Dean Esmay's Latest on ID

Who is Dean Esmay and why should I care about him?

Esmay is a rare voice of reason in this stupid war between bible thumpers and science pedants. One side says allowing ID into a classroom will cause a collapse of all that science has accomplished since the enlightenment and the other side claims that teaching naturalistic evolution is the root of all evil and will eventually lead to the collapse of all moral absolutes. Both sides are loony if they actually believe any of that crap. Esmay is absolutely right - not a damn negative (or positive) thing is going to happen from ID in the classroom. Both sides are guilty of slippery slope arguments.

My problem with this is that ID is being censored in public schools by the science establishment in various ways and just about every way stinks in some manner. I object in principle to censorship when it serves no compelling need.

By the way, the study of dogs and tandem repeats isn't really evolution. It's breeding. There's a difference in kind here, Ed, from trivial variations like skin color, nose shape, leg length, etc. within the same species to big differences like whether you have a beak or a probiscus. Do you really understand evolution, Ed?

Here's a good read on the mysterious punctuated equilibrium - it's science fiction but what the heck, macro-evolution is mostly speculation anyhow and this way you get a plot and characterization go along with the wild guesses about how it might happen. The author, Greg Bear is a physicist at UT Irvine, one helluva bright guy, and claims he put 5 years of part time research into the evolutionary science underpinning the novel. He's using endogenous retroviruses as a mechanism for rapid speciation in response to excessive environmental stress.

"Darwin's Radio" by Greg Bear

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345435249/qid=1104993687/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-1301525-6099361

I just ordered the sequel "Darwin's Children" which I haven't begun to read yet. "Darwin's Radio" was simply excellent. Bear is my favorite author.

By the way, the study of dogs and tandem repeats isn't really evolution. It's breeding.

— DaveScot

My problem with this is that ID is being censored in public schools by the science establishment in various ways and just about every way stinks in some manner.

— DaveScot

By the way, the study of dogs and tandem repeats isn't really evolution.  It's breeding.  There's a difference in kind here, Ed, from trivial variations like skin color, nose shape, leg length, etc. within the same species to big differences like whether you have a beak or a probiscus. 

— DaveScot

Oh, please. "One side says allowing ID into a classroom will cause a collapse of all that science has accomplished since the enlightenment"--this kind of misrepresentation is so typical of creationists.

I don't want to teach ID in my classroom because it is a waste of time and provides absolutely no insight into the problem. It is a pseudoscientific facade over a religious agenda, and it shouldn't be presented as if there is any scientific evidence in its support. There isn't. Come back in 20 years if you've managed to actually do some work.

Oh, and I've read Bear's book. The science in it is miserable. I'm a biologist at the UM; do you think that qualifies me as an expert in physics? Why do you people constantly act as if biology were something one can pick up in a little spare time?

PZ -- most of the creationists who argue that the collapse of civilization will occur from teaching evolution, acquired their religion in their spare time. Why shouldn't we expect them to treat all other topics the same way?

It's my experience that many people who misunderstand evolution, and therefore worry that it will cause the collapse of civilization as we know it and the extension of the designated hitter rule to the National League, are similarly ill-informed about their religion. Well, think about it: If the bacteria breed the way Darwin said they do, their religion is in danger? What the heck sort of religion do they think they have?

Why I would say breeding isn't evolution.

I equate evolution with speciation. Can you give me any example of breeding resulting in speciation? If not then it's not evolving anything but rather merely selecting among already existing traits and the isolated populations that breed true for the selected traits can just as easily revert back to the common ancestor if bred for it. There's nothing new there. Evolution implies something new.

Greg Bear's got as good a theory as anyone else on how rapid specitation (punctuated equlibrium) might occur. I notice you didn't point me anywhere for alternatives. At least pointed you -somewhere- even if you pooh poohed it out of hand.

And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think. For instance I got a 4.0 in marine biology in college by devoting ONE DAY to studying the material. I've read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time. But am I a biologist? Nope. I made my bones designing PC hardware and software where my talent at logic could be exercised to the fullest. Now that I'm financially independent and free to pursue any area of interest I want, and the 2004 election is over, I'm interested in this evolution brouhaha as it encompasses a number of my favorite subjects including politics. I spent a hundred hours or so in the past few weeks boning up on things missed in 250 issues of SciAm related to evolution. It's mostly a review though, not a learning experience. For instance I knew that DNA codons in both nuclear and mitochondrial forms didn't always code for the same amino acid out of 20 possibilities but I'd forgotten it until I visited the NIH repository where the standard coding table and exceptions are kept.

Speaking of that I've got a question - how is it that you think a codon that specified one amino acid in one species mutated to code for a different acid in another species and the mutation survived? It seems to me that a mutation at such a basic level as codon to acid translation would kill anything as it would fundamentally alter so many proteins at once survival would be impossible. This STRONGLY infers multiple lines of descent instead of the LUCA holy grail does it not?

I equate evolution with speciation.

Spelling corrections are SO robust in supporting an argument aren't they? I don't know how I manage to resist.

Look, I've got no real brook with microevolution and heritable traits within species. I have reservations about extrapolating out that perfectly good and well documented breeding mechanism within species out to ridiculous extremes like saying it accounts for cyanobacteria (did I spell that right, Flint) morphing into elephants even given 3.5 billion years especially in light of the ostensible fact that the first 3 billion of those years resulted in nothing more complex than a sponge.

The REAL problem I've got is the origin of that first cell. The combination of DNA and ribosome is a computer controlled milling machine - plain and simple. You can trust me there because that IS my professional expertise. I understand computer controlled machinery from the quantum tunneling that enables FLASH memory chips to work to the mining and refining of iron ore that go make the cutting tools to the microprocessors and instruction streams that control the operation and store the forms of the things it mills.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to blow smoke up my ass with a presumption that a machine like that arises from random mutation/selection. That's STOOOOOPID (check the spelling there Flint). If it looks like a machine that was designed for a purpose and acts like a machine designed for a purpose then any sane person first assumes it was designed for a purpose until it can proven that it wasn't designed.

Thus we get to the real issue. We know for a fact that computer controlled milling machines can be designed because we the human race have designed them. That's ONE proven way such a machine can come into existence. Until science can at least demonstrate a plausible alternative with good experimental evidence for an undirected pathway in some natural prebiotic soup (on earth is looking REALLY unlikely because 500 million years just wasn't enough time) then design is the only proven alternative pathway to something like that.

And I don't know if you keep up with astronomy and xenobiology as much as I do but recent data indicates the GHZ (galactic habitable zone) is a lot smaller and younger than previously thought - the gist of it being that planets with attributes conducive to abiogenesis are on average just 1 billion years older than earth and in no case more than 3 billion years older while estimates for the amount of time required for abiogenesis I've read in peer reviewed is 4 billion years. 500 million years on earth and 3 billion on another terrestrial world in an older solar system still doesn't quite add up to 4 billion years so panspermia is starting to look rather grim. Recent calculations of the odds of any material containing the seed of life from another solar system randomly hitting the earth are slim to none as well.

So like I said - design is a proven pathway to DNA-based life. Heck, some supernatural intelligent agents in lab coats with supernatural gene splicing machines took a poliovirus map, non-living chemical components, and assembled a more or less functional poliovirus in the Year of our Lord (hahahah, couldn't resist) 2002. The effort took 2 years. In 2003 the usual suspects accomplished the same thing in a few weeks with an esoteric bacteriophage (the name escapes me - PhiX-171???) demonstrating that the intelligent agents improve their creation game with practice.

Nothing else even remotely plausible other than design has been demonstrated to account for abiogenisis. At some point clinging to the given "all things have natural origins" becomes preposterous. We've passed preposterous in this case already. To say at this point that it happened by accident wouldn't pass the laugh test in any "science" other than neo-Darwinian evolution.

P.S.

re punctuated equilibrium and Darwin's Radio

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22darwin%27s+radio%22+%22punctuated+equilibrium%22

Start reading. That most certainly IS what Bear is speculating about.

Dave,

What's stupid is your inability to understand that any "explanation" for life on earth which depends on the existence of a group of unprecedentedly ultrapowerful "intelligent" beings for whom no evidence exists is not science. It's fantasy. Or, if you choose to worship those beings, it's religion.

Get it?

"Recent calculations of the odds of any material containing the seed of life from another solar system randomly hitting the earth are slim to none as well."

Then I guess abiogenesis most likely occurred here.

"some supernatural intelligent agents in lab coats with supernatural gene splicing machines took a poliovirus map, non-living chemical components, and assembled a more or less functional poliovirus"

Sorry, humans aren't supernatural. Sigh. Yet another disgusting Liar for Jesus trolling the Panda's Thumb?

"the intelligent agents improve their creation game with practice."

Are you saying that the aliens that most likely didn't evolve on other planets actually might have taught themselves how to create life forms from scratch and then they proceeded to design and create all the life forms that ever lived on earth?

Wow.

Since you've thought you've so much about this, perhaps you can tell me (1) how long it must have taken to create a chicken from scratch, (2) how long it took to create the sum total of all the life forms that ever lived on earth, (3) when this took place, and (4) provide me some evidence that it actually happened (as opposed to your evidently LSD-inspired conjectures).

It shouldn't take you long to determine the limiting parameters. Perhaps you could write some software to help you out.

Is anyone going to step up to the plate and fathom a guess at my question of how the organisms with deviations from the standard codon->acid translation table managed to survive the mutation?

Here's a link to the organisms (the ones known to date, anyhow) with deviations:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=t#SG12

Let me help you get started with a link to some attempts to explain it:

http://www.evolvingcode.net/code_red.php

Is anyone going to step up to the plate and fathom a guess at my question of how the organisms with deviations from the standard codon->acid translation table managed to survive the mutation?

Great White Hope,

What's with this depends on superintelligent unprecendentedly powerful crap? That's a strawman. You're running right down through the list of logical fallacies trying to defend this dead horse. I hesitate to point out each instance of fallacy out of concern for how much time and space it will take up.

I merely posit the possibility (not the dependence upon) of design. The source of design is unknown and I have no data upon which to base a characterization about it other than it needn't be anymore than superintelligent than you given the state of the art today in genetic engineering. Ok, maybe more intelligent than you but not a lot more. Ok, maybe a lot more than you but not more than some of the brighter members of h. sapiens sapiens.

I don't have a religious bone in my body by the way. That's yet another strawman you've trotted out. (See how space consuming pointing out your flaws is?) I've been agnostic since as far back as I can recall. My parents were agnostics and probably unlike you I knew both of them and wasn't an abused child.

You also seem to have decided penchant for reductio ad absurdum in your arguments. I can't imagine this shortcoming hasn't been pointed out to you many times just in the past day but if not then chalk up one time for today. That's even lamer than strawmen, GWH. I'm trying real hard to just ignore it because it really doesn't deserve acknowledgement.

"The source of design is unknown and I have no data upon which to base a characterization about it other than it needn't be anymore than superintelligent"

Did I say superintelligent? Nope.

Another lie from the diseased mouth of a pathetic rube.

Yes, I'm counting them.

"I don't have a religious bone in my body by the way. That's yet another strawman you've trotted out."

Did I say you were religious? Nope. Another lie. I asked if you were religious because, sadly, most people who make silly creationist arguments are religious. But others claim not to be. You fall into the latter category. DaveScot, meet Charlie Wagner.

Now, onto the "substance" of your post in which you once again refused to answer the questions posed to you, the obvious questions which you should have been prepared for after your little lecture on the rates at which humans allegedly "designed" and "created" two viruses.

"The source of design is unknown and I have no data upon which to base a characterization about it"

Really? None whatsoever? So it a correct statement of your position that alien beings with no additional intelligence and no additional powers beyond those presently known to be possessed by human beings could have designed and created from scratch all of the life forms that ever lived on earth?

If that is incorrect, please clarify yourself, keeping in mind the characterization of the alleged designers which I proferred and you disparaged. Also, it would be nice if you apologized for your inarticulate comments.

If my statement of your position is correct, then tell me how long it took and when it might have happened.

Thanks.

Great White Hype,

Ummm... go read the link before you embarrass yourself further.

Here it is again:

http://www.evolvingcode.net/code_red.php

The source of design is unknown and I have no data upon which to base a characterization about it other than it needn't be anymore than superintelligent

I don't have a religious bone in my body by the way. That's yet another strawman you've trotted out.

The source of design is unknown and I have no data upon which to base a characterization about it

Great White Hope asks:

"So it a correct statement of your position that alien beings with no additional intelligence and no additional powers beyond those presently known to be possessed by human beings could have designed and created from scratch all of the life forms that ever lived on earth?"

No. A correct statement is that I presume that the apparent purposeful design in the DNA/ribosome machinery might indeed be just what it appears to be - a purposeful design. The nature of the designer is a mystery. Got it? A mystery. That doesn't negate the appearance of design nor does it negate the lack of a plausible explanation for how it came about without design. I'm willing to entertain any plausible notions of how the apparent design came about without a designer. So far I have seen nothing plausible but being open minded about these sorts of things, unlike you I might add, I don't rule out a naturalistic cause but at this time that's as much as mystery as the nature of the possible designer.

This should all be intuitive even for a schlepper such as you if you just drop the presupposition that the origin of life must have a non-design explanation. If you consider the possibility of design it should all fall into place without further need to explain myself.

Is it really that difficult for you to alter the non-design dogma that's been taught to you? The problem of teaching neo-Darwinism to children as rote fact might be worse than I imagine if so. How old are you anyhow?

Spelling corrections are SO robust in supporting an argument aren't they?

I presume that the apparent purposeful design in the DNA/ribosome machinery might indeed be just what it appears to be - a purposeful design. The nature of the designer is a mystery. Got it? A mystery. That doesn't negate the appearance of design

My problem with this is that ID is being censored in public schools by the science establishment in various ways and just about every way stinks in some manner.

The nature of the designer is a mystery. Got it? A mystery.

I equate evolution with speciation.  Can you give me any example of breeding resulting in speciation?

— DaveScot

If not then it's not evolving anything but rather merely selecting among already existing traits and the isolated populations that breed true for the selected traits can just as easily revert back to the common ancestor if bred for it. There's nothing new there. 

Greg Bear's got as good a theory as anyone else on how rapid specitation (punctuated equlibrium) might occur.  I notice you didn't point me anywhere for alternatives.  At least pointed you -somewhere- even if you pooh poohed it out of hand.

And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn.  I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150.  If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think. 

Speaking of that I've got a question - how is it that you think a codon that specified one amino acid in one species mutated to code for a different acid in another species and the mutation survived? 

This STRONGLY infers multiple lines of descent instead of the LUCA holy grail does it not?

Is anyone going to step up to the plate and fathom a guess at my question of how the organisms with deviations from the standard codon->acid translation table managed to survive the mutation?

Flint - go ahead and correct my spelling errors. It'll make us both believe you have a useful purpose and it'll save me time. I don't reread what I write. If I did I'd never be satisified with it and wouldn't be able to churn out the volume I need in environments like this when it's me against a veritable hoard of you. I have to sleep sometime and that sometime is now so if you'll excuse me I'm going to have to ignore you for a little while. But don't worrry, you repeat the same mantras over and over so I'll eventually get a reply out to you when you inevitably repeat what I'm not going to read tonight or probably ever on this particular thread. Same goes for double for Great White Hype. Apologies to others who aren't demanding so much from me. TTFN.

hu bris(hyu' bris) n "And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think. For instance I got a 4.0 in marine biology in college by devoting ONE DAY to studying the material. I've read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time. But am I a biologist? Nope. I made my bones designing PC hardware and software where my talent at logic could be exercised to the fullest. Now that I'm financially independent and free to pursue any area of interest I want, and the 2004 election is over, I'm interested in this evolution brouhaha as it encompasses a number of my favorite subjects including politics. I spent a hundred hours or so in the past few weeks boning up on things missed in 250 issues of SciAm related to evolution. It's mostly a review though, not a learning experience. For instance I knew that DNA codons in both nuclear and mitochondrial forms didn't always code for the same amino acid out of 20 possibilities but I'd forgotten it until I visited the NIH repository where the standard coding table and exceptions are kept."

AHAHAHAHA. I love it. Run from all the hard questions Dave! They're coming for you! Might have to climb down from your cross first though.

Nope. I made my bones designing PC hardware and software where my talent at logic could be exercised to the fullest.

— DaveScot

Nope. I made my bones designing PC hardware and software where my talent at logic could be exercised to the fullest.

— DaveScot

Kristjan:

My experience is that you don't need to worry in this regard. I've worked with plenty of engineers who are rigorously logical, demanding empirical evidence and logical reasoning, *except* where their beliefs where challenged. There is a clear, unbreachable, unambiguous wall between their normal thinking process and their beliefs, a kind of blind spot. When logic, however inadvertently, wanders into that blind spot, it simply vanishes. I speculate that such beliefs live in an entirely emotional, hindbrain zone, impervious to reasoning.

This seems particularly true of engineers (though this may be due to my own parochial experience), because engineers tend to pride themselves on good practical hands-on knowledge and experience, backed by lots of math and logic. So they tend to couch their faiths in engineering terms, and simply cannot see that they are not drawing conclusions based on data, but rather starting with a non-negotiable faith and producing a rationalization using familiar terminology. Outside the blind spot, they can and do perform excellently as engineers.

As Mike observes, a common response after discussion has stripped away the defensive barriers, is to simply drop the subject and run, only to turn up later on another thread repeating the same catechism as though the previous embarrassment never happened. One is reminded of Duane Gish, occasionally backed into a corner and forced to admit he knew his statement was false, then repeating the identical statement at the next debate. DaveScot is praying and preaching, just using his own language to do so.

Just a little bit for the Greg Bear critics here. I don't have the time or patience to respond to the rest of the flood directed at me here. Everyone wants a piece of my ass it seems and there ain't enough to go around. Sorry. This happens a lot. I can stir up a controversy like no one else. A really great mechanism for that is bragging about my IQ. LOL! I play you like fiddles.

Anyhow:

Review of Bear's "Darwin's Radio" by Michael A. Goldman published in NATURE.

http://www.gregbear.com/A55885/Bear.nsf/pages/300040

Michael A. Goldman bio

http://online.sfsu.edu/~mgoldman/cv.html

Peabody Veterans Memorial High School, June 1972, magna cum laude, Peabody, MA 01960.

Bachelor of Arts in Biology, University of Rochester, May, 1976, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, Rochester, NY 14627.

Ph.D., Biological Sciences, Purdue University, 1981, W. Lafayette, IN 47907.

Post-doctoral fellow, Medical Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, 1982-1983, Houston, TX 77030.

Senior fellow, Medical Genetics, University of Washington, 1984-1988, Seattle, WA 98195.

--lots more at link

Har har hardy har har

Davescot, one of the problems with creationist engineers trying to critique the work of biologists, to the frustration of both, is the engineers' insistence on two-valued logic: yes/no, it works or doesn't. Another one is the creationist engineers' insistence on jumping into a problem without a solid grounding in the basics.

In fact, almost nothing in Biology is 100.0000%. There is always sloppiness and redundancy: natural misreading of codons, most mutations aren't immediately deadly, etc. Gerald Edelman has suggested that this is an inherent property of biological, i.e., evolving, systems.

If you are really as smart and rich as you claim, how about actually learning some Biology? Take some courses (start at the beginning, please, and work your way up). Then start reading the literature in the field. Scientific American is a wonderful magazine, but it's not a primary or even a secondary source.

Right Dave, no time or patientce to actually answer any of the reasonable questions posed to you. Sure thing.

You haven't stirred up any sort of "controversy". All you've done is stir up derisive laughter at your nonsensical arguments.

Quoth Dr. Goldman

"Most of us believe that simple, incremental changes in allele frequencies, driven by the forces of genetic drift, mutation, recombination, migration and natural selection, are enough to explain evolution from adaptation to speciation, to the origin of higher taxa. There is no compelling evidence to the contrary, but neither is there compelling evidence in favour of the idea; we simply haven't observed or catalogued the forces and changes that create new species."

Hmmmm... no compelling evidence. Oops. I guess the eminent and highly accomplished and widely published geneticist Dr. Goldman must be a, what was the phrase Great White Hope used, Liar for Jesus to have uttered such heresy as there's no compelling evidence to support what most biologists believe are the mechanisms behind speciation. I guess you environmentalist boys must take these things on faith, faith being the belief in things for which there is no evidence.

ROFLMAO! I feel like I'm kicking puppies here. Your beliefs have so many holes - what a target rich environment for an antagonist like me.

Who needs courses in the internet age? I'm an autodidact.

And when I independently arrive at the same conclusions of someone like Dr. Goldman (cited above) that there's no compelling evidence to support the widely held beliefs about the mechanisms behind speciation it just reinforces my confidence in my autodidactic capabilities. This is nothing new for me. I find myself in independent agreement with remarkable intellectual persons all the time. Great minds think alike. There don't seem to be many great minds posting commentary on Panda's Thumb, unfortunately. Maybe Dr. Goldman has a blog but I doubt it. He seems like he's too busy actually getting things done in his field to waste time with the likes of the people defending the defenseless on this blog.

Anyhow, if you want to argue about the "overwhelming evidence" supporting speciation take it up with Dr. Gold. I'm deferring the matter to his expertise which appears vastly superior to anyone engaging me here.

Was that your compelling evidence for ID?

A really great mechanism for that is bragging about my IQ. LOL! I play you like fiddles.

Whether you read it to pass a cold, snowy night by the fire, or to free your mind for the new paradigms that will emerge in the next millennium, I promise you an engaging journey.

If we can use the DNA molecule to carry out calculations in ways that were unimaginable just ten years ago, is it impossible to believe that nature has used the same molecules to encode instructions about instructions we do not yet understand?

Darwin's Radio, no matter how preposterous or prophetic one thinks the science, is superb 'hard' science fiction, speculating about the connections among well-known facts.

More food for (outside the box) thought for you boys.

Nature 424, 726 - 727 (14 August 2003);

Living with the Neanderthals

MICHAEL A.GOLDMAN

"Science, the ultimate arbiter of truth, is still stained by the imperfections of human nature. We sometimes think we have all the answers. But the preposterous ideas of yesterday are the unshakeable dogmas of today, and the ancient superstitions of tomorrow. Science is driven by politics, and politics by fear."

This Goldman guy knows WTF he is talking about. Recall previously I told you boys that technical superiority of products (hypothesis and theories are products of the mind) often isn't the deciding factor in determining the winners. I said that marketing and political clout are more often the major determinants of success. Marketing and political clout is what's going to put ID into classrooms. You boys are mostly stuck arguing that the technical flaws in ID must doom it but that's just not how the real world works. You must live very sheltered lives. Prof. Goldman evidently lives in the real world and isn't afraid to talk about it.

Great White Hype,

Are you accusing Dr. Goldman of using illegal recreational drugs?

Maybe you're just projecting. Yes, I think that must be it. That fits all the facts.

You boys are mostly stuck arguing that the technical flaws in ID must doom it but that's just not how the real world works.

"Science, the ultimate arbiter of truth, is still stained by the imperfections of human nature. We sometimes think we have all the answers. But the preposterous ideas of yesterday are the unshakeable dogmas of today, and the ancient superstitions of tomorrow."

Are you accusing Dr. Goldman of using illegal recreational drugs?

Greg Bear's nonexistent retrovirus is what Alfred Hitchcock referred to as a McGuffin - a plot device necessary to get the story rolling. Most of Bear's novel, as with most novels, is concerned with interpersonal relationships among his characters. Bear is regarded as a "hard" science writer because if one is willing to accept a single preposterous McGuffin, the rest of the story presumably flows according to how the real world actually works. Compare to fantasy, where magic simply works and no scientistic doubletalk is considered necessary. This isn't one of Bear's better novels, and I'd recommend "Eon" as one of his better efforts.

As for DaveScot, his inability to respond to serious questions disqualifies him from further consideration. Watching him and GWW call each other names had limited entertainment value when the show began.

This Goldman guy knows WTF he is talking about. Recall previously I told you boys that technical superiority of products (hypothesis and theories are products of the mind) often isn't the deciding factor in determining the winners. I said that marketing and political clout are more often the major determinants of success. Marketing and political clout is what's going to put ID into classrooms. You boys are mostly stuck arguing that the technical flaws in ID must doom it but that's just not how the real world works. You must live very sheltered lives. Prof. Goldman evidently lives in the real world and isn't afraid to talk about it.

GWH - I see you took to heart my advice that the best way to fight ID is by equating it with Raelian beliefs instead of Christian.

Good laddie (lassie?). I was beginning to wonder if I was wasting my time with you.

The logic in the Raelian strategy is very simple but you have to think about the politics instead of the science. And you have to have a sound bite not a stack of books to make your case before the voters (voters in this case being school boards).

You might feel you're the master of your domain (and I'm sure you are in a Seinfeldian way if no other) surrounded by your peers and/or mentors who hold the same beliefs you do but in fact in the larger world where the ID-in-the-classroom thing will get decided you're in a small minority. The majority of interest is Christians (80% of population in U.S.) who aren't scientists and aren't going to spend much if any time learning the prior art in evolutionary science(s). Neither do they think like scientists or use the scientific method. The wedgies seem to be a lot more politically savvy in this regard.

The issue you care about, ID in the classroom, will be decided by the voters sooner or later. So the stupidest thing you could do is offend a big fraction of the voters. I see ACLU lawyers trying to frame IDers as holocaust deniers. That's so politically incorrect it's almost like calling them slave owners. Very boneheaded. Not a way to make friends and influence people. Insulting the belief that Christians have in a bearded thunderer that created the heavens and the earth isn't going to make you Mr. Popular either if you get my drift and I think you do.

There is a minority you can safely offend without being politically incorrect and that would be people like me who're willing to entertain the thinking that Erich von Daniken exploited for a fortune in book and film royalties - i.e. little green men from outer space are responsible for making us.

Most Christian non-scientists aren't afraid to acknowledge a belief in God in public but they aren't going to want to acknowledge that their creator might ride around in a flying saucer. They aren't going to like the Raelian-like belief taught as a possibility to their children in school either.

If I were a Christian non-scientist sitting on the board of a public school in an open meeting (you know about federal open meeting laws) and you were a concerned citizen getting your $0.02 sound bite on the record saying that ID is teaching your child that LGM in flying saucers might have created mankind I'd have to think long and hard about whether I wanted to be known as the board member that voted the flying saucer platform.

Now don't say I never gave you anything.

The issue you care about, ID in the classroom, will be decided by the voters sooner or later.

So the stupidest thing you could do is offend a big fraction of the voters.

GWH - I see you took to heart my advice that the best way to fight ID is by equating it with Raelian beliefs instead of Christian.

The real crux of the issue is that the science community is understandably reluctant to admit that what they've been heralding as proven fact (naturalistic origin & evolution) for 150 years might not be fact after all. They're afraid of the loss of credibility and not enough soap in the world to remove all the egg from their faces.

This discussion seems to have broken down to a shouting match. This is too bad, but predictable with comments such as "And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think.." offered as arguments.

BTW DaveScot, I have scored rather higher than +3 sigma while half-tanked on my favorite adult beverage. Does this mean I "win?" What do I win? I have no doubt that most contributors to PT are highly intelligent, and so appeals to "IQ" seem rather petulant.

A final observation is that use of profanity will cause many public school, and other publicly available computer systems to block Panda's Thumb. Great White Wonder seems to be a particularly frequent user of profanity. I would ask that you stop this as it will prevent many students from accessing our website.

Great White Wonder seems to be a particularly frequent user of profanity. I would ask that you stop this as it will prevent many students from accessing our website.

Consider it an opportunity for creative writing. For example one I like to employ is, "Might I remind _____ to periodically remove their head from the "special warm place" they call home and take a breath of fresh air."