marxism with Darwinism to prove Popper was opposed to Darwinism.  Dembscott doesn't realize you could replace Marxism with Intelligent Design Creationism and get the identical result.  I wonder if anyone is going to point that out to him.

Further indications that neo-Darwinism is dead

Let's hope ftrp11 or aldo30127 don't get booted anytime soon, I enjoy reading their comments.



.

Date: 2006/01/26 10:09:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Any mention of a grassy knoll?

Date: 2006/01/26 10:36:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ahh it looks like Dembscot has had enough of one of the voices of reason:

Quote
I am not sure how many times I have heard critiques of Popper and the notion of falsification being a criterion of science here (in defense of ID) but enough that I am sure you are aware of them. At any rate bold statements like “Darwinian evolution is the biggest hoax in the history of biology” are hard to back up when only a statistically insignificant people in relevant fields hold such a view. That doesn’t mean that the statement is wrong, just that it is hard to say with such certainty.

I have read Dembski, Behe, and Gould as well and I am not sure how anyone can be justifiably dogmatic at either end of this question. The dogmatists at both ends give disproportionate weight to some evidence and unduly discount other peices of evidence.

Comment by ftrp11 — January 26, 2006 @ 3:02 pm

ftrp

The hoax hyperbole was meant to be rhetorical.

Try to focus on what Popper said about the addition to ad hoc hypotheses to theories that began their life as authentically scientific.

If you dare. If you don’t dare then I’m going to invite you to leave the premises.

Comment by DaveScot — January 26, 2006 @ 3:32 pm


Date: 2006/01/26 10:50:54, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks JG Cox, that makes sense.

Date: 2006/01/27 05:35:25, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Dave Scot has probably fatasized about having some sort of importance and power his whole life.  IDC gives him a stage to cultivate that sense of importance and power.  He's the IDC sergeant of arms.

IDC is a magnet for arse clowns, bullies, incompetants and whack jobs.  I often wonder if Dembski hates most everyone who comes to his little blog.  I wouldn't be able to stand most of them.

Anything goes in the IDC world and you need not offer any evidence whatsoever for any theory to be scientific.  This is a breeding ground for nut jobs and fantastic claims.

I read Dembski's blog often and I am simply astonished by the sheer ignorance and lack of any sort of critical thinking demonstrated each day at Dembski's IDC camp.  I'd be pulling my hair out if they were my peers or on my side.   The very few there who contribute anything intellectually honest get warned or banned or put down.

I think Behe is a quack but I view Dembski more of an opportunist who knows full well IDC is not science and never will be.  This is why I wonder if he cannot stand the type of people he attracts.  But without IDC Dembski would be nothing so not only does it pay the bills it gives him status.  I suppose in Dembski's world status amongst the ignorant and misinformed is better than no status at all.

And I do not think Dave Scot is mentally ill, I think he is a garden variety bully who is able to use the virtual world to create a sense of importance for himself.  The term "punk" comes to mind.

Date: 2006/01/27 06:48:19, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I mean if this isn't crazy talk what would you call it?

Quote


Intelligent Design IS a law of nature which is why it should never have been debated. Laws are not to be debated. They are to be accepted and diligently followed.

Comment by John Davison — January 27, 2006 @ 10:01 am


And sure, JAD ia a crank, but you don't see people falling over themselves to correct him.  

Meanwhile the IDC goons practice marching in step.

Date: 2006/01/27 07:03:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 27 2006,12:52)
LOL. What thread was that on?
JAD is great.

When Goofy Met Dumbo

Date: 2006/01/27 07:05:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,13:00)
I believe I have one of the great "DaveScot is an ass" stories

This occured after Dembski banned me for attacking plans to teach ID in public schools

Uncommon Descent Post

Bad link

Date: 2006/01/27 08:07:31, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
A dude named Jon was posting the other night in the How Can You Tell It Isn't Science thread.  I thought he made some very good comments about the article and based on his layman's understanding of science and evolution (his self-description) he did not find the article all that convincing or illuminating.  He wasn't dogging anyone or being obnoxious, he was being candid and honest.

He got some good feedback and to best understand what the IDC clan is actually peddling as science, it was suggested that he go to any IDC related forum and ask the IDCers, "what is the scientific theory of intelligent design and how can that theory be tested"  I thought that was fabulous advice.

I think evolution/biology/science related forums and sites tend to assume everyone is already hip to the realities of evolution, which I think is a huge mistake.  I think the average Joe belives evolution means we came from monkeys and at some point in time half-man half-monkeys roamed the planet.

So...I got to thinking those would be excellent questions to ask here (or at PT).  So I'll ask on behalf of all the lurkers here and/or non-scientists (such as my self):

1) What is the fundamental theory of evolution?

2) How can that theory be tested?

3) What makes the theory of evolution scientific?

I know some very bright minds post here so would some of you shed some light on these questions for the benefit of those that may not be as hip to evolution and biology as they'd like to be?

Date: 2006/01/27 09:53:47, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Does swimming in intelligent design creationism theory and materials cause brain rot?  Once you become a "design theorist" does your IQ turn to mush?  Does "design detection" stunt ones intellect and reasoning functions?

Evidence that IDC might be bad for your brain:

Quote
Someone can correct me, but I think in philosophy the ‘first’ cause is associated with the ‘final’ cause, which, if so means that the ‘mind’ does not begin to act until it sees the goal (’final’ cause) in sight. Purpose is a property of the mind, and when we see ‘purpose’ at work in biological systems, then we are encountering a ‘mind.’

Comment by PaV — January 26, 2006 @ 11:48 pm

Wow! PaV, what a thought!

Comment by Red Reader — January 27, 2006 @ 1:08 pm


Lord help us all...

Date: 2006/01/27 12:12:11, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Speaker: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

How come only Christian Churches and evangelical Christian cults like Campus Crusaders for Christ invite the ID folks to speak.  Why the sudden fascination with "science" on the part of these religious organizations?

When I went to church I don't recall us EVER inviting anyone to speak on the subject opf science.  What gives?

Speaker: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Two lectures by Phillip Johnson, Feb. 16-17


January 26, 2006

Phillip Johnson, professor emeritus of law at the University of California at Berkeley, will give two lectures examining the debate over evolution and intelligent design, on February 16 and 17 at Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois.

Johnson will give a talk, "The Intelligent Design Controversy," at 7 p.m., Thursday, February 16 in Kresge Hall, and a second talk, "The Right Questions about Intelligent Design and Evolution," at 4 p.m., Friday, February 17, in Room A-110, Umbeck Science-Mathematics Center. Both events are free and open to the public.

Johnson is the author of several books on the theories of intelligent design, evolution and philosophical naturalism in science, law and society. They include "Darwin on Trial," a 1991 book that established him as one of the foremost critics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and its wider sociological and cultural implications. In 1995 Johnson was interviewed for the Public Broadcasting System program, "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy."

Johnson's other books include "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education"; "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds"; "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" and his most recent, "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning and Public Debate."

Johnson also has written two books, "Criminal Law: Cases, Materials and Text," and "Criminal Procedure: Cases and Commentary," published by West Publishing Company for use in law schools.

Johnson taught at the Boalt School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley from 1967 until his retirement in 2000. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School. After law school, Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

The lectures are sponsored by the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Johnson will give several other lectures in Galesburg sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church.

Founded in 1837, Knox is a national liberal arts college in Galesburg, Illinois, with students from 46 states and 43 nations. Knox's "Old Main" is a National Historic Landmark and the only building remaining from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates.



Date: 2006/01/28 05:27:01, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2006,10:43)
Quote
Those subnormal morons over at After The Bar Closes are nothing but a bunch of gossiping barnyard hens.


I think of myself more as Statler or Waldorf, those two old muppets who sat up in the balcony mocking the show.

Does Intelligent Design deserve any other treatment?



“I like Dembski's next book!"
"It hasn't been published yet."
“That's what I like about it!"

Brilliant!


Good one, Steve.

Date: 2006/01/29 03:18:09, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 28 2006,21:00)
Arden Chatfield

That is a lousy way to greet a new participant here. Why don't you just ban me if that is your attitude. Frankly I don't think you know what you are talking about and I don't care either. I have to agree with Davison about the quality of the dialogue here. He is currently holding forth at brainstorms and Uncommon Descent anyway. I doubt if he needs this forum. I sure don't.

Sincerely

Otto Johnson

Mr Johnson, I don't think they ban people here for whining like a spoiled little baby so I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Cheers and welcome to the forum!

Date: 2006/01/29 17:26:34, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 29 2006,09:31)
Kirk to Enterprise.  

Beam me up, Scotty.  There's no intelligent life here.  

Kirk Out.

Dr Ottis, could we get your thoughts on the Dembski/Behe proposition that there exists a real possibility that the intelligent designer may in fact be a Klingon?  And your opinion on the testability of the Dembski/Behe inspired "Time Traveler" and "Space Aliens" theory of design.  

You'd be the best if you would shed some light on these theories advanced by two leading intelligent design theorists William Dembski and Michael Behe, especially if you could frame it in language that some of us average Joes will understand.  

Cheers and thanks in advance.

Date: 2006/01/29 17:54:26, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
What do people in the new age or psychobabble cultures think of ID?

It's been years since I have kept up with them.  I suspect even new agers, 12 steppers, and what not  would probably not gravitate to ID in measurable numbers.  They would be very skeptical once they realize far right evangelicals are the cultural force behind intelligent design.

But that wouldn't stop some of them from coming up with their own line of design theories once they recognize the opportunity and appeal to a certain demographic, as well as how forgiving intelligent design theory is.  It requires no proof and you need not have any education or degree in biology.  In fact philosophers, English majors and accountants do nicely as "design theorist".  It's all propaganda and marketing.

So my question is are any of the new age or pop psychology groups or organizations currently getting in on the ID action yet?

Speaking of which...I am surprised the Raelian inspired Atheist Intelligent Design Theory is not getting more play. They claim they can offer what the Discovery Institute only theorizes about.  Yeah I know, that's crazy talk but they are offering exactly what Dembski and Behe claim, it could be a space alien or time traveler.

Date: 2006/01/30 04:57:03, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
And IDer would tell you "intelligent design" does not mean "optimum design" which is their way of saying "God moves in mysterious ways" which is another way of denying the inherent immorality of their religious mythology.  

Or to add insult to injury, they'd suggest "God has a special plan for this child"

I think it was Camus who wrote something to the effect of "when a Christian sees a child whose eyes have been burned out, they must either burn their own eyes out or abandon their faith"

Date: 2006/01/30 06:35:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
From an email alert:

Quote
Date: January 26, 2006
From: The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance
By: Jerry Falwell


FALWELL CONFIDENTIAL

EVOLUTION REVOLUTION

Darwinian Evolution — the theory that is touted as enlightened truth by education and media elites — is not recognized as fact by many individuals.

In fact, a new survey from the United Kingdom has found that a majority of Brits do not believe in evolution. The BBC survey of 2,000 people in a program titled “Horizon: A War on Science” showed that “more than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution.”

Further, participants largely favored the teaching of either creationism or intelligent design in schools, along with evolution.

Poll editor Andrew Cohen told Britain’s The Register, “Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life’s origins.”

American polls have found similar results.

Last year, 64 percent in a Pew Research Center poll said they believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools.

Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said, “What this basically tells us is that in contentious issues, many people take the default position — teach both sides and let people make up their own minds.”

But the evolution community wants to dictate their values on American school children. The left frequently talks about “diversity,” but they sanction uniformity of thought when it comes to teaching about the foundations of the universe. It is a troubling double standard.

Those who embrace biblical teachings on creation are typically depicted as provincial victims of obsolete views that have not kept up with modern society. We are told that it’s fine to believe in the Genesis account of creation while we are in our churches, but when we step out of the church our views should be stifled.

Two Diverse Roads

Creationists and evolutionists utilize the same historic facts and evidences in their research, but they reach largely dissimilar conclusions. But the evolutionists’ interpretation of the evidence at hand is largely given authority over the proposals of creationists.

When you consider how evolution is routinely presented as unquestionable truth in higher education and in our so-called mainstream media, it really is remarkable that so many people have not bought into the conventional thinking on the subject.

While a typical PBS broadcast on science or nature will include the assertive phrase “millions of years ago,” it is apparent that a large percentage of the audience has misgivings about the statement.

I believe this is largely the result of solid Bible teaching that continues to echo in our nation’s churches. Little children through the years who have learned about Adam and Eve continue to hold that story as truth in their hearts as adults today.

And there’s reason to believe that the creationism message will soon be communicated to more people than ever.

In Hebron, Kentucky, not far from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, the spectacular Creation Museum is nearing completion.

An outreach of Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), the museum is a 50,000-square-foot facility that will proclaim to the world that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and in every area it references.

The Creation Museum, described as a “walk through history,” is scheduled to open in 2007 and I am anticipating that it will have an impact on our culture the likes of which we have never seen. This spectacular alternative to the evolutionary natural history museums that are turning countless minds against the Gospel and the authority of the Scripture, will soon be recounting what the Bible teaches on creation, dinosaurs, the world flood, and many other pertinent topics.

In the meantime, I will continue to stand against the evolutionary and secularist tides by proclaiming that God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence in six literal days.


Six literal days, huh?  Maybe we should call him the "speedy intelligent designer" or maybe give him a real name and call him "Fast Eddy"?

BTW, I heard a rumor that on the 7th day the intelligent designer not only rested, but he watched the Super Bowl.  Any truth to that theory?

And has anyone here been to the Creation Evidence Museum Glen Rose, Texas?  It's about 2 hours from where I live but the more I read about it the more I was convinced a visit there would likely be too disturbing.


.

Date: 2006/01/30 06:58:57, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
One of the things the Discovery Institute does well is it targets ordinary people and appeals to existing cultural leanings and biases.  Sure, they are nothing but lying propagandists in the truest sense, but they are obviously good at it.  

I think what is needed is the equivalent of the Discovery Institute (sans the dishonesty and distortions).

And by equivalent I mean an organization that:

1) Writes articles that appeal to (or at least can be understood by) the average Joe.

2) Makes use of online news opportunities (gets included in things like Google News

3) Writes timely articles that take the Discovery Institute and their latest distortions to task.

4) Seeks to educate the public about the Discovery Institute's war on science in a language non-scientists can comprehend and appreciate.

5) Can frame the debate in a manner that taps into cultural biases and existing values.  What I mean by this is most people could care less than evolution is under fire.  Most people have a mistaken impression of what evolution is so the thought of "Darwinism" being under assault is not going to keep most people up late at night.

The war is not a bunch of scientists taking on "Darwinsim", the driving force behind the war is a group of fundamentalist evangelicals who want to replace science with "theistic understandings".  Understanding who the driving force is behind IDC and what their motives are would be alarming to most Americans.  But unless you read PT or some of the other similar blogs the average Joe is pretty much in the dark.

I know there are numerous science blogs that attempt to do what I am suggesting (PT is one good example), but so far I don't think any of them are succeeding.  Many write about the dishonest things being said and done by the Discovery Institute but the audience for these very good articles is so miniscule (or comprised of primarily the evo choir) I don't think the net effect on public perception is measurable.

Anyhow...That's my story...

Date: 2006/01/30 07:44:52, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
I don't think scientific PR has any hope of competing with it.


If any science organizations ever learn how to do PR I think quite a bit could be accomplished.  It certainly beats doing nothing, or only singing to ones own choir.

And I think if people realized what value modern biology brings to the quality of their own lives in terms of medicine, fighting disease, etc., people would be more sensitive to the notion of biology being under attack.  

The public sees Darwin being defended and they could care less about Darwin.  Correct me if I am wrong but if you are attacking Darwin you are attacking modern biology which includes the field of medicine.  IDC is a science stopper and that has real world ramifications (not just philosophical whatnot) but the public has no idea of this.  That's my point.  Well one of them anyhow...

But no one is going to convince a true believer otherwise, so no need to waste time on that demographic.

Finally, I made similar comments in another thread here where one reply was "p.r. takes money".  This "we'll probably lose before we even start, so why start" is probably not the best approach.

At some point science will need the support of the average Joe and unless they start paying attention to the average Joe that support is unlikely or at least not a given.

Date: 2006/01/30 08:38:47, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says
By Mark Lombard

1/30/2006

Catholic Online

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Catholic Online) -- Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.

Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”

Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Catholic Online received an advance copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona.

Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.

He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”

And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.”

He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is.

Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”

“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.

Christianity is “radically creationist” and God is the “creator of the universe,” he says, but in “a totally different sense” than creationism has come to mean.

“It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis,” he stresses. “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.”

He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.”

“To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.”

Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.”

Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.

“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both.

- - -

Copyright © 2006 by Catholic Online (www.catholic.org). All Rights Reserved.

Date: 2006/01/30 11:34:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 30 2006,17:08)
PR takes money?  How much money could we raise if every scientist in the USA gave a dollar, and companies employing scientists gave 10 dollars?

As far as an online resources go, the articles are already being written.  The issue lies in how they are being promoted, or for that matter not promoted.

And there is probably a ton of people who are pr savvy that would volunteer some time to a pr effort.  I think most of it would be a matter of somone(s) organizing and packaging existing information.

Date: 2006/01/30 13:10:52, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
46 pages for someone to propose the age of the earth is ~6,000 years?

Date: 2006/01/31 02:42:44, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Zardoz is a new ager, maybe he can shed some light on the subject.

Date: 2006/01/31 05:32:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't think Mr Scott is not operating in a vaccuum and not a day goes by where someone over there doesn't say something like "I'm going to tell Bill on you, Dave Scott!".  

I'd pay top dollar to read the email between Mr Scott and Dembski.

Date: 2006/01/31 08:24:58, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Oh man you gotta love governors who moonlight as scientists.  Someone needs to send Gov Sanford to Dave Scott for some schooling on common descent.

Quote
S.C. governor OK with intelligent design

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 31 (UPI) -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he believes intelligent design should be taught in his state's public school classrooms.

In a Sunday appearance on a WIS-TV program, Sanford said there's nothing wrong with presenting students with alternatives to the theory of evolution.

"I think that it's just ... that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about," Sanford said.

Intelligent design posits life on earth is too complex to be explained by evolutionary theory alone.

"The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

But College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr. criticized the governor for his statements. They told the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier there aren't "chinks in the armor of evolution," and Sanford's citation of the second law of thermodynamics was also incorrect.


The intelligent mosquito theory is a new one to me...

Date: 2006/01/31 08:31:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Same old shite but from a different toilet:

http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=68174&section=localnews

Quote
Sanford OK with intelligent design
Sees theory as alternative to evolution

BY CHRIS DIXON
The Post and Courier


Gov. Mark Sanford sees no problem with teaching intelligent design in the classroom.

In an appearance Sunday on WIS-TV's "Newswatch" program, Sanford said there's nothing wrong with presenting students with alternatives to the theory of evolution.

"I think that it's just ... that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about," Sanford told program host David Stanton.

Intelligent design posits that life on earth is too complex to be fully explained by evolutionary theory alone.

Final approval of state biology standards hinges on whether South Carolina's Education Oversight Committee will adopt a set of four teaching "indicators" related to the teaching of evolution for high school biology students.

Final approval of these indicators will be taken up Feb. 13 by the full committee. Members - including director Robert Staton, a Republican candidate for state school superintendent; Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, and Rep. Robert Walker, R-Landrum - argue that the state should consider including intelligent design, and in Walker's case biblical Creationism, in the science curriculum.

Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer reiterated the governor's position. "What the governor said is simply that different people believe different things, and that we should have an educational system that recognizes and responds to the diversity of beliefs that exist among the people of South Carolina."

But intelligent design isn't provable by experimentation and thus doesn't meet a definition for a teachable science topic, according to College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr.

Dillon is a founding member of South Carolinians for Science Education, which a group of scientists and educators formed after state legislators made statements similar to Sanford's and in an effort to address contention over the final approval of state biology teaching standards.

The pair took the governor to task for his televised statements. They argued that there aren't "chinks" in the armor of evolution, and said a later citation of the second law of thermodynamics was taken out of context.

In his Sunday statement, for example, the governor said, "The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

"That's what the governor is confused about," Dukes said. "The earth is not a closed system and we can get order from disorder."

In December an intelligent design teaching measure in Dover, Pa., was struck down by a federal judge, who decried the school board's "breathtaking inanity." Dillon said Sanford and others were leading South Carolina down a similar path toward a lawsuit.



At a glance
Transcript of the governor's statements on intelligent design on WIS-TV's "Newswatch."

David Stanton: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools - for instance intelligent design?

Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.

Stanton: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?

Sanford: "Well I think that it's just - and science is more and more documenting this - is that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a . little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with . one of the laws of thermodynamics, which is the law of, of . in essence, destruction.

"Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don't naturally order themselves towards progression, . in the natural order of things. So it's . against fairly basic laws of physics and so I would not have a problem in teaching both. Uh, you saying 'This is one theory and this is another theory.'"

Contact Chris Dixon at cdixon@postandcourier.com or 745-5855.


Come to think of it, my bedroom has been messy for decades and yet I have never seen any half man half ape life forms walk out of there.  Maybe these IDC folks are on to something?

.

Date: 2006/01/31 13:05:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
As Dave Scott says, attack ideas and not people :-)

Date: 2006/01/31 17:48:22, Link 70.251.66.156
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'll only copy and paste a few paragraphs or so.  This one is well worth reading, the author is on target.

Quote
Discovery's Creation

By Roger Downey

A Seattle think tank launched the modern intelligent-design movement with a simple memo. The idea has evolved into a media sensation. And the cause has mutated beyond rational control.
By Roger Downey

Birth of a Theory

A brief history of intellligent design.

The Wedge

The treatise that launched the Discovery Institute's campaign for intelligent design.
In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

By the end of the stated five-year period, the benevolent conspirators had seen much of their goal accomplished. There was widespread public debate with materialist Darwinists. Dozens of books had been published presenting a non-Darwinian alternative theory of life. There was widespread respectful press coverage of their cause, with innumerable supportive op-ed columns in mainstream media, cover stories in the national newsweeklies, and even a widely broadcast PBS documentary. School authorities in 10 states were looking into adopting some or all of the recommendations for high-school science curricula. So well was the campaign going that in 2004, some of the original antimaterialism advocates were confident enough of eventual triumph to predict in detail a complete meltdown of Darwinian science by 2025—the 100th anniversary of the notorious "Monkey Trial" of 1925.

However unlikely their optimism at the time, it looks a great deal more unlikely today. In December, a federal judge presiding over another case of Darwin versus faith in a public-school system handed the antimaterialists a defeat so sweeping—in the form of a judicial decision so detailed and so trenchant—that even the most passionate advocates of faith-based science seem stunned and confused about the future of their cause. They'll be back. But in this time of their momentary disarray, it seems appropriate to look back over the short but rocketlike rise to media celebrity of the idea called "intelligent design" and the small, dedicated band of true believers who sold the concept to the wider world.

The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge...





An analysis of this article probably belongs on PT...Lots of ID history too.  This is a very good one!

.

Date: 2006/02/01 04:58:21, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is so rich it deserves more commentary...

Quote
If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — February 1, 2006 @ 8:22 am


And if the Klingons land their space ship on the front lawn of the White House and explain how they created the universe "Darwinism" would be dead too.

If God stops giving us the silent treatments and explains (in a "pathetic level of detail") how he went about the Creation "Darwinism" would fall by the wayside.

If the Time Travelers show up at Dr Michael Behe's biology class and give a lesson on IC then "Darwinism" would fall off the map.

If the Space Aliens show up at one of the Christian propaganda classes Theologian William Demsbki teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and demonstrate the finer points of specified complexity "Darwinism" will be a dead horse with a dead rider.

The possibilities are endless.  

No wonder all the "Darwinists" are shaking in their boots.  Clearly "Darwinism" is a theory in crisis.

Date: 2006/02/01 06:33:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
What would the messages say?


Kilroy Was Here?

Or perhaps this:

The Raelian Movement Presents Message From The Designers

Date: 2006/02/01 07:09:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I can see it now....With that programming language they could finally build their Master Race of Militant Evangelicals who would take up the Mighty Sword of Righteousness against the Evil Evolutionists and The Word would reign for thousands of years!

Or something like that...

Date: 2006/02/02 06:04:39, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Repent America??

Quote


Repent America to Bring Creation Seminar to Dover Area High School; Evolutionists Lay Low

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 2 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Repent America (RA), a Philadelphia-based evangelistic organization, is bringing a creation seminar to the Dover Area High School next month, featuring internationally known creationist Dr. Kent Hovind.

The Dover Area School District became known for its support of intelligent design by ensuring that students were informed that evolution is “not a fact.” However, a federal judge ruled the practice unconstitutional because of the possibility that students might come to the conclusion that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible. In addition, all of the intelligent design school board members were voted out this past election, adding to the disaster in Dover.

“The school board has been taken over by evolutionists who refuse to continue the legal battle for truth, and who once again are teaching students the lie of evolution as fact,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “We must not abandon the schoolchildren of America in indoctrination chambers, but fight for the truth to be presented to those trapped inside its walls. Repent America is coming to Dover Area High School to do just that,” Marcavage continued.

Dr. Kent Hovind, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on science and the Bible, will be the event’s guest speaker. The former high school science teacher turned evangelist speaks over 700 times each year in public and private schools, universities and churches. He has debated evolutionists at many universities across the country and is dedicated to the proclamation of factual, scientific evidence supporting the Biblical record of creation and history of the world.

“Kent Hovind’s exciting, fact-filled presentations are extremely informative and highly educational, which will impact the lives of all those who attend,” Marcavage stated. “Christians will be strengthened in their faith while the most devout evolutionists will sit up and take notice,” he continued.

“The event was initially scheduled to be conducted in a debate format, but every evolutionist we contacted so far has refused to participate,” Marcavage continued. “Evolutionists lay low when they actually have to defend their beliefs, but when the floor is only open to them they will do whatever they can to tell fables,” he concluded.

The two-day seminar will be held in the auditorium of the Dover Area High School on Friday, March 17 at 6:30 p.m. and Saturday, March 18 at 10:30 a.m. The event is open to the public and admission is free.


Issuers of press releases and not the Christian Communication Network are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content.  Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright © 1999-2006 Christian Communication Network. All Rights Reserved.  

Date: 2006/02/02 06:10:36, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Crazy talk?  WTF??

Quote
tinabrewer wrote:
“Can such a question hope to be settled in the realm of science which has unfortunately devolved into the playground of mere materialism?”

There’s an old saying, “Don’t give up just before the miracle happens.”

ID is a sea change; its a big idea.
Big ideas are unstoppable for a reason.
For example, the Copernicun universe was a big idea. It took decades.
Time marches on.

Art is a mirror; the movie is a mirror.
Behind the ridicule blindingly, hysterical horrible fear: fear flapping and flopping and flailing away.

Down deep they know they’ve climbed way, way out on a dead limb of Darwin’s tree.
The hear it cracking.
They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge; smarter, wiser, more manly…..(even the women!;). —craaaack— huh? what was that? It’s the sound of the natural prunning of the branch.

They could have chosen to follow the truth where it leads, the evidence where it leads, but instead the chose the best seats at the universities and the worship of men just like themselves. —-craaaack—-

“I am the Captain of a mighty armada! Bear Left I command you!”
“I am the watchman in a lighthouse on solid rock. I suggest you bear right.”
—-craaaaack—–

Comment by Red Reader — February 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

Date: 2006/02/03 05:25:31, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2006,10:15)
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.


Quote

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775

This is the sort of glue that holds evangelicals as agroup together.  A sense of being persecuted and fear (the "Darwinists" are corrupting our youth/country/etc.).

Victimhood is one of the driving forces behind intelligent design as a movement:

No one will publish us...

They forbid us to make one innocent statement to some high school kids in Dover...

Judge Jones is our Inquisitor...

We are vitcims of a Darwin conspiracy to stifle free speech and intellectual inquiry...

The truth is out there....



And the IDiot true believers eat it up...Just more pandering to the Pat Robertson crowd..

Date: 2006/02/03 06:18:45, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation


Was this Dave Scott talking about Dave Scott?

Date: 2006/02/03 09:17:39, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Two points:

I thought the law of time travel states 1 million years is the limit you can go back in time.  

And all this guy is doing is taking Michael "it could be a time traveler" Behe's intelligent design theory to its logical conclusion.  Why in the world would they ban him for echoing what Behe proposes? :-)

Date: 2006/02/03 13:10:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Odd that you are not allowed to discuss the time traveler theory proposed by Michael Behe there.  

Why do William The Theologians followers hate Dr Behe?

Date: 2006/02/06 04:57:25, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well on a more "positive" note at least one of our embassies is not being burned for once...

Date: 2006/02/06 10:35:09, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Behe is joining the "Judge Jones is a naughty word" campaign.  Read his nonsense
Here (pdf file)

I am astonished Behe is defending his testimony.  The DI must have made him do it.  I think most everyone outside of the ID cult is fully aware that Dr Behe is a garden variety quack.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:03:11, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
A cry baby and sore loser to be sure. And the poor dear never had time to read those 50 articles/books put in front of him while on the stand.  Well if he took biology with any seriousness he would have already read them.  It's not like they were all published the day before the trial.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:21:29, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well when one says hey this is so complicated a space alien,  or time traveler, or god mustadoneit aint science and it's bad theory.  

First you find the god/space alient/time tarveler and learn all you can about him/her/it.  THEN you can poke around and make theories about what he/she/it might have done, but the IC or specified nonsense argument is plain dumb.  It's retarded thinking.  At least selling it as science is dumb but I'll admit it makes great 3am bull session material, well when you're philosophizing with a bong in hand that is.

Here is the facts - we don't know anything about any gods, space aliens or time travelers and until we do sitting around asserting one of those fellows contributed something to human biology is dumber than dumb, it's intellectual retardation.

Pardon me for being so un-pc but I am sick to my stomach from listening to the moronic "philosophy" of ID cultists and apologists.

Behe's whining today put me over the top...What a bunch of misguided, misinformed, cry babies.

Date: 2006/02/06 12:19:08, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Dr Quack wrote...

-"If I performed an experiment nobody would believe me..."


A howler to be sure.  

And he's right, no one would have believed him.  They would have run the same test to see if they got the same result.  it;s called verification. That's how science works, Dr Quack.  

Someone says I ran this test and got this result and rather than believe that proposition on blind faith somone else tries to validate those test results.  I think this is a part of what is known as the scientific method.

I'm looking forward to reading the commentary about Behe's whine on PT and other science blogs soon...

Date: 2006/02/06 17:55:18, Link 70.251.65.20
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
avocationist-
Wow. This critique by Behe is scathing. Paragraph after paragraph, not once does Behe miss.


No kidding, the man is a marksman.  You should read his expert testimony at the Dover trial.  Everytime he was asked a question he took careful aim shot himself in the foot and never once missed.  A regular Annie Oakley that Dr Quack Quack.

Quote
avocationist -
How sad people are reduced to calling it whining, and to missing the simple point he made that the claim IC was "refuted" amounted to no more than saying it was controversial but not that it had been proven wrong.


"whining" To complain or protest in a childish fashion. Nuff said on whining.

And...Um, let's see according to Dr Quack Quack IC idea life is too complex at the biochemical level to have evolved and he calls this  "irreducible complexity" which is the signature of a "designer".  He can't quite figure out how these things got here so according to Dr Quack Quack this so-called "designer" is "God" but he also suggests it could be a space alien or even a time traveler.  I saw him say that on national television.

Now, I believe either AIDs or HIV fall within Dr Quack Quacks definition of IC which suggests the "designer" is a bio-terrorist who should be stopped at all costs.  The "designer" makes Saddam and Ossama look like choir boys.

And I agree with you, Ken Miller (and no one for that matter) has yet to prove Dr Quack Quacks space alien (or time traveler or god) is bogus.  So far NO ONE has proven space aliens and time travelers are not bio-terrorist.  Heck they haven't even proven time travelers do not exist.  In view of this I think Ken should change careers.  

But keep in mind the entire biology department where Dr Quack Quack teaches is totally unscientific too.  Check out this unscientific nonsense they wrote about the time traveler theory...

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.



What a bunch of unscientific goons!  What the heck do a bunch of  goons at Lehigh know about biology in the first place?  They are probably jealous of all the attention Dr Quack Quack gets on t.v.

Quote
avocationist-
This man, Judge Jones, is utterly out of his league. He has made a shameful episode in history, and he is no friend of Darwinism. I would love to see him try to answer Behe's points, but of course he cannot.  


Of course not, NO ONE has been able to refute the time traveler theory or the space alien theory or the god theory for that matter.  No one ever will because Dr Quack Quack is the only man in north America who really understands science.

Did you read his testimony?  Man oh man he sure showed the world who understands science and who doesn't.  Well him and William The Theologian.  

YOU should read every single word of Dr Quack Quack's expert testimony.  It's a real eye opener.  

Finally, do you work for the Discovery Institute?  I read a few of your posts here and if you don't already work for them you should.  Seriously.  You've got the DI victim thing down pretty good and your ability to distort and misrepresent things in such a naive manner is flawless.  You're a good IDer.  Have you met Dave Scott yet?

Cheers

Date: 2006/02/06 19:02:01, Link 70.251.65.20
Author: Mr_Christopher
Read all about it...
Quote

“Intelligent Design Matter of time

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski told Midwestern Seminary's convocation Jan. 24 that it's only a matter of time before the theory of evolution crumbles. "If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected," he said...

Intelligent design, Dembski said, does not and cannot replace the Gospel.

“Intelligent design is not the Gospel,” he said. “If you want the Gospel, read Luke. Read the Gospels. The Gospels will tell you about Christ and redemption in Him.”

But, he said, Intelligent Design does have an important function in the defense of the faith.

“It is a stand-alone scientific program that can sweep away this materialistic worldview,” he said.

Date: 2006/02/06 19:08:41, Link 70.251.65.20
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have a Google news alert configured to send me a news listing of anything with the words "intelligent design" (yeah I know, I am glutton for punishment), anyhow, I opened a Google news alert just now and found some irony in the two article titles it references.  Check it out:

Quote

Google Alerts  <googlealerts-noreply@google.com>to me
 More options   11:41 pm (28 minutes ago)

Google Alert for: intelligent design

Flying Spaghetti Monster and Intelligent Design
ProgressiveU.org
- San Mateo,CA,USA
The next topic I'd like to tackle is the much-disputed Intelligent Design. Since the Kansas schools and Dover school district approved ...
See all stories on this topic

"Intelligent design is most definitely scientific"
Discovery Institute
- Seattle,WA,USA
David Medici has a good piece in the Sheboygan-Press on intelligent design. The one nuance I would add to his short piece. is that ...



(bold emphasis mine)


.

Date: 2006/02/07 03:35:49, Link 70.251.65.20
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is this Christian Intelligent Design advocate a liar or just ignorant on a wholesale level?  When it comes to those who promote intelligent design it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish which the two.  In this case I wonder if she moonlights for the Discovery Institute?

You be the judge.



Quote




.Bees provide example of God's intelligent design

Another look at intelligent design vs. evolution: In God's book, the Bible, he says we can know him by his creation. At least 80 percent of scientists now believe in intelligent design, and some don't even know the designer.

Date: 2006/02/07 04:48:10, Link 70.251.65.20
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 07 2006,09:43)
"She" signed her letter "Albert Boynton". I guess it's just another crank letter-to-the-editor writer.

No I think I goofed and saw a pic of a woman on the right side of the page and assumed she was the writer.  Looks like a He actually wrote it.

And who knee Bees were so close to jeebus?

Date: 2006/02/08 07:39:12, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This lying Bush appointee was busted by a humble science blogger here.

There is some irony in this story somewhere.

ps: I hope the NY Times publishes his entire resume.


.

Date: 2006/02/08 12:08:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scott on Crop Circles, intelligent design, and pattern detection...

Holy cow these people are nuts!  Which if you think about it, from an IDiots perscpective, crop circles are a perfect example of "detecting a pattern/design in nature"

Date: 2006/02/08 16:35:02, Link 70.251.65.246
Author: Mr_Christopher
PT mentions This Blogger who has dug up a bunch of writing by George Deutsch,  including who killed Laci Peterson (Satanists) to the "clear" ties between  al-Qaida and Iraq.

Yet another howler from an intelligent design advocate.

And is it me or do all intelligent design advocates seem to lack any intelligence at all?

Date: 2006/02/09 05:50:22, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ Feb. 09 2006,09:40)
If I had a dime for every time Dembski declared that something would be evolution's Waterloo, I would be rich by now.

The man is obsessed with anything "Waterloo"  I think he started his Waterloo fetish back when he got sh** canned at Baylor.

Ever since then it is Waterloo this and Waterloo that.  What a weirdo.

Date: 2006/02/09 06:06:28, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I am curious to know how evolution promotes atheism, especially since god is not even mentioned in biology textbooks.

What evolution teaches is common descent (and thus that women did not originate from a man's rib cage) and the animal/plant world did not occur in one or even 6 days.

So while it is true that evolution (and plain common sense for that matter) conflicts with the Judeo-Christian creation myth but how does this promote the idea that no God exists at all?

And old fashioned common sense conflicts with many Bibical myths such as no human being is going to survive 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of a whale.  Common sense and a marginal understanding of human biology indicates no human being is going to live for 300 or 700 years.  And the world is not 6,000 years old.   Is common sense the enemy of faith as well?

Is believing in the literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation myth neccessary for belief in God?

Date: 2006/02/09 10:28:11, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 09 2006,13:42)
Quote
The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks.

Well, I wouldn't go that far - plenty of academic women are attractive. And actors tend to be brighter than most; they just don't use it. But it's true that liberalism draws primarily from two groups - twinkies and bitter people. And since attractive people tend to be more outgoing and successful (with no need of political crutches to justify their failure), the Professor has a point.

Twinkies and bitter people?  You left out satanists!

Date: 2006/02/09 15:11:51, Link 70.251.65.246
Author: Mr_Christopher
Recently therer was an article on PT about Dembski and the few math articles he had written that were published.  They were not ID related.

Does anyone remember that PT article and more importantly, did you book mark it?  I can't find the article....

Date: 2006/02/09 18:20:12, Link 70.251.65.246
Author: Mr_Christopher
I found it

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/dembskis_mathem.html

(In case anyone was interested after I mentioned it)

Date: 2006/02/10 06:05:16, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
It is dangerous for people to live their lives without respect for the world we live in and therefore, respect for God.


People have the right to live dangerously, I have been doing it for decades now and having lived on both sides of the fence I can say I much prefer the danger to the slavery of faith.

Quote
our children will have nothing to cling to when their lives get truly difficult.


Grown ups can get along fine in life without the need for a magic sky pixie.  People deal with the normal ups and downs in life all the time without imaginary big brothers or invisible daddies.  

It's a shame you view human beings as incompetant to face the world standing on their own two feet and thus need something or someone to cling to.

There is NOTHING that could happen to someone in life that they could not deal with on their own without support from imaginary entities.  Human beings are quite capable and resiliant.  Your morbid view of humanity is noted.

Date: 2006/02/10 10:24:40, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
But to claim that God isn't important is equally dangerous.


Artist In Training, I recognize God is important to many if not most people.  My point it god it irrelevant to science, math, etc. and faith in a god is not needed for a wortwhile life that is free of fear and uncertainty.  

I also recognize most religionists would not agree with that statement but the facts prove otherwise.  Many religionists would choose to have a less meaningful life without a belief in a god but that would be there choice.

God *is* important to those who make him important but a society does not need a god to prosper nor does an individual need a god to be happy and comfortable in their own skin and lead a meaningful life.

There is nothing dangerous about rejecting faith in a god nor does it lead to despair or a life of crime.  And children do not need faith in a god any more than my goldfish do.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:49:34, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is it me or is uncommon descent starting to look more and more like a gathering place for a new age christian science fiction cult where everyone and anyone is a "design theorist"?

I predict we'll soon read about "patterns" found in crystals which are obviously a signature of an intelligent designer.  

It's all about "pattern detection".

Date: 2006/02/13 11:00:01, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
He's only saying what the "mainstream" IDiots wish they could say.  The biggest difference between this guy and what Dembski/Behe/the Disco is that he tells the truth and the others lie or cloak their true opinions in psuedo-scifi speak.

I say give him a medal for being honest.

Date: 2006/02/14 06:35:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Renier - "Then I found Robert Green Ingersol..."


Although I was never a fundamentalist I was once a believer as well and Robert Ingersoll's writings did more to expedite my atheism than any other person or ideology.  Ingersoll was my first glimpse into knowing there were in fact others who thought (and doubted) like myself.

Evolution had absolutely NOTHING to do with my decision to drop kick my faith.  The creationists should be trying to ban Ingersoll and leave evolution alone :-)

For those unfamiliar -  

Robert Ingersoll complete works

And...

Robert Ingersoll Wiki Pages

And I'll leave you with this Ingersoll quote:

"The man who invented the telescope found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer ever discovered. "

Date: 2006/02/14 06:44:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Are you guys aware that JAD has "featured" papers published on Dembski's International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) website?

JAD and Dembski, sittin' in a tree...

Keep in mind according to ISCID " The archive is moderated to assure that articles meet minimum scholarly standards and are relevant to the study of complex systems."  Therefore JAD must meet Dembski's standards.

Date: 2006/02/14 06:56:19, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The notion that human beings are flawed is flawed.  Such a dim view of mankind is needless.  Human beings are perfect at being human beings.  No one does a better job of being a human being than a human being.  

Part of the nature of being a human being is our capacity to make good decisions and bad decisions.  We're fallible.  This does not make mankind "flawed" it makes him what he is, a human being.  Human beings are fallible, that does not make them flawed.  Dogs are fallible, do we describe dogs as being "flawed"?

Notions of "flawed" human beings are rooted in religious nonsense having to do with original sin, the fall of man, etc.  Ideas we need not perpetuate.

Date: 2006/02/14 12:15:56, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 14 2006,16:56)
Mr. Christopher, I was inspired to add your comment above to  my blog.

Since I did it without your express permission I give my appologies and editing rights to you if you feel I have misrepresented you.

BWE :)

BWE, I am flattered my comments made an impression on you.  Feel free to quote me anytime.

I think there is some irony here somewhere.  Is there anyone on earth who started doubting their faith only after they read some Darwin or Stevie Gould?  I doubt it.  I think the creationists give Darwin/evolution far too much credit.

Initially I rejected my former faith on pure moral and common sense grounds and it was years later that I would read up on evolution.  Evolution did not provide a foundation for my lack of faith nor did it (or does it) contribute to my current lack of faith.  I think this is probably true for most folks.

Contrary to what the creationists believe the seeds of doubt do not need to be nourished by some biological theory or fact (and anyone who pins their faith on IC and mouse trap analagies is a fool to be sure).  All it takes to lose ones faith is a little common sense and the desire to ask oneself uncomfortable questions.

Reading folks like Ingersoll helped me because I began to realize there are others who share similar doubts who are not afraid to ask the questions.

Anyhow, cheers!

Mr C

Date: 2006/02/14 12:20:18, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 14 2006,17:24)
I note that the 'challenge' posted by "whoever" has now disappeared from the Uncommon Descent front page.

One would have to archive the entire thing every five minutes to keep up with the various attempts to cover up ill-considered, ignorant, or simply idiotic statements made over there.

One of these days the Insane Creationist Clown Posse is going to accidently ban themselves.

Date: 2006/02/15 11:39:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
William the Theologian is now crying about Ohio and calling "evolutionary theory" a racket because scientists continue to work to keep intelligent design creationism from being taught in our public schools.  

I used to think evolutionary theory was just a bad idea. It’s looking increasingly like a racket.

Yeah Al Capone is keeping your theology out of public schools, he and Kenneth Lay that is.  It's all about McCarthyism, dude.  Keeping Jesus out of science class.

One thing that can be said about the intelligent designer, he either could care less about what is taught in American public schools or he is impotent to do anything about it.  The current score is thus:

Science - 3
Intelligent design creationism - 0

Date: 2006/02/15 11:52:53, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Steve just because Dembski says God and religion are behind intelligent design (creationism) doesn't mean God and religion are behind intelligent design(creationism).  Take these Dembski comments for example:

Quote
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally." "This is really an opportunity," Dembski added, "to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me." – Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center, 2004

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?  What a nutty idea.  ID is science, science I tell you!  Afterall, I mean, it could be a space alien or time traveler, no?  

And it's frontloaded, baby!

Date: 2006/02/15 12:14:24, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 15 2006,18:03)
Quote


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.

What a bunch of lying turd nuggets.  It is as if they think everyone is as dumb as their own followers and they honestly believe that saying stupid moronic things like "we aint sayin' it is god, it could be a space alien or time traveler" somehow makes IDC scientific and not religious.  How insulting.  

Luskin et al are nothing but con men for Jesus.

Date: 2006/02/15 12:46:25, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have no vested interest in biology and I read several books on evolution probably 10 years ago but have given it little thought since then.  I have been a Skeptical Inquirer subscriber for years and  I kept noticing little articles or book reviews concerning IDC over the last couple of years and I'd seen where Georgia began losing their mind ("changes over time") but I never paid much attention to it until the Skeptical Inquirer dedicated a whole issue on IDC.  That was the worst SI issue I had ever read...

I read several of the IDC articles in it and felt I didn't understand anything about it so I went to the trusty web and found the Wiki ID article and ultimately found PT and other pro science web sites.

Next thing I know I am writing letters to editors and elected officials in my state and committing all sorts of other mischief.

Anyhow, that's how I got interested in IDC - a terrible Skeptical Inquirer issue.

Date: 2006/02/17 03:50:12, Link 70.251.123.184
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,20:58)
"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."

Well this is what he had to say

Quote
Hey folks, get over to “After the Bar Closes” and read the last four lengthy posts at the “Uncommon pissant” thread (isn’t that revealing?). They all deal with me and the PEH. They are on the run folks, no question about it. They are now so deranged that they are suggesting that I may be on their side after all. Can you imagine that I could ever be on the side of that homogeneous clonal herd of congenital mystics? Not a chance Esley baby. You are history. Get used to it. Close down Panda’s Thumb right now. I would reprint the whole bizarre episode right here but I am too busy slapping my thigh to a pulp in glorious glee to take the time. It is this old physiologist’s dream come true.

I am sorry God if I ever questioned your presence and of course I did. Forgive me.

Comment by John Davison — February 16, 2006 @ 7:49 pm


As we say down here in Texas, get help, Davison.  

ps I wonder if the intelligent designer cut him any slack after reading his apology?

Date: 2006/02/17 06:23:51, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
What's the current status in Cobb County?  I haven't read anything on it in some time now...

Date: 2006/02/17 10:47:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 17 2006,15:05)
I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)

"intellidembskis"?

Date: 2006/02/17 11:08:21, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
That "Mars" thread at UD is nuttier than all get out.  I wonder if Dembski ever tires of his own followers.

Date: 2006/02/17 11:22:00, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Discovery Institute, specifically Luskin, West and other con men for Jesus claim ID "scientists" are busy in their labs performing research and testing/experiments.

How come we never hear from these so-called "scientists" doing ID "science"?  Why do NONE of them post on William The Theologian's Intelligent Design Weblog?  Wouldn't that be a perfect meeting point for ID "scientists" to share notes and ideas?  

Why do NONE of them talk about the "scientific" experiments and research they are doing?

Why do ID "scientists" working in "labs" defy any sort of human detection?  

And why does the media never ask the Dishonesty Institute or any of the con men for Jesus to name a single ID "scientist" doing ID "science" or ask which lab these ID experiments and ID research are being conducted?

I get the feeling ID "science" is more like a handful of quacks and theologians writing ID propaganda.

Date: 2006/02/18 11:18:16, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 18 2006,11:10)
That's the point: the real world of science doesn't take him seriously.  Those who've heard of him at all think he's rather a joke.

It appears to bother him a lot.  I mean, does the admiration of morons really make up for an utter lack of interest in one's work by the scientific community?  Really?

Morons buy stupid books and I think that is Demsbki's objective.

Date: 2006/02/18 11:35:39, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
There is a good article at Red State Rabble and PT but someone should make a copy of this page http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/dembski.html before it vanishes.  And there is a years worth of material in Dembski's comments.  What a complete maroon.

Amazing to think a math PhD falls for the bible codes.  Someone with that kind of education should be the first to see through such nonsense.

I always though deep down Demsbki was probably a bright guy who is simply cashing in on the ignorance of true believing christians.  Now I realize he is just another ignorant crank/quack.

Date: 2006/02/18 11:47:50, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 18 2006,17:41)
my favorite bit:
Quote
But perhaps that wedding is not unique. At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

The relevant statistical methodology is identical for both fields.

Behe puts ID in the same category as astrology and Demsbki puts ID in the same category as the Bible codes.

And they wonder why no one takes them or their IDiot theories seriously.

*One* of my favortie quotes

Quote
The human authors of the Bible, writing well before the advent of computers, would have been incapable of consciously introducing into the Bible the patterns that Bible Code researchers are finding by means of computers. Hence these patterns, if not attributable to chance, must stem from a non-human intelligence.


Yeah it's all about "pattern detection" and I see a real pattern developing here but it has nothing to do with intelligence...

Date: 2006/02/18 14:37:49, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 18 2006,19:20)
Wasn't there a paper published a couple years ago where someone demonstrated that hidden messages a la the 'Bible Codes' could also just as easily be gotten out of Moby Dick? I wonder if Dembski would then have to ascribe religious significance to that book as well...

Skeptical Inquirer has had a ton of fun with the Bible codes.  The first article was in 1997, note Dembski's book review was in 1998.  Too bad Demsbki does not subscribe to SI, he could have saved himself some humiliation.  Enjoy:

Hidden Messages and The Bible Code

Bible Codes Follow-up

Date: 2006/02/18 16:02:47, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like Phillip E. Johnson smokes from the same  Bible codes pipe...

What Would Newton Do?

Date: 2006/02/19 07:26:58, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scott put a UD track back on the PT article about Dembski embracing the Bible codes.  It will be fascinating to see how they react to Dembski being such a naive, unscientific rube once somone posts that Dembski believes in them.

Also, Philip E Johnson holds a similar view and has put his pro Bible codes in writing as well.

Date: 2006/02/19 15:27:07, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 19 2006,18:06)
As you could have foretold, my pseudonymous comment to Karen, saying as much, never saw the light of day over there. Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas. Which is of course why I posted it in the first place. :-)

You quoted Dembski in that Mars/bible code thread and Dave Scott deleted it?

Date: 2006/02/20 06:21:00, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This guy says
Quote
For those of you who might think there is something to these "codes", here is a simple test.  Apply the "Explanatory Filter" defined by William Dembski in his books on Intelligent Design.  You will find that the codes fail Dembski's Explanatory Filter.  Dismally.


Hmm...Looks like Dembski could have used his own magical construct to refute the Bible code himself.

Date: 2006/02/20 06:54:54, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
From UD - “The Center of the Bible”

According to Dembski,
Quote
Christians may appreciate this; secularists will be sure to dismiss it
if I were a Christian I'd be insulted that Dembski would assume I am so naive to accept such obvious nonsense.

(You have to click your mouse for each step in the slide show. )

Date: 2006/02/20 10:21:37, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 20 2006,15:50)
Quote
IS Bill Dembski exploiting people, or does he honestly believe himself??

I think I have my answer.
The two possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive. Probably the best used car salesmen are the ones who manage to convince themselves first.

I've sold cars and know that culture well.  Car salesmen do NOT convince themselves of anything other than they need to make a sale right then while the customer is on the lot and to not let them get away.

Date: 2006/02/20 11:44:47, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,17:00)
PZ Meyers debunked this in October of last year.  And here is snopes: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.htmsnopes" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/religio....RL=http</a>

Broken link...

Date: 2006/02/20 17:12:04, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
What?  No mention of Project Steve? How's THAT for ignoring the controversy!

Date: 2006/02/20 18:05:30, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,22:58)
Dembski has posted what is purported to be an email exchange between Dennett and Ruse. It's surreal. Read.

Can anyone translate that thread?  Who are they and what are they talking about?

Date: 2006/02/21 04:31:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 21 2006,00:35)
Hi Mr. Christopher.
I think I can help. If the emails are real, they appear to start with one to Daniel Dennett from Michael Ruse (you have to read them from bottom up).
He appears to be anticipating the publication in NYT of a previously-discussed less than flattering letter by Dennett and Pinker about him.
Dennett says the letter is not being published, but does mention the less than flattering review of his own book in NYT. He also tells Ruse that his prestige is slipping among evolutionists.
Ruse then adds his own criticism of Dennett's book as well as of Dennett's public personna and the damage that he (along with Dawkins ... both of whom Ruse professes to like) is doing to the science side in the war with creationists. Along the way he stresses that he is not religious and is a hard-line Darwinian - even more so than Dennett and Dawkins.
Dennett decides not to reply as he seems to think that Ruse is just blowing off steam and might later want to retract some of his comments.

Thank you for the insight.

Date: 2006/02/21 13:08:12, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
from the loony bin:

Quote
Apologies to DS for posting under what he considered to be an offensive name (holy_chimp) on another thread. I did not intend to cause offense. I was stating an opinion that we are so genetically and cladistically similar to chimpanzees that one of the few things that separates us is the fact that we have appear to have a soul. However, I realise that this may have been offensive and I am sorry.

What exactly is the appearance of a soul and what makes you think a chimp is lacking in that department? Not that I disagree I just want to know how you arrive at these conclusions. As far as I’m concerned there are a lot of humans that have no soul. None whatsoever. Zilch. As cruel and heartless as any animal. Worse, because the human ostensibly has the capacity to know right from wrong. What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures? As far as animals resembling people in the soul category elephants might have us beat which I blogged about here. -ds

Comment by Chris_UK — February 21, 2006 @ 5:31 pm



Looks like Dave Scott has never observed a cat playing with a mouse or a killer whale playing with a sea lion prior to eating him.

Humans are not the only ones who get a kick out of torturing another animal.  

Does this mean my kitty doesn't have a soul? :-(  Is torture the litmus test for soul detection?



Speaking of souls, remember when Richard Thompson asked Barbara Forrest if she believed in the "everlasting soul" or somesuch nonsense while she was on the stand?  I wish she would have replied with something like "I did not see an "everlasting soul" on the evidence list, did you submit one to the court as evidence?  Could you show me one right now?"



.

Date: 2006/02/21 14:54:20, Link 70.251.133.136
Author: Mr_Christopher
Maybe Demsbki can get published here one day (I don't think they have a very rigorous peer review process):

Date: 2006/02/22 05:33:46, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Steve I sort of agree with you but think about George Bush.  Should ALL Americans be punished because the majority voted for Bush?  Not everyone in Dover was an IDiot but I suppose that's how democracy works sometimes.  You vote in dorks and eventually you eat dork soup.

Anyhow, I want to help the folks in Dover out so I am mailing them a quarter ($.25) to help pay their legal bill.

I wonder how much $$ the TMLC is chipping in?

Date: 2006/02/22 06:21:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (improvius @ Feb. 22 2006,12:10)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 22 2006,11:33)
I wonder how much $$ the TMLC is chipping in?

They should be footing the whole bill.  This never would have gone to trial if Dick Thompson hadn't convinced the school board that it was a good idea.  Dick was looking for a golden ticket to the SCOTUS and thought he found one in Dover.  The TMLC's ability to offer sound legal advice was in conflict with their own agenda.

Given the fact that the pretrial evidence and depositions indicated an overwhelming case against the school board's actions makes you wonder if the TMLC has some uncomfortable ethical questions to answer.  Questions they have so far not been asked.

I still wonder if the Dover board would have a case against the TMLC for giving them such astonishingly bad legal advice.  Obviously the TMLC was shopping the case to various school boards so their agenda was clear.  They wanted to use a school board as a pawn in their own culture war.  Is that ethical?  I mean given the overwhelming evidence against their cause.

And I wonder if the Dover board could sue the former members who lied and did other things to cover their creationist (unconstitutional) tracks?

Date: 2006/02/22 10:51:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
One of the former board members had suggested they do some bake sales to raise the money.

I say why not ask the intelligent designer to chip in.

Date: 2006/02/22 12:54:22, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Systems engineer" is likely a computer network administrator or engineer if you will.  I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and I can assure you folks like me are not taught or trained in any engineering concepts.  Basically if you can put a computer network together and install an operating system or two, poof, you're an engineer!

A couple years ago a few states tried to outlaw folks like me from calling themselves an engineer since we are not true engineers.  Not sure whatever became of that.

Anyhow, I supect that is what the wayward Dave Scott is referring to.

Also, his stupid notion that engineers have some talent for design is nonsense as well.  In his field network architects design and engineers simply assemble.

Dave Scott is a moron.

Date: 2006/02/23 06:44:10, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
To aid in understanding the religiosity of America be sure to read up on John Calvin and John Wesley as well as the Puritans.  All had a huge influence on early American religious thought that still resonates today.

And here is a pretty good Wiki article on Religion in the United States

Date: 2006/02/23 07:19:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I studied philosophy for years, so long that when I read stuff like this:

Quote
Can such a liberal perspective be held liberally? The paradox of freedom shows that complete freedom is not viable. Instead, maximal freedom is typically regarded as an optimum. Is such an optimum to be held absolutely?

Comment by William Dembski — February 23, 2006 @ 8:01 am


My only response is "shut the f*** up!"

Seriously, I have no stomach for the freshman philosophy language game of meaningless, useless banter.

Date: 2006/02/23 08:07:33, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Take a moment to get a load of these actual bible code "matrix" results (complete with actual diagrams of the Hebrew text) to fully understand the stupidity therein.

Nonsense for the naive

SARS, 9/11, Mel Gibson, Saddam Hussein's capture, Columbia Shuttle, the Iraqi election, evil rock and roll, kidney stones, Lady Diana, the Beatles, and even scientific proof for the bible code itself (front loaded proof?) are all predicted in the ancient Hebrew texts via the bible code!

And Dembski believes this crap.

Date: 2006/02/23 12:07:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Found here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
home

Date: 2006/02/26 17:27:11, Link 209.30.62.116
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is from NewsBusters "Los Angeles Times Continues Slam of Intelligent Design"

It's pure Discovery Institute propaganda.  

Comical.

Date: 2006/02/28 05:24:34, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Remember the rules, Billy does not have to stoop to [our] "pathetic level of detail".

I crack up everytime I see where he is described as a mathematician.  What a quack.

Date: 2006/02/28 18:41:24, Link 209.30.62.116
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 28 2006,18:53)
Quote
Dayum that's stupid.
I don't think it can be summed up any more succinctly than that.

But just to belabor the obvious... what does "the theory of natural selection" tell us about the relationship between: (1) the number of human infections with the current strains of H5N1 (which are transmitted efficiently among birds, inefficiently from birds to humans, and not at all from human to human) and (2) the probability of the emergence of a strain that is efficiently transmitted between humans?

What does the "theory of intelligent design" predict about the same question?

Bonus question: who do you want in charge of preventing and, failing that, dealing with the pandemic: "evolutionists" or "intelligent design theorists?

This is an exceptional point to be made and explored on different levels.  Your comments that is :-)

You should pose this question to our friends at UD.  If they are at all intellectually honest about their theory they'll answer you.  I have a shiny quarter that says their answer would be something to behold.

Date: 2006/03/01 04:38:07, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Lordy lordy how about all that "just say no to intelligent design" action going on in Kansas lately?  What's cool to me is that what we're seeing in Kansas is not coming out of a court case or from outsiders but instead it looks like it is all local, grass roots efforts to take back their public science classes and provide some sort of protection from future "wedge" attempts.

Beautiful.

I'm losing track of all the ID losses.

Dover
Ohio
Utah
California
Kansas

Am I missing any?

Date: 2006/03/04 18:11:29, Link 209.30.60.12
Author: Mr_Christopher
Check this out

Kent Hovind Reveals The Truth About The Age Of The Earth And Evolution!

They proudly outline their objective to get the 6 day creationism story taught in the bible into public classrooms.  They also explain how the courts have it all wrong and the constitution is being misread.

The Ten Commandments, adultery, Jesus, they cover the whole enchilada.

Date: 2006/03/06 08:35:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy.


Um, prove it.  And while you're at it, show us a cake that has been unbaked by advanced intelligence to support your "baked theory"

Date: 2006/03/08 17:57:17, Link 70.251.76.34
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2006,22:27)
`Have some Intelligent Design Theory,' the Doug Moron said in an encouraging tone.

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any ID Theory,' she remarked.

`There isn't any,' said the Paul Nelson.

`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice angrily.

Alice I've had enough of your crap. You're outta here. -ds

That was #### funny.

Date: 2006/03/10 18:18:13, Link 70.251.131.70
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2006,20:32)
You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow.

Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed.

I don't think Dave Tard is humiliated at all.  On the rare occassion when he realizes he is wrong, I think he could care less mainly because his followers/listeners don't know any better, or they too could care less.  

We're not dealing with the sharpest crayons in the box over at UD.  Besides, they could care less about accuracy, they're only concerned with selling their nonsense to the ignorant and uninformed.  

IDCers at UD are the internet equivalent of christian soldiers who will bravely die (look stupid) in an intellectual match to further their cause.  

Dave is a poser riding the coat tails of a fraud.  Without IDC Dembski is a nobody with no future, without Dembski Dave Tard is just another jerk on the internet.

That's my take on it.

Date: 2006/03/13 07:33:38, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2006,17:23)
Yeah, I really should write up a list of say Top Ten Uncommonly Dense basic science errors.

That would make a great thread all by itself!

Start with a list of ten and add to it as new errors are made.

Date: 2006/03/13 17:34:19, Link 70.251.131.70
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stranger than fiction @ Mar. 13 2006,19:55)
I, for one, am no longer going to provide Dave with the acknowledgment that he craves.  I had another article ready to post on my UD parody (about the Inflammatory Filter, which gives no false positives), but instead I'm going to spend some time reading.  Then I'm going to read to my daughter, who loves to learn.

Send us a link to the article you are writing, will ya?

Date: 2006/03/17 12:59:50, Link 70.251.131.70
Author: Mr_Christopher
This volume celebrates Phillip Johnson's leadership in the intelligent design (ID) movement. Scholars who have known Phil best and worked with him most closely assembled in April 2004 at Biola University to present him with a collection of papers in his honor. I wish I could have been there to offer my congratulations and thanks in person. Instead, I have the privilege of writing this brief foreword from Washington.

Since the publication of "Darwin on Trial" more than ten years ago, Phillip Johnson has provided extraordinary leadership for an extraordinary cause, namely, to rid science of false philosophy. The importance of the cause is clear: what could be more important than showing that only a shallow, partisan understanding of science supports the false philosophy of materialist reductionism with its thoroughly unscientific denial of formal and final causes in nature and its repudiation of the first cause of all being? As the decline of true science has been a major factor in the decline of Western culture, so too the renewal of science will play a big part in cultural renewal.


Johnson's extraordinary leadership also is clear: rather than fall into the trap of building a cult of personality around himself and his own considerable intellectual talents, he has instead helped raise up and promote a whole group of intellectual leaders in the cause of scientific renewal. This kind of selfless Christian leadership is a shining example to us all, young and old.

Speaking of the young, I personally wish to commend Phil for the great help he has given me in my efforts to inject a renewed and unbiased understanding of science and its practice into the curricula of our public schools. There is much more for us to do, but working with Phil's colleagues at Seattle's Discovery Institute, we have begun the difficult fight for removing the stranglehold of philosophical materialism on textbook science.

Phil, I congratulate and praise you for your tireless work to return science to a sure philosophical grounding in the nature of things as they really are. Please know that during your Biola celebration, I was with you and your colleagues in spirit. As much as I was delighted when I first heard about this celebration in your honor, I am again delighted now that the proceedings from that celebration have appeared in book form.

Date: 2006/03/23 08:07:10, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is being talked about at TPT, but I am overcome with the irony and I had to post about it here...

A new self published DI book attacking the Jones ruling:

Traipsing Into Evolution

One of the "expert legal" co-authors - David DeWolf

A previous one of DeWolf's "expert" books on legal matters:

Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook

A quote from this DI fellow's brilliant legal mind from that guidebook:

Quote
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.


I need to go to the store now, my irony meter seems to have blown up.

Date: 2006/03/23 11:59:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
How did my most excellent post about the stupidity of one of the the DI's top legal guns get side tracked into abortion, etc?

Date: 2006/03/23 12:11:05, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
:01-->
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18:01)
Russell,

Does the public school system teach that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the extermination of human life?  Again, the scientists seem to be focused in on one debate while your "findings" are being manipulated and excluded in other aspects of the education system.  Are you unaware of this situation?  Just look at jeannot and O'Brien's responses?  Obliviousness!

So, the discovery institute's legal gun, David DeWolf is a complete retard when it comes to the law, he is partially responsible for the Dover school districts 1 million in legal fees and now he has co-authored a book taking Judge Jones to task yet the schools should teach more about abortion?

Yeah I can see the connection there.  Sure...Perhaps we should also examine the relationship between grape jelly and peanut butter.  Two items that modern science seems to be avoiding if you know what I mean.  When was the last time you saw an evolutionist even speak on the topic of grape jelly and peanut butter.  Who are they trying to fool?

Thordaddy, how long will we let them get away with that is my question.

Date: 2006/03/23 12:17:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18:11)
Mr Christopher,

This thread has nothing to do with abortion per se, but instead engages upon the silliness of the scientist's singular focus on ID.  Scientific findings are regularly used, manipulated and excluded within the public school system based on political considerations.  And yet, we only really hear the scientists when the debate revolves around ID.  Why?

The answer is quite simple.  The scientists are politicized themselves and know what's good and what is not good in regards to their own self-interest.  

So I ask, where are the scientists in the IQ debates, eugenics, AIDS and homosexuality or abortion and conception?  Why don't we hear the triumphant findings of the scientists in these areas of scientific exploration as it pertains to public education?  Where is the objectiveness?

thordaddy, the scientists are too busy wasting time and resources addressing the sneaky, lying, cheating, scumbags known as ID theorists who are trying to wedge fundamentalist christianity/creationism in our public school.  THAT is where they all are.

No telling what scientists would be doing if they were not having to devote so much energy to keeping the DI from making all american children scientifically retarded.

By the way, oh never mind.

Date: 2006/04/13 13:03:43, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 11 2006,09:02)
Quote
At the request of my fang club (whom I dearly love and feel very flattered by all the attention they give me) here are referrer stats. For March 2006.

Direct Address/Bookmark 92.2%
Search Engines 2.3%
External Pages 5.1%

Top Six External Pages
———————-
designinference.com 0.91%
antievolution.org 0.42%  :angry:
leiterreports.typepad.com 0.26%
telicthoughts.com 0.17%
newyorktimes.com 0.13%
pandasthumb.org 0.13%

Kind of hard to tell how much the fang club contributes to people bookmarking us which is where the vast majority of referrals come from. But I do appreaciate their efforts nonetheless and I try to keep them as excited as humanly possible. It’s great fun for everyone!


I do this sort of thing for a living and those are dreadful numbers, basically only 8% new traffic for the month of March?  92% are repeat (bookmarks) visitors.

Basically they are admitting the only people who went there in March were probably the same people who were there in February.

If they were paying someone to bring them traffic that person should be fired.  Those are awful statistics and something to hide, not brag about.

And a few people mentioned advertising on Dembski's blog, if he makes over $100 a month from advertising I'd be shocked.  

BTW, I have been away for a while, while they were bragging about their awful referral numbers, was there any mention of exactly how many visitors, not "hits", but actual visitors go to UD each month?

Date: 2006/04/14 07:30:33, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This nut:
Quote
Designers design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that there was a designer somewhere behind it.
is saying the same thing Dembski claims.

Let's look at something that from a intelligent design standpoint, is equally "scientific":

Quote
Little green men design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that there was a little green man somewhere behind it.


Or even

Quote
My rectum design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that my rectum was somewhere behind it.


What is astonishing is that these people do not see how completely idiotic their statements are.  I guess being a magnet for morons is the price you pay when you are peddling creationism as science...

Date: 2006/04/14 07:42:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Speaking of evidence take a look at this gem I got from the IDnet in AU:

Quote
Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity.


Gosh, that proves IC is true, and that proves the existance of space aliens and time travelers!

Date: 2006/04/14 10:14:01, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Lee Harvey Oswald was a space alien from a distant galaxy.

Date: 2006/04/14 11:33:38, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Reclaiming Theological Education - William Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards

I am finally figuring out William Dembski.  He seems crazy because he is crazy.  

Forget reading his fuzzy "math" books or his moronic take on "biology" get a load of this loon's thoughts on religion and Christianity.  

This guy is a mad man.  He's crazy.  He's Pat Robertson with more degrees.  This guy's thinking is not that far removed from Islamic extreemists.

Question - will Dembski get 72 virgins for his martyrdom?

Date: 2006/04/17 07:45:03, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 15 2006,19:37)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Quote
Oh dear, I think I foresee an upcoming mathematical tour de force which 'proves' that our DNA contains a notarized hidden instruction manual. Unfortunately the contents of that manual will remain unknowable without  considerable outlay.
Salvador has suggested on numerous occasions that he thinks we'll find a hidden message from Glorious Old Designer encoded in the 'junk' DNA. It's howlingly funny but it's so pitiful it actually makes me feel a little bit for him. Poor dumb idiot.

I think we milked a lot of mirth out of this idea several months ago either here or at PT. Cuz how does Sal know the message will say something he likes? What could it say?

Earthlings! Soon we will be back to destroy your puny planet! - Xenu

Baal demands human sacrifices!

Hail Satan!

this space available

Lose Weight Now! Ask Me How!

Christians: you're getting everything wrong! Stop it right now! - Jesus

My God! It's full of stars!


The possibilities are endless!

It might be something more simple, like

Kill Whitey!

Date: 2006/04/24 12:12:57, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
From the Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science” thread it seems Dembski does in fact respond to his readers:

Quote
Prof Dembski,

From the Genesis account we know that the fall of Satan preceded the fall of man. Surely that has some bearing on the entry of evil in this world that is not related to human sin? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[Yes, that’s why I consistently stress that evil in the world traces to human sin. The origin of that human sin, and Satan’s role in it, is a further question. –WmAD]

Comment by antg — April 23, 2006 @ 3:26 am


Now, what I want to know is did Dembski run that Satan theory of his through  the explanatory filter?  And where does Satan fit in this design theory?  And can we rule out Satan is NOT the designer?

Serioulsy, it coulda been Gawd, it coulda beena space alien, and it coulda been...Ummmmmmmm Satan!


The Church Lady's theory is about as scientific as Dembski's.

Date: 2006/04/28 09:57:28, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, I'd say you'd have more fun posting on umcommon descent where people who think like you tend to gravitate but you'll need to avoid talking about god and jesus and such.  They'll ban you for it.

Anyhow, you haven't brought anything new to the table here.  Christisian apologetics is not science and CS Lewis will never be remembered as having any understanding of science or scientific thinking.

Instead of you inviting us to try and "convert" you, how about you skip the middleman and go do some schooling and then convert yourself like any intelligent adult would?  Unless you just enjoy playing language games where you can make stuff up as you go along and are not held to any rational rules of logic or scientific method.  Read Dembski as an example.  

Oh and I have read Lewis, he doesn't bring anything new to the table either.  If you have read one Christian apologist you have read them all.  They all play by a different set of "logic" rules, make stuff up as they go along, make extreemly subjective and unproveable claims, all of which kills any chance of a meaningful discussion.  No offense but your comments here are in the same vein and I doubt you even see that.  

If you want to convert others here you'd do well to avoid theistic nonsense, wild unsupported assertions, and instead focus on things that can be tested using ordinary scientific method.  As an example, the fact that people claim they have had out of body experiences does not prove they have had out of body experiences. :-)

I recognize that critical thinking is probably foreign to you.  Wild, unsupported subjective claims are perfect for theology, but they don't mix well with scientific, or critical, thinking.

You seem like a decent guy so I'll shoot straight with you, most all of your claims and "predictions" are not only unscientific, they are utter nonsense and suggest that skeptical or scientific thinking is something you are unfamiliar with, and also a waste of time to respond to.  No big deal.  But if you want to be taken seriously, first go learn how to think critically and then get back to us.

Here is an introductory lesson in critical thinking for you:

1) The fact that many people make the same claim, and have done so for a very long time, is not evidence that their claims are true.  An idea's popularity is not an indication of its validity.

I'd be more tha happy to help you learn to think critically, but I personally don't have time to respond to your apologetics.  Again, Try Dembski's site for that.  They not only welcome untrained thinking, they relish it.  Just be cautious when you speculate on who the intelligent designer might be.

Cheers!

Chris

Date: 2006/04/28 10:12:41, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Carol Clouser @ April 28 2006,15:00)
If you think any aspect of your "hypothesis" above is based on the Bible, nothing could be further from the truth. The real, original Bible, namely the Hebrew Bible, says nothing of the sort, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY. You must have been reading some of those sloppy, inaccurate translations of the Hebrew Bible out there, such as the KJV.

So your hypothesis has absolutely no leg whatsoever to stand on.

Get a thorough education, then you just might be in a position to hypothsize.

Oh my, wild assertions person meet wild assertions person.

Now you two can take turns making fantastic claims and make stuff up as you go along.  This is the beauty of theology!  Anything goes, everyone is right, and you need not prove anything for it to be true.  It is true because you say it is true (more often than not in flowerly, fresh scented language that makes your whites even brighter).

Standing in THIS corner, CS Lewis, standing in THAT corner, the ONLY TRUE Bible (Hebrew).  May the best mythology win!

ps: I'm putting $5 on Carol to win in the 3rd round (only because I have witnessed her "true Hebrew" thing before).

Date: 2006/04/28 11:24:03, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Isn't Larry a Holocaust denier, or revisionist?  When is he going to share on that subject?

Chris

Date: 2006/04/28 11:54:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,05:44)
 Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.

Your ignorance on most subjects is indeed profound, but that little tidbit simply made me laugh :-)

Chris

Date: 2006/04/28 13:05:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
why does anyone waste their time on someone as idiotic and backwards and prone to trolling as thordaddy?

Seriously.

Date: 2006/04/28 13:08:53, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (BWE @ April 28 2006,17:24)
What if it's ok with the sheep? I mean, er, well, sheep don't complain, if you ask them if they've been good or bad, they always say baaad. And we all know what you get to do to a woman who's been bad.

Hmm. There are some problems. Sheep can't cook or clean.

Sheep can't bring you a beer when you're watching football either (no matter how nicely you ask them).  They simply don't make very good spouses.

Date: 2006/05/01 05:52:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman.


I am curious why you seem to think there is a need for you to advertise this in every thread.

These facts do not lend any credibility to your arguements.  

Two words come to mind - who cares?

Date: 2006/05/01 06:03:28, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Incest is all the rage in the bible.  Nothing new here.

Chris

Date: 2006/05/01 06:03:28, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Incest is all the rage in the bible.  Nothing new here.

Chris

Date: 2006/05/01 10:50:24, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.

Chris

Date: 2006/05/01 10:50:24, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.

Chris

Date: 2006/05/01 10:53:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I read it when it came out.  Very well written piece of "pop" fiction.  I had a hard time putting it down and I read very little fiction (other than uncommon descent).

Get a used copy at half price books.

Date: 2006/05/02 06:53:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I like how afDave ignores all relevant questions to him and keeps asserting the same idiotic, unscientific ideas as if he is really on to something new.  His ignorance of jr high level science is only matched by his ignorance of how many times we have heard the exact same nonsense he is bringing to the table.

This thread has turned into a real howler.

Too funny.

Date: 2006/05/03 04:56:26, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,12:21)
 I have the mind of an engineer and a scientist.  I, like you, am a healthy skeptic."

No sir, you are no skeptic.  You can pretend otherwise, but you're what is called a "true believer".  

And you do not have the mind of an engineer or a scientist, if you did you would have seen through the nonsense you promote a long time ago.

No need to thank me for pointing this out to you.

Chris

Date: 2006/05/03 09:16:06, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
afDave, please prove to me that Mr Potato head did not create the world and universe.  In fact, show me scientifically that mr Potato Head is not in fact God.

Be prepared to show your work.  Thank you.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:58:18, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, do you think Mr Potato Head could be the intelligent designer?

Date: 2006/05/04 09:21:31, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dimski is playing with numbers again.

The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design

I guess if you add it all up you get a space alien (or time traveler).

Date: 2006/05/08 07:42:05, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?

Please give us details.

Date: 2006/05/08 07:56:02, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, you mentioned in one of your many threads that you were going to confront AIG about the dishonesty they promote.

How about giving us an update on your efforts confront them on their lies?

I'd like to see exactly what you wrote them and what their response was.

Of course, I am assuming you were not lying to us in the first place.

Date: 2006/05/08 09:14:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:41:53, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Paul Flocken @ May 08 2006,14:53)
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:0)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. <!--emo&:)

Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

Date: 2006/05/08 11:16:08, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50)
I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows!

What exactly do you think should be conceded to your point of view?  Which specific afdave point are the biologists and other scientists here not getting?   Which notion were you promoting, I forgot.  Was it the space alient theory, or the time traveler?  Or perhaps it was the Mr Potato Head as the architect of the "fine tuned universe" theory?  Which scientific point were you hoping these know nothing biologists and scientists here would concede?

The nice thing about science (versus creationism aka intelligent design) is that evidence trumps personalities and lies and fabrications don't have a very long shelf life.  No matter how revolutionary or consensus destroying an idea might be, an evidence based notion is going to gain intellectual/scientific currency regardless of the consequences.  So if you have a scientific idea that is backed by evidence and gives a better explanation for things no one here can stop you.

As much as you and your AIG buddies would like to believe otherwise, there is no "darwin conspiracy".  All you have to do to get any or all of your points conceded is provide a better explanation and better evidence than what currently exists.  But moronic ramblings like "fine tuned universe" is not only unscientific, it is in layman's terms, utterly stupid and only for the intellectually weak.

All you have done on this forum is recycle ancient, mistaken, or even dishonest id/creationist claims that have all been addressed and proven mistaken for decades.  Yet you still think you are on to something...

And you honestly wonder why none of the biologists and scientists present in this forum have conceded anything to a person completely ignorant on matters of science and biology?  They have not conceded a #### thing to someone who anytime he opens his mouth he makes an admission he is completely clueless on matters of biology and science.  To someone who gets their "science education" from the lying AIG and the intelligent design creationism camps? Dude, you crack me up :-)  Seriously.

If you were someone who was actually looking for a good understanding of biology you'd knock off your agenda and childish, unscientific "theories" and start asking questions and listening.  Knowing full well you posess a hard core creationist (anti-scientific) bias, you'd spend a few weeks on the talk origins page to clear your head of the nonsense you have uncritically accepted.

But you, you keep making the same old mistaken and proven idiotic points and challenging those around you here to overcome them.  F*** that.

I am astonished anyone here gives you two seconds of their time.  Astonished.

There is a handful of brilliant minds that frequent this forum, it is amazing to watch how quickly you ignore those minds in favor of advancing/justifying your AIG/IDC/creationist nonsense.  As fas I can tell, you're a dishonest jerk, afdave.  If you had an ounce of integrity you'd be thanking people here for giving you those two seconds, stop all the stupid afdave hypothesis nonsense, and spend your time studying at talk origins.

You belong on William Dembski's forum, not on this one.  His is a haven for the intellectually dishonest, misguided, prejudiced, and ingorant.  They would agree with most everything you say.  

I do not buy your notion that you are seeking the truth.  I don't but it for one second.

Date: 2006/05/08 11:22:34, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well in the islamic world you get beheaded for dissing the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him).

Date: 2006/05/09 07:20:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,10:45)
You're not "enlisting their help", you're just playing their stooge.

afstooge has a nice ring to it.

Date: 2006/05/09 12:09:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Riddle me this,  guinea pigs are fine tuned creatures, apes are fine tuned creatures....how come we don't see any half guinea pigs half apes walking around?  I think afdave might be on to something after all....

Gosh, I'm starting to think I've been listening to the wrong crowd the whole time!   A space alien musta invented guinea pigs!

Date: 2006/05/09 12:19:54, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey afdave, as you know the intelligent design creationists suggest that the "fine tuned universe" and mankind is the result of an "intelligent designer".  With a straight face they assert this designer may be a time traveler, space alien or a god.  They do not say which god it was (there are many) nor do they shed any light on which planet the space alien calls home nor do they provide any clarity as to which time zone the time traveler prefers to hang his hat.  Oh well, science can only answer so many questions.  But anyhow...

As a creationist and scientist who has already proven darwinism is false,  can you tell me which of these three you believe is the intelligent designer and why?

1) space alien
2) time traveler
3) god

I would like your opinion and the scientific and biological evidence you used to come to your conclusion.

ps. I have recently read where Mr Potato head is being considered as a candidate for the intelligent designer but quite frankly I am skeptical of the evidence so far.

Thanks!

Date: 2006/05/09 12:27:26, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski chokes off yet another voice of dissent from his smile-a-while-a-creationist blog:

Quote
A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere.

Comment by William Dembski — May 8, 2006 @ 7:01 pm


Can anyone dig up the offending remarks made by "Chris_UK"?  It came from this thread

Date: 2006/05/09 12:40:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
You don't fool ME, Mr Darwinist.  That picture of a half guinea pig half ape is obviously a forgery!

Date: 2006/05/09 13:04:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was once a dedicated member of an organization that was accused of being a religious cult.  It was accused of being a cult because it was in fact a cult.  We even had a whole 60 Minutes episode dedicated to exposing it :-)

I worked for them and was in a position of leadership.  I cannot tell you how many times we/I were/was aked "are you a cult?" and I would smugly answer "cults, by definition are religious groups, we are a spiritual organization so no, we are not a cult"

I honestly believed a denial like that neutralized the cult accusation.  Furthermore, I had never studied cults and knew nothing of what actually constituted a cult yet I would say no we are not a cult with great authority.  I was a member of the organization so of course I was an expert on the subject was my way of thinking.

I think the creationists are operating from the same play book.  Something is true because they believe it is true and that's all that counts.  Evidence, experts and scientific principles are meaningless to a true beliver.
Read afdave's thread(s) for evidence of what I am suggesting.  

Shoot, experts and scientists are idiots to a true believer.  Heck you've got creationist afdave here expecting scientists/biologists to concede creationist points to him.  WTF? :-)  This is why no one here will ever succeed at reasoning with afdave or others like him.  

The thing they are the most ignorant of is their own ignorance.   Their "truths" (ignorance) are things they are proud of as well.  THAT is what makes them so dangerous.

Date: 2006/05/11 05:33:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Once Dumbski gets settled in at his new digs in Fort Worth, Texas, would it be rude of me to post his phone number and address all over the internet as they are doing at UD?

Chris

Date: 2006/05/11 06:46:22, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Tina Brewer chimes in on Dumbski's slanderous character assasination of Kevin Padian.  She's pretty subtle about it but at least her comments were not deleted by Winston Smith (Dumbski) himself:

Quote
Do you think that Dr. Padian behaves differently, in essence, than a fundamentalist preacher does?

Comment by tinabrewer — May 9, 2006 @ 9:06 am


and

Quote
I fully agree that reacting with violent rhetoric to the opposing side is sinking to their level. I tried to make this point awhile back on the thread about Ann Coulter’s new book. Why is it not okay to “react” to Kevin Padian, but it is acceptable to support, even actively encourage, the rhetoric of Coulter? Is it because she is on “our” side in this particular issue? That is the inverse of a principled stance…

Comment by tinabrewer — May 11, 2006 @ 11:09 am

Date: 2006/05/11 08:39:19, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The latest on Padian from the Christians at UD:





"Defenders of Science"

Date: 2006/05/11 08:55:38, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 11 2006,13:47)
Er, Im all for freedom of speech, but Im pretty sure this falls under libel laws.

The fact that Dembski allowed the post where Padians work and private phone number was posted and the readers were encouraged to call and harass him will not look good in the eyes of a judge either.

I was looking up the term slander over at Wiki and what Dembski has done and is doing wouldn't impress a judge.

Dembski is a such a dumb fark.

Date: 2006/05/11 09:14:47, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Someone just nuked the KKK post.  Be sure and make a copy of the graphic before they wake up and remember to delete it.

What utter dorks...

Date: 2006/05/11 10:52:06, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (beervolcano @ May 11 2006,15:33)
This is a challenge question for ID people...
We'll try to keep this going until we get some "solid answers."

Just an FYI  don't hold your breath waiting for those "solid answers" from the IDiots.  You'll die from a lack of oxygen.

Date: 2006/05/11 12:27:39, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
Are you making the absurd claim that biology plays no role in the human construct of marriage?


Does biology play a role when a Bishop agrees to be a Pope?  Does biology play a role when you sign a mortgage?  Does biology play a role when you ask for a back rub?

Please tell us, noble creationist, how exactly does biology play a role in a marriage?

Date: 2006/05/11 16:34:37, Link 70.251.110.242
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 11 2006,19:21)
Yeah, this is just like old times! I was afraid that with Dembski back taking a higher profile, the site would get boring.

On the contrary, Demsbki puts the tard in DaveTard

Date: 2006/05/12 04:01:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
davetard was all
Quote
Church Burnin’ Sheet Wearin’ Ebola Boys


I think davetard mostly enjoys seeing reactions here to stuff like this and he knows most people at UD share similar beliefs.  They lost in Dover, they lost in California and they will continue to lose as long as they promote creationism as science.   This is what poor losers do.

When Dembski says "ID has been good to me" I believe him.  Demsbki may be the poster boy for losers in academia.  He has a boat load of degrees from prestigious universities yet he works for an insignificant, fundamentalist bible college.  Is "Southern" even an accredited institution? If not for his creationist book sales to the naive and uninformed,  Dembski would be just another loser with no future.  

So it makes sense that he/they now focus so much of their efforts on character assasination and slander.  That's all Dembski has left in him.  

Speaking of Dembski when is the newest version of Pandas and People going to be published?  I forgot what they are calling it this time around.

Date: 2006/05/12 04:10:04, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Midnight was asking for an ignore button where you could ignore certain users here and not see their comments.

And Russell, if you make a new post you'll see a Quote button along the menue about the new post, experiment with that button.  Also, when you read my post here you'll see a different Quote button.  Try that one as well and use the Preview button alot  :-)

Date: 2006/05/12 04:25:15, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Read his most recent comments, aftard is now defending the liar at AIG and claiming it was an honest oversight.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:39:28, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Whate makes me laff the most is the idiotic assertion by some religionists that goes something like

"If it is true there is not god, then nothing matters, we can rape all the white women and murder is ok"

It is as if their whole morality is based on the bible and they simply check their intelligence at the door.  They seem to believe that a belief in (or more like fear of) god is the moral fabric that keeps us from killing one another.

I laff and laff everytime I read such utter nonsense.

My bias - I do not belive in gods.  Stranger yet,  I do not kill, rape, steal, lie, cheat or even vote republican.  Even weirder I have on more than one occassion been accused of being a very good father to my two children.  How in the world is someone like me, an admitted atheist, able to resist killing, stealing, raping, lying, and cheating without the bible or jeebus to tell me what is right and wrong and generally do my thinking for me?  

It still gets weirder.  I have a lot of friends who are believers and others who like me reject the god thing.  My godless pals have all been able to refrain from raping, murdering, stealing, lying and not one has ever adused any children.  Strange but true.

How can this be?  It boggles the mind!

But I am happy people like aftard keep their religious notions, otherwise by their own admission they would have no moral compass which implies they would likely become murdering, raping, thieving lunatics and we simply can't have that.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:42:41, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have never been a fan of the "jammers" in fact I am not fond of them at all but they are the ones who originally uncovered and published the wedge document.  I had to rearrange my opinion of them when I learned this :-)

Date: 2006/05/12 11:42:54, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Great idea.  I'll call it the Dissent from Ignorant Fundy Dumb@55es list.

It will start with something like

"We are skeptical of ignorant fundamentalist claims that atheists and other free thinkers are prone to violence, unhappiness, selfishness, and lead lives of criminal or other anti-social behaviour. Careful examination of the evidence for atheists being moral, decent citizens who lead fulfilling and meaningful lives should be encouraged"

What do you think?  Who wants to sign it? :-)

Date: 2006/05/12 17:19:51, Link 70.251.110.242
Author: Mr_Christopher
I support this and obviously I am one who has really found afdave's dishonest agenda irritating (yet I keep mouthing off to his nonsense, go figure).  

And you're saying this thread is entirely for afdave's benefit, so it is not like he ie being banned or not allowed to speak his mind.  He can only throw up in one corner now and not the entire living room.

Sounds reasonable.

Date: 2006/05/12 17:37:28, Link 70.251.110.242
Author: Mr_Christopher
Speaking of shared ancestry!

Date: 2006/05/16 07:53:02, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 16 2006,07:24)
Quote
some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets
No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales.

And I am wondering why they have yet to "evolve" better landing gear.  I'm thinking a pair of wheels connected to their legs would be far superior to those claws.  That way they could land on level ground at faster speeds.

Date: 2006/05/16 08:01:54, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Brontosaurus - Monty Python's flying creationism

Date: 2006/05/16 12:39:01, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Not sure if anyone here has pointed this out yet but here is an irony meter fun fact from the Padian thread at PT:

Quote
The hilarious thing is, Dembski, who’s now pontifiicating about 19th century racism, teaches at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptists were split off from the Northern Baptists in 1845 specifically in order to uphold slavery, and maintained segregationist policies for a full century after the Civil War. If I were living in that particular glass house, I wouldn’t be throwing stones.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:05:32, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't have the stomach for these afdave threads, but if he finds any legitimate evidence for a god (or time traveler or space alien) would someone make a big fuss of it for those who are not following this thread?  Since no one in the history of mankind has ever provided any scientific and afdave says he has it I'm banking on one of you to share this discovery with us once afdave shows his cards.

I've always wanted to meet a god (or time traveler or space alien).

Cheers!

Date: 2006/05/16 13:58:40, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Provide evidence to support IDC or indulge in character assasintation.  I think Dembski and his followers are  realizing one is much easier than the other.

Calling dead people racist is a heck of alot less time consuming than pretending IDC is science.

And Dembki's current ties to an institution that has  such a long, rich (and very recent) history of racism and segregation is the howler of the month, if not of all time.

In view of Dembski's stunning display of hypocrisy, ignorance and bad faith, I hereby nominate Bill Dembski for the DaveTard Hypocrite Award.


ps: Are non-whites allowed to date whites at Southern where Dembski teaches?

Date: 2006/05/17 05:09:12, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is Wise a racist?  Meaning has he ever used the term Asian American?

Date: 2006/05/17 05:34:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I believe it is Southern...and not Southwestern, no?

Anyhow, I would love to be a fly on the wall at the Kentucky branch where Dembski used to teach and Wise now does.  The biggest difference between Wise and Dembski (that I can tell) is that Wise is not dishonest nor is he trying to con or manipulate people.  Dembski makes a charade of science to justify his beliefs, whereas Wise honestly says he simply rejects much of science that conflicts with the bible.  I appreciate his honesty and the fact that he does not seem to be portraying retarded ideas as science but instead just rejects what he finds distastefull.  Not my cup of tea but it beats the con man approach that IDC takes.

I suspect many of Dembski's former students will find Wise to be a breath of fresh air.

*update, I just found this noteworthy tidbit:

Quote
In actuality, Wise asserts, science is not a product and should never have come to be understood as being "the answers," collectively, to the questions people ask. "Science is the way we find the answers to the questions people are asking," he insists. "It's a process."

And until science is taught that way in the classroom -- as a process rather than a finite product, the Christian paleontologist adds, "I don't think we have any business being in there or trying to get a creationist or an ID theory in there."


So Wise is not advocating we teach the controversy?  Hmmm...The con men of the DI will not like that.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:39:40, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski is offering yet another cash reward:

Quote
Information-Theoretic Conjecture — $1000 Cash Prize
I’m offering the first person who completely resolves the following conjecture $1000 cash. I need a complete error-free proof and I need to be able to use it in my writings (of course, I’ll give full credit to the mathematician who proves it).




This made me wonder why Demsbki and the con men for jesus at the DI don't offer a cash reward for ANY legitimate scientific evidence for intelligent design.  Something that could be tested and such.  They could call the cash award something like the Nobel ID Prize or whatnot.

THAT is what Dembski should be offering to pay for, evidence that backs his unfounded and unscientific claims and not these stupid math games or offering to pay public teachers a bounty for breaking the law.

What they lack is evidence for IDC and not law breakers or math puzzle solvers.  THAT is where he/they should be offering cash prizes.

Date: 2006/05/17 09:30:59, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,05:50)
Quote
And if someone with better judgement cares to open a thread that is about the topic of chromosomal changes in evolution, and not just about AFDave's particular disagreements, then that would likely be peachy.


So I don't have good judgment (other than I don't support Common Design Theory)?  What criteria do I need to meet to be able to start a new topic?  (not that I need one now -- I only need the two I specified -- but several people have asked me off-topic questions in my threads and at some point, it would be appropriate to start a new thread and answer them if I have time.)

I don't think your lack of agreement with modern  science earned you this thread, but rather your profoundly dishonest motives and the fact that it is obvious you have no intention of ever providing any evidence for the fantastic, insulting and ridiculous claims you (AIG) make does not work to your benefit at all.  

You make unsupported assertions here and ignore requests to provide any evidence.  You want others to play by a set of rules (provide legitimate evidence) yet you grant yourself the right to ignore those rules you expect others here to abide by.  

Your children (and mine) have a word for a person who operates like that.  They're called cheaters.  You (rightfully) expect others here to deal from the top of the deck while you deal from the bottom.  

afdave, you're a garden variety troll by any other name.  No big deal.

Date: 2006/05/23 12:40:40, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This totally cracked me up:

Quote
but there is no doubt that men like Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski will be names long remembered once the rotting corpse of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution is buried and forgotten


aftard needs a reality check.  And perhaps he could provide us some evidence of his latest little theory?

Behe's own univeristy has a public disclaimer on their web site distancing themselves from Behe's nonsense.  Behe will be remembered from his mindless testimony ala Kitzmiller as the guy who said astrology was scientific and the guy who ignores evidence that conflicts with his "theories".  

Dembski has more degrees than I have ex-wives and so far he has amounted to nothing.  He teaches at a marginal theology school that is probably not even accredited.  No one in the math or science community thinks much of him at all.  Without the cultute war and his specific IDC role, he is nothing, a garden variety loser.  His theology is just as lame as his math.  He is a good propagandist without a moral compass, I'll give you that.

Yeah these guys will be remembered alright, but not the reasons they'd prefer.

For a corpse to rot it must first die yet ToE rages on in modern science and education.    No sign of ToE even catching a cold.  Looks healthier than ever.  A bunch of ignorant creationists yapping at the heels of ToE does not constitute its death or demise, silly.  That has been going on for 150 years and ToE just gets stronger with every bit of new and confirming evidence while the loons (creationists) look more foolish.

aftard, you can click your heels together all day long and pray or chant for things to be different, but the reality is you have chosen the side of the ignorant and uneducated.  

I'd hold off on sending out the invites to celebrate the death of ToE.  

Date: 2006/06/08 07:06:30, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
It's been 6 months or so since Kitzmiller and how many scientific experiments have been conducted since then to validate ID©?  How many papers have been published in legitimate scientific journals that support ID©?

Now tell me how many new discoveries and experiments have been made that further support ToE and our understanding of things like DNA, etc.?  Here's a hint - tons.

In fact a good PT article would consists of noting all the recent discoveries (since Kitzmiller) that further support ToE and also all the "science" that has been done in the name of ID© in the same time frame.

What makes me laff is no one at the UD camp seems to realize that the ID "scientists" have not produced a dang thing since Kitzmiller, meanwhile real science has been on a tear since then.

Funny.

Date: 2006/06/08 10:20:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote

ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank


Forget the bank, get my bookie on the line!

Date: 2006/06/08 12:18:52, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I had to read the latest from Dr WAD a few times.

WAD's latest

Read the article WAD posted, then read his comments.  You'll have to read the article again after reading WAD's comments because the relationship between the two is not clear.

Bottom line - I think WAD is a lot dumber than we give him credit for.  Seriously, the notion he is "bright but misguided" is flat wrong in my book.  He's an over achieving dunce if you ask me.  

Not an idiot savant by any stretch of the imagination, but someone who is not real bright yet is still able to accomplish a great deal - an overachiever for his level of intelligence.

Chris

And here is my commentary on WAD's comments:

Quote
Indeed, the finding is so “unexpected” that biologists don’t have a clue how evolution did it.


It is not that "unexpected, WAD and biologist do have a clue how it came to be, you are the one without the clue.

Quote
Expectation and prediction — aren’t these roughly the same? Doesn’t one have to have an expectation of what will happen to predict it?


No Dr WAD, they are NOT the same.  I expect my children to behave yet I predict they won't always meet my expectations.

Quote
If evolution keeps doing completely unexpected things, how can the theory properly be said to be predictive?


What you're saying is with each new discovery of things we had not yet known we should throw in the towel because we did not see it coming?  I guess you think the Psychic Friends Network is science since they predict everything?

Quote

Maybe it isn’t really a science. Gosh, what a horrible thought. All those well-meaning biologists completely out to lunch and spending our tax dollars like drunken sailors. There ought to be a law against it, I say!


Indeed...How can anything really be science if it doesn't suggest (predict?) a space zombie did it?  

Quote
Comment by William Dembski — June 8, 2006 @ 4:35 pm

Date: 2006/06/08 12:27:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I guess the Handmaid's Tale is a good example of a Christian values movie.

Speaking of religious movies..What was the name of that Christian snuff film put out by Mel Gibson a few years back?  I missed that one.  Hey you gotta draw the line somewhere...

Date: 2006/06/08 12:46:12, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Traditional" marriage is NOT one man and one woman, it is one man and many women.  The one man one woman thing is actually quite new if you look at history.

Ahh how I long for the good old, traditionaldays ;-)

Speaking of sexual morality, Mary was what 13 or 14 when the space alien/time traveler knocked her up (while she was married to a 73 year old)?

Thordaddy, how many pictures of shirtless men with sweaty biceps do you keep on your bedroom wall at home?  Come on, tell us the truth.  You've got a huge collection of beefcake pictures on your computer, don't you?  You're amongst friends here, you can tell us the truth.

Chris

Date: 2006/06/09 09:48:39, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Based on the last thread at WAD's smile a while a lonny bin, they are getting serious about this ID to IE thing.  As if changing the name will somehow make it legit...

Too funny.

Date: 2006/06/13 06:23:13, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
WAD's infatuation with Ann Coulter (the ugliest transvestite I have ever seen) is a laff riot.  I love the latest ann love fest thread on UD.

Miles

Date: 2006/06/13 10:01:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (jeannot @ June 13 2006,12:29)
We often reproach IDers for their personal attacks. I'm not sure you should imitate them.

(to Christopher, Richard and Arden).

A socially cohesive perspective to be sure.  However, when it comes to Anne the Man, I am powerless over my ability to not stop making fun of "her".  

Perhaps I should join a 12 step religion or seek some other sort of help for it...

Date: 2006/06/15 08:21:51, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:04)
What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?  It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.  So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?  

Randy

Randy, just an FYI, that's like asking are there any good books that challenge the Apollo 11 moon landing or are there any good books that challenge the notion that Elvis is really dead.  

Your time would be better spent reading legitimate science books on subjects within the ToE such as the realtionship between reptiles and birds and such versus books that claim evolution is "only a theory".

Also, read some of the posts here, there is a long rich history of ignorant creationists who have not a scientific clue creeping in here pretending to have an interest in this"evolution thing" only to quickly start trying to teach legitimate, trained scientists that everything they know is wrong.  Often they move on to encouraging people here to find jesus "before it is too late"  AFDAVE is one such tard/case.  

They bring up long, tired, wrong arguments popularized by garbage organizations like AIG and the Dishonesty Institute while ignoring all the verifiable evidence and facts presented to them.  

Whether right or wrong, because of jerk creationists  guys like you get knee jerk reactions in this forum.  

Also, you wrote

Quote
I have some concerns about the current state of peer-reviewed science.

Is it really a 'victors make the rules' place?


Actually it is he who backs up his claims is the one who wins the credible science award.  That's why the IDC crowd continues to lose at every turn, they have yet to provide a shred of evidence for a designer (space alien, tiem traveler, god, etc).  Meanwhile they whine and moan about not being allowed in public science class yet what they are proposing is clearly not science.  They are also pathologically dishonest which does not help their cause either.

If you want to learn more about science and the ToE you are at the right place.  

Chris

Date: 2006/06/15 08:33:16, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't have a link handy so could someone post the link for the most common creationist arguments at the talk origins site?  

That would give Randy visibility to the very "best" arguements from the creationist (anti-evolutionist) side he's looking for as well as the scientific rebuttal.  

In the meantime here are the Talk Origin "must reads" for you, Randy

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html


Chris

Date: 2006/06/15 10:22:54, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
It was compared to someone trying to prove that Apollo 11 didn't happen, for example.  

The problem with the above approach is first, that it appeals to an attempt to humiliate an opponent rather than reason with them


Not true, my intent was not to humiliate you but rather point out how naive your request was (and not in a sarcastic way).  You were/are asking for the best arguements against known, scientific facts.  

Keep in mind that not every comment here is an attempt to persecute you and that although sticks and stones can break bones, ascii characters are harmless.

Chris

Date: 2006/06/15 10:32:30, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 15 2006,15:28)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2006,15:26)
RM doesn't seem to be a dumb guy, but you can tell from things like "I thought evolution wasn't falsifiable" that he's been soaked in pseudoscience for some time.

My tipoff to that was his eagerness to invoke Piltdown Man as an argument against evolution.

Piltdown man??  Are you serious?  I must have overlooked that one.  Oh man....

Chris

Date: 2006/06/21 07:00:22, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
What septic, aftard and the other maroons seem to overlook is that evidence wins in science, period.  Nonsense might get some initial attention but in the end the best evidence wins.  Not the bible, not flowerly freshman philosophy nonsense, but evidence.  

The IDC camp has yet to put forth anything remotely scientific (evidence based) while they all whine about the so called "dogma" of science not letting the IDiots play in the same sand box.

Look at King Loser Bill Dembski.  It's been months (6?)  since Kitzmiller, where is the new evidence or scientific experiments they claim are going on and being tested?  Hey Dembski show us your latest ID research that is scientific, evidence based that no one will publish.  Post it on your stupid blog and let us read it, no need to wait for peer review.  Let's see your scientific evidence for ID that no one will publish and we'll judge it for ourselves you big cry baby.

All Dembski does is cry like a little baby because no one takes his nonsense seriously, and no one at UD seems to care that the IDiots have yet to produce a shred of evidence or anything testable.  Does randy, aftard, septic care that the IDiots have yet to produce ANYTHING scientific?  Of course not.  They're too busy pretending to be biology experts and telling real biologists here that they are clueless.

If septic was an actual skeptic he'd be asking Dembski to show some beef over at UD.  He'd be asking Dembski to provide some legitimate scientific evidence for ID.  But no, he's too busy playing biologist here with real biologists while pretending he's a "skeptic".  That's called ass clownery in my book.

I cannot stand the likes of septic, aftard ("I hope you find jesus before it's too late!") and the other semi literate retards that pollute this forum with their anti-science garbage and endless whining about persecution and victimhood.  But I sure get a kick out of reading their daily cry baby nonsense.  

And as far as my potty mouth goes, stop acting like babies and get a thick skin like the rest of us (aka grow up).

SHOW US THE SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR SHUT UP PLEASE.

Sheesh...

Date: 2006/06/21 07:12:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Yeah paley, you're a persecuted, white lunatic.  No story here...

Date: 2006/06/21 07:25:10, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey Randy, since you've got nothing better to do than cry like a baby about the IDiots not getting published in scientific peer reviewed journals, how about asking your new pal William Demsbki to publish one of his scientific papers he's written that is evidence based and testable that Nature and all the other scientific journals refuse to publish because they are all dogmatic, anti-anything but darwinism?

Seriously, ask Dembski to publish all those scientific papers he's written but no one will publish on his blog so we can all judge the scientific merit of it.

For that matter ask Behe to publish all the scientific papers he's submitted to godless science journals that are evidence based and testable yet they have been turned down for publication.  Ask Behe to publicly publish all those papers so we can judge for ourselves.

As one who is obviously upset over the dogma driven science journals that unfairly will not publish anything that supports IDc why not ask your IDC heros to publish all those papers they have written and submitted (but were rejected) on Dembski's blog?

I encourage the other IDC cry babies here to do the same.  Ask Dembski and Behe to show us what they have written and submitted that continues to not get published in a legitimate scientific peer review journal.  And ask them to please name the scientific journals who have rejected their papers.

Date: 2006/06/21 07:27:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Anne coulter is the best thing that ever hapopend to IDC but she gives tranvestites a bad name.

Happy?

Date: 2006/06/21 07:38:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
People look at Anne Coulter and mistakenly think ALL transvestites are like her.  THAT is terrible for the transvestite cause.

Date: 2006/06/21 07:49:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,12:35)
He'll probably just complain now that your tone is derogatory or something.

No doubt.  It's astonishing though that none of these cry babies has ever asked Dembski or Behe to show them a paper(s) that they submitted to a science journal that was rejected.

Not one of these peer review whiners has ever asked to read a paper that was rejected.  Not one of these persecuted fools has ever asked Dembski or Behe for testable scientific evidence that supports IDC.

During the Kitzmiller trial there was all this discussion about all the IDC related lab work and testing going on by all these biologists all over the place.  Have any of the IDiots noticed not a peep has come from a single scientist supporting IDC since Kitzmiller?

And although the persecuted cry babies go on and on about this peer review conspiracy there is nothing stopping Dembski or Behe from publishing their rejected scientific works on their own blog. Nothing except they have never written any evidence based papers on ID, they have never submitted any papers supporting IDC to a legitimate science journal, nor have they ever conducted any ID related experiements.  Big surprise!

Date: 2006/06/21 07:59:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 21 2006,12:57)
Why deny ourselves the comedy?

I say let the man speak. :)

I concur, give him one thread to play in.  He's a laff riot to be sure.

Maybe he can dig up all those evidence based ID papers Behe and Dembski have written and submitted to godless science journals only to be rejected.

Date: 2006/06/22 07:01:11, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Let's not get too carried away with the Tard's "accomplishments" at Dell.  I have a friend who started out as a temp/receptionist at Dell and a few years later she was independently wealthy from the stock soaring.

She quit her Dell job and "retired" in her late 30s.

Chris

Date: 2006/06/22 07:14:40, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is pretty funny when you realize it was written back in 2000.  Compare this to recent press releases from the Disco for the full flavor affect.  This is mostly about the Baylor drama but it's pretty funny to note they have yet to prove or provide what they promised back in the year 2000.  The denials of IDc being creationism are especially funny.

Lynching of Bill Dembski

Date: 2006/06/22 09:17:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I especially like the threat aftard poses about the death bed conversion, hurry and find jeebuz before its too late!

The gun to the head approach for jesus works best on cowards and children, davey.  You probably won't find many of either here.  That's probably why you have failed to convert anyone in this forum.  All you have accomplished so far is convincing everyone you are a clueless moron.  

You're like a bad street preacher who won't shut up and you harass pedestrians all over town harping about finding the lord before it's too late.  Pathetic.

Why not spend your time on more fruitful efforts and convert some Muslims, but keep in mind they get 73 virgins when they go to heaven, Christians get zero so you had better come up with a convincing reason why your god is better than theirs.  On the surface I'd go for the religion that promises 73 virgins myself.

Date: 2006/06/22 09:24:44, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
speaking of morality and the bible, davey, let's talk about your god knocking up a 13 year old girl.  And she was married at the time to a 73 year old.  

What is up with that?  Are those the kind of morals you support?

Date: 2006/06/23 05:02:18, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The fees charged by the expert witnesses in the Kitzmiller case was in the official record, everyone on the IDC side got $100 an hour but Dembski got $200.  Everyone on the side of evolution charged nothing for their testimony.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:45:41, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ June 26 2006,14:25)
From the "Teach no Controversy" thread...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1261#comment-45630

Quote
I should also note that the anti-IDists could shut us down just by substantiating their claims. The fact that they shy away from the proposed bacterial flagellum experiment just further exposes their intellectual cowardice. That Judge Jones tried to tell IDists that it is their experiment to do just further exposes the sheer stupidity of those condemning ID.

Comment by Joseph — June 26, 2006 @ 8:38 am

Yeah, how dare those rotten evilutionists actually expect us to do experiments.

Wouldn't be fruitfull...Remember?

Date: 2006/06/26 11:25:23, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Has anyone pointed out that Dave Tard is censoring religious talk again?

Date: 2006/07/18 11:13:43, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Reading Dembski at UD is ok, but I can never figure out whether he is just ignorant or plain dishonest so his comments never really satisfy me.  Dave Tard is the only reason I go to that blog.  So this Denyse (were her and Janet Reno seperated at birth?) had better be good.  I only read UD for the Dave Tard absurdities so here's to hoping she's just as absurd.

Date: 2006/07/18 11:36:31, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dear Dave Tard, I cannot express my grief over you recently being neutered by that "cool" Bill Dembski.  The long hours you put in to UD, making it ground zero for the scientifically challenged and this is what you get for your efforts?  Replace by Janet Reno's twisted sister?

You banned more people in 6 months than there are signatures on the Disco's Darwin dissenting list.  Heck they should put you in charge of the Disco!

The day you banned me for "being all nice" on UD brought a tear to my eye.  You put the "A" in absured and the "I" in ignorant.  Where would "cool" Bill Dembski be without you.  More disturbingly, where will UD go without you?  Down the toilet as they say in the Marines :-)

One day "cool" Bill Dembski will see the error in his ways, but I fear it will be too late.

Please take pity on us here at the bar and start your own blog.  Many of us need a Dave Tard fix to get through the day.  You can write about anything as long as it includes the notion that intelligent design is science.

Please Tard, don't leave us hanging!  We believe in you.  You don't need "cool" Bill Dembski to bring the "scientific" theory of intelligent design to the masses and you need not have any intelligence or education at all to be an expert in Design Detection and Theory.  Can't you see that?  Heck I have read your posts, you could give Behe a lesson in biology and tutor "cool" Bill Dembski in math with one hand tied behind your back.

Stand up, man, and proclaim yourself an expert on the topic!  Write books, give speeches, make money and most of all, quote anonymous friends and sources on your blog!  You are as much of an expert on intelligent design as "cool" Bill Dembski, don't you see that?  Stand up for yourself and take your rightful place as a leading expert in Intelligent Design, Detection and Theory and leave losers like "cool" Bill Dembski in your intellectual wake.

Seriously, man, don't take this in the pants.  YOU are a Marine, sir.  Would the Marines bow down and crawl away, whimpering about how unfair things are or would they regroup, come up with a better battle plan and win one for God, Country and honor?

Think about it, soldier.  YOU are an expert on intelligent design and YOU do not need Dembski, Larry, the Disco or Janet Reno's twisted sister.  

Amen.

Your pal,
Chris

Date: 2006/07/18 11:53:51, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (SomeGuy @ July 18 2006,16:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,15:43)
Just amazing. Davetard embarrasses Dembski for six months, and the straw that breaks the camel's back is a mild potshot at Denyse O'Leary.

Does anyone have an archive of that thread? I'm curious to see what said straw actually was.

This has been a most entertaining day, too bad the fun is over. DT just has to start his own blog now.  :)

Yes what he said.  Did anyone keep a copy of what was said?

Date: 2006/07/19 12:00:51, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Will she be UDs Waterloo?





Sorry, I had to ask that....

Date: 2006/07/20 06:18:06, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dense O'Leary's rules of engagement include:

Quote
1. This blog solicits and welcomes vigorous argument, backed by facts


Since arguements must now be backed up by facts, I guess this means no one will be allowed to suggest ID is science anymore and they'll have to admit it is nothing but creationism repackaged.  

The UD/IDc crow has always loathed facts so this is a strange twist indeed.

Chris

Date: 2006/07/20 09:32:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I'll have to create a new account at UD and join in the Denyse fun when they open up the comments.  Her thing for "facts" should be a hoot!

Date: 2006/07/20 09:57:58, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 20 2006,14:07)
Good lord, is THIS the same Joel Borofsky? I bet it is!

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=14514

Amazing reading.  I am frequently astonished by the level of interest god seems to have in the lives of mostly middle class, white people.

Take Joel for instance. There is an AIDS epidemic in Africa (as much as 20% of the entire population in some countries are pregnant with death), civil wars there where millions of innocent men, women and children have died in the last decade or so, starvation is one the leading causes of death amongst children, at least 100 civilians are being killed in Iraq daily now, and yet god takes time out of his busy schedule to answer Joel's begging for $6,000 so he can go to college.  What a special guy Joel must be.

That god fellow has an interesting set of priorities if not a macabe sense of humor.  "Hey watching millions of innocent children die each year is no big deal compared to getting Joel through college debt free!"  

How curious.  Well I am white and middle class, I don't need tuition money but I could use some help in the stock market.  I wonder if god also provides that sort of assistance.

Chris

Date: 2006/07/20 11:37:36, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2006,15:39)
Re Mr. Christopher's comment:

I had a religious friend a few years back who knew a man we'll call Tom. Tom had been in the market for a house for months, and had viewed several, but didn't decide on any of them. When my friend asked Tom why, Tom said that he didn't feel like they were exactly right and he wanted to make sure "I got the house god wants me to have".

Yet another example of the mysterious ways god moves.  From college funds to picking the perfect home, god seems to have nother better to do than improve the lives of mostly white, middle class people.  

A story of my own - briefly in my early life I was a car salesman.  One day I was showing a Subaru to a couple who remarked after we had done a test drive and such that they needed to go home and pray to god to make sure buying the Subaru was god's will.  I thought quickly and suggested the three of us instead pray together right then.  I lead them in prayer right there in my cube and afterwards suggested they lease it instead of buy.  They felt that was god's will and leased the car.  

Yet another example of how god goes out of his way to improve the lives of mostly white, middle class americans.  What a fantastic world we'd live in If ethnic groups, non-Americans and those who live in poverty could stimulate that level of personal interest on god's part.

Chris

Date: 2006/07/21 05:17:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Church lady's post today is well worth reading.  First of all she quotes an article critical of ID where the author states "where is the science" and the Church lady completely ignores that question and spends her time talking about cockroaches.

The Church lady said:

Quote
Here’s one question that intrigues me: Why do some life forms not evolve, or so little that it hardly matters? The coelacanth and the cockroach come to mind, but there are others, including common ferns and cycads. Surely these life forms experience genetic mutations and changes in their environment.


A UD poster logically asked:

Quote
“Here’s one question that intrigues me: Why do some life forms not evolve, or so little that it hardly matters? The coelacanth and the cockroach come to mind, but there are others, including common ferns and cycads. Surely these life forms experience genetic mutations and changes in their environment.”

Come to think of it: What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?

Comment by ofro — July 21, 2006 @ 9:48 am


And then Dembski replied:

Quote
Question: “What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?”

Answer: Redesign (technological evolution) itself requires design, and lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don’t need to be redesigned.

Comment by William Dembski — July 21, 2006 @ 10:02 am


Let's read that little admission of stupidity again...

lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don’t need to be redesigned.


Um, excuse me?  That quote should go in the Dembski Wikipedia article.

Is it me or did Dembski just breech a new threshold for stupidity?

And where are the "facts" to back up this idiotic claim?  I hope someone asks for them since the Church Lady has already said you can argue all day long as long as you back it up with facts.  Does that apply to Dembski as well?


Chris

Date: 2006/07/21 05:49:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,10:24)
I thought we weren't allowed to call something a good or bad design, since we don't know the Designer's motives.

Well based on his comments I quoted it appears Dembski knows the designers motives.  He is suggesting the designer is not only designing but also later re-engineering his "mistakes" while leaving his better works alone (cockroaches in the example given).

How does Dembski know which designs the designer feels needs improving and which design is the designer simply having a little fun with?  How can Dembski claim to know the designer feels the cockroach needs redesigning or not?  And while you're at it Dembski, tell us how many times does the designer go back to the redesigning drawing board before he shi* cans the design altogether and starts from scratch?

I have said this a thousand times and I'll say it again, I am astonished when I read the idiotic things Dembski writes.  More perplexing is the fact that his followers fall for it.  They don't fall for it, they eat it up.

And did anyone note Dembski's "research assistan"  Joel what's hisname will be starting his own blog soon www.stoplyingtous.com  No doubt he is addressing his boss.

Dembski + Church Lady = Dumb and Dumber

I wish Dave Tard got along with the Church Lady, the three of them would have been a howler to be sure.  A Tard Threesome!

Chris

Date: 2006/07/21 07:53:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,12:47)
Now they're disemvowelled Ofro. Boy, it didn't take them long to get back to sucking balls, did it?

Who exactly is removing the vowels?

Date: 2006/07/21 13:17:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 21 2006,13:17)
Quote
    ID’s explanation for the apparent lack of evolutionary change is the same as Einstein’s explanation for the apparent lack of ether. It’s apparently missing because it actually IS missing, like the apparent lack of unicorns. The only sort of change we have evidence for is minor changes within kind, like finch beaks getting larger or smaller.


Oooh, check out that word 'kind', that's a dead giveaway to where Dave T's sympathies lie...

 
Quote
From moderator Denyse: For Ofro and anyone else wondering, all the vowel-free comments have been deleted.

Anyone who fancies that sort of thing can sell the skills gained to publishers of game books.


WTF? If Church Lady didn't disemvowel them, who the fuck *did*?

My money says Dave Tard.

Date: 2006/07/27 11:54:35, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Just more insight from the Intelligent Design Lunatic Fringe...

Date: 2006/08/01 07:13:39, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I see these terms being used on PT but I am unfamiliar with them.  Are these some sort of PT slang?

Chris

Date: 2006/08/01 07:29:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thank you!

Date: 2006/08/01 07:37:07, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey I see that guy (Mel whatshisname) who made the wildly popular christian snuff film got busted driving while drunk off his arse.  This is what, his 10th DUI?

Question - Do christian themed movies cause alcoholism and drunken driving?  It would appear yes and yes are the answers.

Friends don't let friends watch christian snuff films.  You gotta draw the moral line somewhere.  

Chris

Date: 2006/08/21 06:43:01, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Aug. 21 2006,07:49)
A few days old, but a great quote from Joel:
Click
Quote
Alien abduction, though I think it is silly, should be something a Darwinian athiest looks at with an open mind (open mind to be defined as willingness to accept something’s plausibility after reviewing the continuing evidence).


I think alien abduction is silly, but the fact that Darwinist ignore it proves that they are following their dying religion.

Sounds like another waterloo is coming. And this time with lazers and cattle mutilations.

Speaking of lunatic propositions, where does Joel sit on the Bible Codes?  Dembski is on record believing in the Bible Codes.  He has said thje Bible Codes and ID have alot in common (and he's actually right, but for different reasons).

Does Joel think ID is behind the Bible Codes too?

And on the subject of the Bible Codes, did anyone find a so-called "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" falling for the Bible Codes as hilarious as I did?  That alone proves what a total dufus Dembski really is.  In fact any university that gave him a math degree should offer to give him his money back in exchange for that degree.

Date: 2006/08/22 05:20:49, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
UD is nothing but a textbook example of the cult of conformity in vivo.  In fact if ID were to ever die Dembski will have no problem starting a new religious movement with himself as the grand poobah.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:17:50, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote
do real programmers grow mold in their basements?


No, they grow pot plants.

Date: 2006/08/23 06:42:00, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski is joining the Darwin = Nazi dog pile at UD.  

It's comical when you think about Dembski currently works for an organization that has a long history of racism, in fact the southern baptist convention was created so they could distinguish themselves from the negro loving northern baptists.

Demsbki is such a blatant moron.   I love it so!

Date: 2006/08/28 05:46:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Whether you teach it in philosophy class or science, I would not be happy about my children sitting in ANY class where the the garbage and dishonesty promoted by the Discovery Institute and lying douche bags like Slick Willy Dembski is taught.  Behe is a one man laughing stock so I want my children protected from him too.

And would this IDiot class have supplimental course works such as the recent garbage by evolution expert Man Coulter?

Does that shed some light on my own personal feelings?  

In short I'd just have to say no to having my children subjected to perverse lies and distortions and fairy tales.  In fact I would pull them from any school that taught such nonsense.  Creationism has no place in public school, especially a brand that is so patently false and dishonest (ID).

This thread is theally dumb but not quite as dumb as Intelligent Design creationism.

Chris

Date: 2006/08/28 07:24:42, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was hungry for a heaping bowl of dork soup so I moseyed (sp?) over to UD to read the latest rant/pile on regarding Darwin the idea thief! Good lord what idiots.  

And get a load of Davetard who seems to get angry when other commenters are obviously smarter and better educated than he is.  And how many times is Davetard going to remind us about his 30 year old Marine pledge to God?  

Amazingly comical.  I'm also shocked they allowed the subtle and well reasoned criticisms of ID and DI/ID strategy to slip through.  THAT was shocking actually.

It's long but worth a full read.

Date: 2006/08/28 07:51:47, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, I read this on PT and I believe STJ had actually found it elsewhere and posted it there.  It is too rich to not repost here.

I'm surprised it was not posted on UD...It clearly shows the relationship between Darwin and Hitler and how Darwinism practically forced Hitler to be such a nasty guy..

Quote


Real True Stories for Christian Children: Adolf and The Jews

Once upon a time, in the enchanted land of Austria, in the magical city of Vienna, there lived a handsome young Christian man named Adolf Hitler, who dreamed of being a painter.

Not a painter like a house painter, but a painter of pictures. Adolf loved to paint pictures of trees and birds and butterflies. But although Adolf was artistic, he was a normal young Christian man who liked girls very much.

Because he was a good Christian, even though he liked girls very much, he was waiting until he found the right Christian girl and got married before he kissed a girl. But it had nothing to do with him being an artist. He liked girls very much.

Adolf was a happy young man and everybody loved him and he loved everybody back. His heart was full of Christian love toward all his neighbors. He especially loved his Jewish neighbors. The reason he had a special love for the Jews is because he grew up in the enchanted land of Austria, which was really part of the magical land of Germany, and all the Germans loved the Jews very much. The Germans loved the Jews because the Germans were all good Christians, and the German Christians had always loved the Jews so much.

Adolf especially loved the Jewish children. He would give them candy and paint their pictures and give them the pictures, or sometimes just hug them and tell them how much he loved them.

Adolf loved his Jewish doctor, and his Jewish banker, and his Jewish accountant, and his Jewish landlady, and all the Jews he knew. Sometimes, Adolf would think about how much he loved the Jews, and he would wish he knew more Jews, so that his heart could be filled with more love. And sometimes he would go looking for new Jews to meet and love, and so he had many, many Jewish friends, all of whom he loved very much.

One day, Adolf was walking to church, thinking about how much he loved the Jews, when he met a strange and ugly little man. The man was an atheist, which is somebody who hates Jesus, and the man gave Adolf a book. The book was called Origin of the Species, written by Charles Darwin. The atheist said that the book was scientific, and that Adolf should read this book instead of going to church. Adolf was such a nice young Christian man that he agreed to what the ugly little man asked, even though, in his heart, he really wanted to go to church and worship Jesus and listen to the priest talk about loving Jews. But to make the atheist happy, Adolf promised he would read the atheist’s book instead.

So Adolf sat under a tree and began to read the atheist’s book. As he read, his face became more and more sad, and his heart became heavier and heavier. By the time he had finished the book, Adolf knew that everything had changed, and that he would never be happy again. Because now, instead of loving the Jews, he had to kill them all.

It made him sad to think of killing all his Jewish friends, whom he loved so much, and it made him very sad to know he must kill all the Jewish children, instead of giving them candy and hugs. But although he hated the thought of killing all his Jewish friends and neighbors and the little Jewish children, now he had no choice. Because Charles Darwin’s book said that all the Jews must be killed, and Charles Darwin was a scientist. Although Adolf’s heart told him to love the Jews, science said they must all die. And science says that what science says is more important than what’s in your heart.

And so Adolf killed all the Jews.

The Moral of the Story: Always go to church. And if you read a book given to you by an atheist, you’ll have to kill everybody you love.

Date: 2006/08/31 09:43:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 31 2006,14:01)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,07:09)
Another great Joel analogy:

 
Quote
as a slave would display his muscles in order to be purchased.


Since when do slaves take an active role in getting purchased?

Don't worry, Steve, I see Joel's obsession with girls' hoohoos extending well into the next several decades.

 
Quote
Since when do slaves take an active role in getting purchased?


The immortal Josh Bozeman explains.

PS, what's a hoohoo?

PPS, that was somebody else's link on UDOJ, but thanks for the publicity :D

What a fantastic glimpse into the warped mind of a fundy christian.  On the subject of slavery it seems Tard Josh has never read Exodus or Leviticus.  This thread is highly recommended!

I wonder if there is ever any tard envy between Dave Tard and Tard Josh?

Date: 2006/08/31 10:06:26, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,14:49)
Quote

I wonder if there is ever any tard envy between Dave Tard and Tard Josh?


They hate each other. I've seen DT insult JB pretty entertainingly. I think DT's mostly afraid of becoming like JB.

Let me know if you have a link to that.  I'm always up for watching a good tard fight.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:43:43, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Amazing to see the sort of people that gravitate to Bill Dimbski.  I've been thinking about creating a reality TV show and calling it "Guess My Mental Illness"  I'd like to get Dave Tard to star in the first episode.

Thanks for those links and the tard fight between sal and DT is pricess!

Date: 2006/09/01 05:53:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 01 2006,10:15)
I hardly think WAD is the kind of person who should criticize others for falling for pranks.

Falling for pranks or even promoting them.  Let's not forget Dimbski's affection for the Bible Code nonsense.  

Imagine that, the Isaac Newton of Information Theory falls for the Bible Code.  How fitting for a leading "ID Theorist".  I think Tina Brewer asked him on UD if he still thought the Bible Code was for real.  He never responded to her.

I wonder, did Dimbski use his little filter thingy prior to embracing the Bible Code?

Date: 2006/09/05 10:06:36, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is Josh a virgin?  That might explain his sexual obsession/hang ups.

Date: 2006/09/07 05:53:37, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like the DI has the Wiki article on Intelligent Design in their sights.  Be sure and read the Talk page of that article.  And then read the DI's Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries

Those guys crack me up.

Date: 2006/09/07 11:43:55, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
A moment of clarity in young Joel's evangelical thread

Quote
my original point was that it’s an exaggeration to compare Christians in America to what happened to the Native Americans.

You guys are shifting the focus to how a Gov. filled with Christians should run a country. The fact is that our country is very kind to Christians. They can own large corporations, they can live, eat and work anywhere they want. They can practice religion how they want. They can hold the highest positions in government (something that atheists can’t do), they can get an education (even in private schools that teach some rigid beliefs), etc. So how are Xians today (that make up the vast majority of the US) like the Native Americans?

I find it odd that a site called “stop lying to us” is making such an incorrect comparison.

Comment by Fross — September 7, 2006 @ 4:33 pm


Fross doesn't seem to get the Christian = persecuted victim thing and just because they say "stop lying to us" does not mean they are not going to lie to themselves and lie to others.  Wake up Fross!


.

Date: 2006/09/07 12:12:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
If you Google "Intelligent Design" you'll note that the Wiki article now has the top spot in the search results.  This might be a reason for the DIs sudden interest.

Date: 2006/09/12 04:27:08, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2006,21:28)
Uncommonly Dense often leaves me in this quantum superposition state, a Clebsch-Gordon combination of the [stunned> vector and the [unstunned> vector.

Joel:

 
Quote
We deserve evil – This is a harsh statement, one that people do not want to think about, but it does ring as true. A working definition of evil is that which is a consequence of disobeying God, thus, evil is merely what we have brought upon ourselves. We deserve what we are given.

How does this work with a child dying of AIDS? How does this work with a family starving? Do they deserve such things? No, they do not deserve it, however it has occurred and we must deal with these things in the world because somewhere down the line, someone sinned. The child has AIDS because someone sinned at some point which then gave AIDS to this child. The family is starving because at some point, someone sinned.


(http://www.stoplyingtous.com/2006/why-does-god-allow-evil/#more-53)


"I agree with Joel. They deserved it!"

Did Dimbski call homeland security on joel?   And good god man joel is dumb as a fence post. I never ceases to amaze me to see the kind of ignorant morons Dimbski attracts.

Date: 2006/09/12 11:09:26, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all you should do categories in a way that does not allow someone like Dimbski to compete with ordinary tards like the church lady or tard joel.  Perhaps start with a two tier approach:

1) Professional tards (Dimbski, Behe, Wells, Fuller, etc)
2) Lay tards (Denyse, dave tard, joel tard, and other ordinary tardettes from UD)

A few categories to consider

1) Most dubious grasp of biology
2) Most dubious grasp of reality
3) Best use of truthiness
4) Best use of double speak
5) Biggest hypocrite
6) Dumbest ID related theory
7) Dumbest use of the term "Darwinism"
8) Best quote mine
9) Dumbest analogy supporting ID
10) Dumbest portrayal of ToE

Those are just a few to consider...

Date: 2006/09/12 11:17:11, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,15:43)
she's wearing her 'Christian zealot' hat. In other words, she's just parroting the kind of rhetoric she hears every Sunday, where she's told that if every good Christian just prays a lot and reeeeelly reeeeelly believes, then whatever they want can be made to happen, especially if it involves prevailing over the wicked (us).

My father used to say something like

"pray in one hand and shi* in the other, then tell me which one fills up the quickest"

That pretty much brought things down to earth right then and there for me.  Dads, where would we be without them?

Date: 2006/09/18 04:34:56, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Whatever happened to the www.overwhelmingevidence.com site that Dimbski claimed he was going to develp as a reply to Kitzmiller?   Does anyone else recall him speaking of it on UD?

Perhaps he's mislplaced all of that "overwhelming evidence"?

ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?

Date: 2006/09/18 05:32:34, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I get tired of all of the ID bashing that goes on here, especially when you realize there is a ton of evidence out there that supports ID.  Here is a sample of the overwhelming evidence that supports ID:









Feel free to post other examples of overwhelming evidence for ID in this thread.  Who knows, maybe we can change the minds of some of the Darwin cultists here.  

Long live the exotic time traveling, space alien race of reptilian (one "l" or two?) intelligent designers!



.

Date: 2006/09/18 06:21:41, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I am delighted that at least one evilutionists can admit positive evidence for intelligent design exists.  Bravo, Steve!

And look, there's more.  Can YOU tell the difference between the two images below?  Me neither!!!





Those guys at UD (and Behe) may be on to something.  Maybe we should spend more time learning about ID and less time making fun of it.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:03:11, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 18 2006,10:20)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 18 2006,09:34)
ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?

LOL :D

That was good.

Has anyone put the mother teresa sticky bun under the lense of that ID filter thingy?

Date: 2006/09/18 09:09:27, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
Someone who can still post at UD should alert Dembski to this thread, perhaps he'll want to use some of it for his www.overwhelmingevidence.com site.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:24:58, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
We should start a list of IDers who dissent from ID and see if Heddle would like to be the first one to sign it.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:55:48, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think the entire post is worthy of a copy and paste here, Heddle is right on with his criticisms of the ID movement and Sal is nothing but a weasle.

Quote
Color Me ID Cynical


I am reading Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt's new ID book: A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, (Intervarsity Press, 2006) More on this when I give a complete review later. But I will say that in an overcrowded genre full of ponderous gobbledygook, this book is a breath of fresh air.

Which is just what I need, being so deeply soured on the ID "movement." (Though not on the idea that God has left evidence of His design.) The movement, as a political enterprise, has made so many mistakes you wonder its proponents don't just disband and go home. A quick review of a very unsuccessful campaign:
"Evolution is just a theory" stickers in the text books. The purpose of which was--I don't even know. I'll speculate on their effectiveness: as for changing anyone's opinion one way or another on evolution: infinitesimal. As for pissing off the opposition, giving them something to rally around, and making Christians look like fools: very. This is independent of whether or not there is merit in the "evolution is just a theory" criticism. The tactic, in any case, was boneheaded.


The "ID is science" mantra. Except that by ordinary standards of science it isn't. The Irreducible Complexity "experiments" are really challenges: We dare evolution to explain the flagellum. This is reminiscent of a "refutation" of the four-color theorem I once saw in (I think) Scientific American for one of their famous April Fool's spoofs. A hugely complicated map was printed, and readers were challenged to try filling in the myriad of tiny, twisted shapes using only four colors. Can't do it? Q.E.D. Even the falsification experiments in the The Privileged Planet, which in my opinion is the ID book on the most solid scientific ground, don't smell like real experiments: Search for intelligent life on a planet without a large moon. This is not to say that experiments cannot be ID inspired, I believe they can be and are--in fact all experiments are ID inspired in the sense that they presuppose two facts in evidence: i) nature is orderly, i.e., governed by laws and ii) although we have no reason to expect it, it would appear that humans are able to uncover and understand these laws.


"Design can be mathematically demonstrated" except that nobody has ever actually done it, although there are plenty of excuses as to why it hasn't happened "yet." The irony here is multifaceted. Dembski's mathematics, which is touted as putting ID on solid mathematical footing, actually does nothing of the sort. His work says some interesting things applicable to genetic algorithms, but genetic algorithms resemble actual evolution (the way it is supposed to work) in only a superficial way. However, in a move analogous to leaning into rather than away from a left hook, evolutionists often proclaim genetic algorithms as a sort of proof of evolution. This lunacy then plays into Dembski's hands by extending the shelf life of his arguments which should, by now, be dead. It's all kind of crazy, when you think about it.


"ID has nothing to do with God." Yeah, right. Perhaps one place where Dembski's filter might actually work is that, just maybe, it could detect design in the composition of the ID movement. This shouldn't be all that difficult, given that the overwhelming majority of IDers are theists. Oh, the argument has a milli-ounce of merit: it's just about the design, not about the designer (and in truth is not much different from evolution saying: we don't care about abiogenesis) but this clumsy posturing looses out to the "looks, walks, and quacks like a duck" test.


"Let's get school boards to put ID in the curriculum, then fight the battle in the courts, and argue that ID is not religious (nod, nod, wink, wink) but, even if it is, then atheism is a religion too." Brilliant! That's worked real well. Not only are many scientists antagonized, but now many nonscientists are too. Perhaps the only saving grace is that these efforts have pushed enough loudmouths to Dawkinsian extremism and fundamentalism that the opposition is wasting its time fighting internal skirmishes.
The whole state of ID is in such utter disrepair the leaders of the movement should fall on their swords. (But that would necessitate abandoning a cottage industry, so that's not going to happen.)

The only thing, in my opinion, that can save ID is to acknowledge that it is not science but a science-based apologetic. Its purpose is to demonstrate that science is not incompatible with the bible and that Christians have nothing to fear: science is not the enemy anymore than archeology. Neither physics experiments nor Holy Land excavations are going to disprove God or the bible. ID, like all apologetics, should have as its primary audience believers, not unbelievers.

I have said this many times, but here is the truth, and it's worth pondering. Before the ID movement, ID ideas were discussed in classrooms. I hardly remember a physics class in college where a rabbit trail discussion about how the beauty of nature might point to a creator did not come up. The typical attitude of the professor was such that even if he wasn't a believer, he could understand how science, given that what it revealed was so amazing, might cause someone to consider that God was behind it all. Since that time, only additional marvels (such as the ever-more-rapidly-expanding universe) have been discovered. But the failed ID political movement, with its built in hero worship of rather unaccomplished non-scientists, has totally poisoned the well. I may be a minority of one, but I have to say that, as an IDer, I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders.

Date: 2006/09/21 04:14:16, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
UD lap poodle Dave Tard is blaming the mirror sites for their problems with google What a dork. and he is threatening to sue Wes.  

Two issues come to mind.  

1) The Tard doesn't understand copyright law.
2) Wes would be smart to block search engine spiders from the mirror site just to shut the super dorks at UD up.



HEY DORKS AT UD PAY ATTENTION:

When you make a claim that UD lies and changes their website to cover their lies and another sites keep mirror copies of what you say as evidence of your lies and underhanded methods (which supports the claim that UD lies), they are not breaking any copyright laws.  

If they were selling the mirror copy or benefiting financially from selling the content you'd have a claim but in this case the mirror is to pubicly prove what a bunch of liars and numbskulls you all are.  THAT is not about copyright law.  

Got that Dave Super Tard?  No? Read it again, this time read is slowly.  Now Google the term "copyright law" and start clicking.

Dimbski and his pet poodle Dave Tard make me laff.  I love it so!

Chris

Date: 2006/09/21 04:54:20, Link 199.233.178.253
Author: Mr_Christopher
I bet Dave spends more on girly magaz