Send in the clowns

In 5, I think you mean "poor citizens of Kansas," and yep, this will be a real circus. There's about $20,000 or so of taxpayer money that will be spent on these guys.

KCFS and other organizations and individuals are working on a response to all this, and should have some announcements in a week or so. It will be an interesting month here - feel free to come join us. :-)

STUDENT: I have a question - When I look at people, they look designed to me. I also hear there is a lot of evidence that confirms my intuition. Some chemists say that physical and chemical laws can't account for biological information. Biochemists say many biological systems are irreducibly complex. Mathematicians say it is statistically impossible for the first cell to have been assembled out of nothing. Geologists say that the fossil record shows life appearing abruptly rather than gradually. Astronomers say the Universe is so finely tuned that if you just changed one constant by a smidgen, we wouldn't be here. So, isn't there a lot of evidence that we might be designed?

TEACHER: Science is the activity of seeking only natural explanations of what we see. These guys are inferring design from the evidence. Scientists aren't allowed to do that. You are not allowed to discuss the possibility of intelligent design.

Thanks Jack, I fixed that typo -- KCFS on the brain, I fear.

PS for readers: see the previous post PT searched on "Kansas" for previous updates on this issue. In particular, Nature: Biologists snub 'kangaroo court' for Darwin shows what the reaction from the mainstream scientific community has been.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't we get the state legislature decide to hold a statewide popular vote on the ID/evolution issue a year or so hence, that way both camps on the ID/evolution debate can race to get their followers to establish residency in the state, and whichever camp gets the most people to occupy the state of Kansas by vote time wins.

What could possibly go wrong?

[/sarcasm]

Hmm, looks like they left the eminently qualifed Prof. Steve Steve of the list. What is the Kansas BOE afraid of?

"...that way both camps on the ID/evolution debate can race to get their followers to establish residency in the state, and whichever camp gets the most people to occupy the state of Kansas by vote time wins."

hmm. you may want to take a look at this... you aren't the first to think of it!

http://christianexodus.org/

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I swear, somebody has been inbreeding too much or something.

cheers

No lineup would be complete without Hovind! It seems to be the list's gaping hole

2. Put on a pointless show trial which will be boycotted by most/all real experts on evolution

By the end of the evening, it was clear that the controversy was not about defending empirical science from biblical fundamentalism. Scientifically, what little evidence was presented challenged Darwinian evolution and favored intelligent design; philosophically, Darwinian evolution was shown to have as many implications for religion as intelligent design; and legally, teaching Darwinism while excluding other views in state-supported schools could not be justified on First Amendment grounds. Ignoring these considerations, a panelist who had the last word concluded that Darwinian evolution deserves its privileged status because it is the consensus of biologists. This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin's theory. (The scientist on the pro-Darwin side was a psychologist.) I later learned that Washburn University biologists had been invited to participate, but declined because they didn't want to provide a platform for creationism. They thereby reflected a nationwide tendency among Darwinians to demonize their critics rather than deal with the issues. They also made it clear that a "consensus" exists only because Darwinians refuse to tolerate any dissent. As the Washburn roundtable discussion showed, however, the strategy of sweeping the controversy under the rug is not working. The public clearly saw that there are important unanswered questions here. First, is the biological evidence more consistent with Darwinian evolution or intelligent design? If the latter, is it proper for Darwinians to decide the matter in their favor by redefining "science" to exclude design? Second, does Darwinian evolution have religious implications? If so, are state-supported institutions acting unconstitutionally when they teach Darwinism to the exclusion of other views? These are serious questions for empirical science and constitutional government. Pretending they do not exist will not make them go away.

Fly in these folks from all over the world --- a collection of scientists outside their fields, non-scientists, and straight-up cranks.

5. Provoking another round of international scorn and ridicule for the poor citizens of Kansas

Of ccourse Sermonti must be a fool. After all he published 6 of my papers. Don't forget to add that to the list of reasons to discount him folks.

Giuseppe Sermonti is a fine scholar, a tolerant man and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of evolutionary science. I am sure his words will be taken very seriously indeed.

FL

Your comments and opinion are welcome. Thank you. But please do not identify evolutionists with Darwinians as your terminal sentence might suggest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism, the biggest hoax in recorded history.

John A. Davison

After all, it wouldn't look good for alleged "real experts on evolution" to come out second best against mere "clowns" and "pseudoscientists" in a public matchup, nope nope. Safety first, you know!

This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin's theory.

— Jonathan Wells

Perhaps it's because of the success in Ohio not too long ago.

For those who might want to take a look at the big long string of court losses by creationists and IDers, see:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/legal.htm

A friend of mine offered a great metaphor for people like Wells - he called them "scientific vandals." They're like people who throw a brick throught a window, in five seconds making a mess that takes hours to clean up.

That the creationists have resorted to this subversion should surprise none of us, for the ethical poverty of their actions matches the intellectual poverty of their beliefs.

Hence the strategy of ducking, hiding, and otherwise taking a powder on this public opportunity to engage these non-Darwinist PhD-level scientists and scholars at the upcoming hearings.

— FL

I can't believe JAD didn't make the cut! I'd really feel much better about this whole thing if he were on the list. After he's done making the iron-clad case for ID, he could put in a few words for his revolutionary Proscribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Shall we petition the Committee to add his name, or just correct their oversight ourselves, pass the hat around and buy him a plane ticket?

Ely, Peltzer, Sermonti, Thaxton, Seelky, Carlson, Minnich, Harris

I Googled the heck out of Bruce Simat, putatively a teacher of some kind at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota, because that's the school I graduated from (with degrees in Bible, Sociology, and Communications). It took me almost 20 years to unlearn to utter nonsense that was passed off as biology at that school. I must say, my "biology" professor was one of the nicest people I've ever known, but the entire course was one long creationism apologetic--nothing more. Same with the school's "earth science," which was pure flood geology. Northwestern College is a small fundamentalist school with a popular Christian radio station, the patronage of Rose Totino (who became a millionaire selling pizzas), and the distinction of having Billy Graham as its president for a couple of years several decades ago. To paraphrase a Gospel passage (can't let that Bible degree go utterly to waste), "Can any good science come out of Northwestern College?"

I will simply point out here that in the only place where the "debate" REALLY matters, in court, the creationists/IDers have lost.

— Lenny Flank

Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates. They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

I'm against the idea of scientists participating in this kangaroo court, but if they did, I think it would be fun to match up the credentials of the IDers person-for-person (but obviously only the science credentials, not the, like, philosophers of education or whatever) with folks off the Project Steve list. All the "best and brightest" IDers in the world against just those real scientists named "Steve."

Bruce Simat, PhD Biochemistry and Human Physiology, Associate Professor North Western College, St. Paul, MN Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Daniel Ely, PhD Professor of Biology, University of Akron, specializing in cardiovascular physiology Department of Biology, University of Akron Date ofanticipated testimony: May 6

Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Genoa), one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world; retired Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Michael Behe, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Biochemistry Lehigh University, Author of Darwin's Black Box Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Ralph Seelke, PhD Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin - Superior Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Robert Disilvestro, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Nutrition, Ohio State University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Russell Carlson, PhD Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Georgia Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 University of Georgia Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Scott Minnich, PhD Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

William S. Harris, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory, St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City, MO Date of anticipated testimony

RPM wrote: Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates. They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

GWW wrote: Creationists' contempt for lab work and peer-reviewed publication is well-documented.

@JAD:

I must admit, I had never taken the time previously to examine your publications, and how they have "evolved" (no pun intended) over the years.

However, As i read through:

AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO:
A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE

I was struck by one particular line in section II-1, which for me at least, is the core by which to measure all subsequent postulates from yourself:

"A second alternative view is Creationism. Here caution must be
observed. While it is true that the existence of a Creator, while
a logical necessity, has never been rigorously proved and perhaps
never can be..."

How can you call yourself a student of evolutionary theory, and purport to having logical grounds to challenge it, while postulating that there is a "logical necessity" for a Creator, a priori?

Indeed, if you purport yourself to be a scientist, how would one even approach rigorously proving the existence of a creator to begin with, using the scientific method?

ask yourself, why should ANYONE who subscribes to the scientific method, even bother to continue taking you seriously, when you have laid such untestable assumptions at the base of your "new hypothesis".

You should be ashamed. You are simply continuing the trend towards the betrayal of science and reason that has become so commonplace in the last 20 years or so. It's obvious that intelligence has little to do with logic.

I can only ask myself: Are you THAT unsure of your own faith that you seek to project it into areas where it is innapropriate?

I'm sure I am not the first to raise this point, and I hope i won't be the last.

If you want to do your faith a service, stop trying to pretend it works to explain the world around us.

Go back and re-read the book of Job. You seem to have missed a lesson there.

In the meantime, I would say your sermons are better served in a church, but even there, they are too misleading to be appropriate.

no cheers, big raspberry instead.

I'm in the process of doing brief web biographies of the clowns. You can see what I have so far here. I'd be happy to get useful info to include.

He's [Seelke] one of the few (only?) people trying to study ID using laboratory experiments.  For that, we must give him some credit.  I'll leave it for another place/time/person to discuss the credibility of his research design and/or findings.

— RPM

He's a nutritional biochemist (what is it with chemists & biochemists and understanding evolution?)...

"As things are there's the republican govt in the US (or at least some elements anyway) can be seen as anti-science."

CAN BE???? your kidding right? It is well documented that the current administration has done more to twist science than perhaps ANY previous US administration in history. Here is just one of the MANY sites documenting the betrayal of science and reason that is the Bush white house:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

make no mistake, those of us who acknowledge and utilize the scientific method are under direct attack by those who are deluding themselves that they believe in "common sense", and by those who would use that ignorance to further their own aims (whether they really believe in the parsimony that is science or not).

I'm not pointing out anything new here, you can read Paul Ehrlich's book:

Betrayal of Science and Reason - How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens our Future

which was published in 1996, to see a good consesus of where the battle lines are being drawn and recognize that things are getting worse, not better, since then.

In fact, the mere re-election of GW shows at least the lack of concern of the average citizen for what the administration truly represents, and a growing number of folks actually support the administration's approach to science in general. while certainly not the primary reason in most folks minds as to why they voted one way or the other, it behooves us all to be aware of that, and make others aware as well.

It's like a growing portion of the population has simply decided to shoot their nose off to spite their face.

very frustrating.

cheers

Russell Carlson, a professor at my university, is one of the names on the list. I've discussed the failures of intelligent design in his presence before and he was very silent through it. He did agree that "sentient design" was a better name for what the IDists were trying to establish.

I'm in the process of doing brief web biographies of the clowns. You can see what I have so far here. I'd be happy to get useful info to include.

Sorry to belabor a point, but it seems to me that the drive to promote "cretionism" by those who claim to be driven by science all stems from one critical point, expounded in the bio of one of the folks on the list, Angus Menuge:

"I still lacked an intellectual foundation for my faith"

there it is. IMO, the driving force behind all of this creationism as science nonsense. As far as I can tell, all of the angst that drives these folks simply springs from their inability to resolve their religious belief structures with simple logic, and the thought processes that enable them to do things like physics and chemistry.

My problem is that they make the rest of us suffer their "crises of faith" while they attempt to project their angst onto the world at large in an attempt to relieve the paradox they have created in their own minds.

I wish these folks would just get over themselves; their crises of faith is best solved internally, not externally.

We don't need to invent new theories to deal with this angst; there are already counselors available to deal with psychological paradoxes. I highly suggest, for all of us, that the folks that promote creationism and still call themselves scientists avail themselves of this resource.

cheers

CAN BE???? your kidding right?

while certainly not the primary reason in most folks minds as to why they voted one way or the other, it behooves us all to be aware of that, and make others aware as well.

Thomas Jefferson: The success of a democratic society depends upon an "informed and educated" populace.

Nobody is studying evolution directly because evolution is no longer taking place. There are no experts on evolutionary mechanisms because those mechanisms are no longer operative. You see phylogeny, like ontogeny is a self-limiting processs which is quite finished. To assume otherwise is without foundation. Mendelian (sexual) genetics is entirely anti-evolutionary and serves only to stabilize the species, something William Bateson realized 80 years ago.

Neither the ID crowd nor the Darwinian mystics want anything to do with me because I refuse to postulate mysterious forces (like Natural Selection) but insist only on what the facts absolutely demand which is that life was probably created many many times and each creation involved front loading those forms with all the necessary information to bring that series to its ultimate expression. The precise number of such creations remains unknown but we know with absolute certainty that chance never played a role in any of them any more than it does in the differentiation of each fertlized egg into the adult organism which that egg specifies even before its first cell division. Ontogeny and phylogeny are part of the same organic continuum and both have proceeded by means of an internally controlled derepression of prescribed, front-loaded information, a process in which chance and the environment generally played no demonstrable role.

As for the Darwinian myth not a single element of which has any validity:

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

uh, Lenny Frank?

Snopes lost in '25. the creationists won that one all those years ago.

the sentence (a $100 fine) was overturned on a technicality, but the appeal did nothing to the nature of the decision itself or to the law which Snopes was charged under.

most of the court cases where creationism was recognized for what it is have happened since the 1950s.

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true." Bertrand Russell

— John A. Davison

JAD:

Did you actually type that, or just cut-n-past from your previous rants? Really, it's amazing how repetive these posts are.

Back on topic: I found some info on Sermonti over at "stranger fruit".

http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=246

Enjoy.

Sermonti has wrote for Answers in Genesis. This pretty much removes any credibility from him in one swift stroke. Marvellous.

"I'm a Kiwi"

hmm, a few years back, i had a gut instinct that it was time to move to the land of sheep. I see now that the instinct was well founded.

I'm waiting for some neocon to get so pissed off at me, that he actually gives me cash to move out of "his" United States.

several sites have posted interest in doing so, but none have put their money where their mouth is, not surprisingly since they are all sound and fury anyway.

here is an example:

http://nationalreview.com/moore/moore200411170839.asp

I wrote to the author and asked for a contribution to get to NZ (along with a scathing rebuke of himself and his article), but no response was forthcoming.

oh well, guess I'll keep on having to step on the religious right's toes.

cheers

p.s. have you heard that song, "Suddenly New Zealand" (at least I think that's what it's called. here's a link just in case:

http://www.bacchus-marsh.com/files/SNZ.mp3

If I recall correctly, Warren Nord is not a professor at UNC but a lecturer. After the Thomas More Law Center listed him as an expert witness for the Dover PA case when it goes to trial, I looked him up at his department's website. They listed him as a lecturer. A minor point but given the long standing credential inflating of IDC folks, it's worth noting.

stunning. I looked at the list of early publications by John A. Davison. You can't be the same person. You must be an alien plant, sent to confuse us into thinking that illogic is logic. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL JOHN A. DAVISON, YOU ALIEN SCUM!

...Posted by John A. Davison on April 6, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

right, so all the studies that can demonstrate mechanism and speciation over the last several decades simply don't exist.

got it. my brain is cleared of that baggage, thanks for setting me straight!

well, they certainly aren't in your mind, obviously. I happen to know several experts on said subject that is supposedly no longer operative, and continue to contribute significantly to the literature and our understanding, which you, as an obvious alien plant, do not.

hmm. with that in mind, i suppose a prediction would be that sex serves to reduce genetic variablity, instead of increase it. funny, every single study of genetic variability i have ever looked at in wild populations shows the exact opposite, and it is only logical to start off assuming this should be so, as you point out, since Lamarckism is debunk. Convincing us poor humans that variability is "unnatural" would be exactly what i would expect from an alien species intent on wiping us out with a single contagion.

refuse to postulate mysterious forces??? like god you mean, that you postulate as "a logical necessity"?

yeah sure, after you damn aliens managed to wipe out all life and attempted to reseed so many times. even after so many attempts, selection ended up producing us poor undesireable logical scientists. so now you want to set us up for annhiliation again! admit it!

yup, just keep repeating that mantra to yourself. even you might eventually believe it someday.

If you aren't an alien, you are the most self-deluded "scientist" I have ever seen write a sentence.

<"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell

How do you like them apples?>

if you can't see the irony in using that quote to "support" your own argument, you are either an alien, or have completely shut your mind down, in which case i highly suggest psycho-therapy.

Convince me you are not an alien bent on world domination, and i will email you the contact info for a few good therapists i know.

hmm, a few years back, i had a gut instinct that it was time to move to the land of sheep.

Re "Russell Carlson, a professor at my university, is one of the names on the list. I've discussed the failures of intelligent design in his presence before and he was very silent through it. He did agree that "sentient design" was a better name for what the IDists were trying to establish."

I think "design" should be replaced by "engineer". Calling it "design" makes it sound like the engineering aspect isn't important or something.

---

Re "They usually know about the system that they work on (maybe a protein or cellular system) but have usually had no exposure to any other kind of biology. Certainly not subjects like ecology, organismal biology, and, you know, evolution."

Hmm - wonder if that could explain a certain author of a certain book(s)?

Henry

ROFL!!!

oop, above laughter directed at:

"Maybe the judicious use of rubber bands may help solve the problem here in the states"

still trying to contain myself.

What I find interesting is the omission of Paul Nelson from this whopping list. Maybe the DI doesn't want Nelson to tell the Kansas BOE that he doesn't yet think ID rates as a theory and isn't ready to be taught to schoolkids?

Paul Nelson will be busy collecting his Scientist of the Year prize from Tom Delay.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=643826

As always, Thoughts from Kansas is your source for all things Kansas evolution.

I'm profiling these wackos as time goes by. I've got a bunch up there, starting here.

What I find interesting is the omission of Paul Nelson from this whopping list.

uh, Lenny Frank? Snopes lost in '25. the creationists won that one all those years ago.

Lenny Flank wrote: I will simply point out here that in the only place where the "debate" REALLY matters, in court, the creationists/IDers have lost. Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates. They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

Perhaps a Freudian slip, but the Snopeses were characters in Faulkner's novels. Pretty much the very archetype of the current creationists. As for the spelling of the Rev Dr's name, I assume that was just a typo.

Reed Cartwright lamented that the Kansas BOE omitted Dr. Steve Steve. They also omitted another learned scholar who would undoubtedly have much to offer, the Wizard of Oz. It seems that the Wizard could enliven the hearing with some of his green smoke, roaring flames and stentorian voice to go along with the other witnesses' fire and brimstone.

On a more serious note, I see that these witnesses are all scheduled for May 5, 6 & 7, leaving May 12, 13 & 14 open. I suppose they're reserving those days for those opposing the minority report. Given that no real biologists will be appearing then, what will the committee likely do? Any clues, yet? Perhaps, Jack Krebs will give us a preview. Whatever else the KCFS does, they should at least produce a playbill with profiles of all the characters, ideally described in their own words without embellishment and fully footnoted, to be distributed to the press. That should make clear the conflict is all about religion and not in the least about science.

Having watched this all unfold a second time in Kansas, I am now at the point where I just don't care. The scientific arguments have been presented, the evidence is out there but the fact of the matter is that this is a political problem. As in 1999 the Kansas board can vote whatever they want to vote. They can vote to nominate Britney Spears for the Nobel Prize for all I care.

Who needs Kansas, anyway? I say seal off the entire state and protect their citizens from receiving any goods or services tainted by "materialists" or "atheists." Of course, this would include cell phones, computers, well, most technology in general and quite a lot of food. Fortunately, they grow enough of God's wheat and corn to get by.

Furthermore, I would donate money to move the Discovery Institute from Seattle to Topeka. Practice where you preach I say.

eh, don't give up yet bill! as goes kansas... so goes the rest. just a matter of time.

i seem to recall we fought a civil war over ideological differences that were of a magnitude such that folks were considering forming their own states seperate from the union.

if you are willing to give up kansas, who's next? illinois?

i posted this in another thread, but food for thought here too:

http://christianexodus.org/

Some comments

1. Hey, I live in Kansas! Please don't just quarantine us and let us suffer alone!

2. We are working on the "cast of characters" program - we may assign them numbers and jerseys. :-)

3. The Wizard of Oz idea is actually quite good - "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" could be taken a number of ways.

Sir T,

I wasn't thinking so much about as giving up as using a Judo principle and giving in...a little. Let the rope play out. It's difficult to refrain from name calling, but as Behe's and Dembski's work has been thoroughly discredited how else can one describe their behavior other than moronic? If I had submitted Behe's ID thesis to my professor when I was a grad student, he would have returned it to me with a big, red "F" across the top, along with acidic comments. If I had resubmitted the same paper, he simply would have cancelled my grant and bounced me out of the group as an idiot. Yet, Behe and Dembski persist with their stupid arguments that have no basis.

I found it disturbingly ironic that Behe recently reviewed a book by Dawkins and prounced Dawkins no longer intellectually capable of grasping large ideas. I can only assume that Behe was talking about himself!

However, what I find totally draining about this entire episode is the complete lack or ethics and morality by the supposed "Christians" including Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson and others. If they don't understand the science, then I'll let them off under the guise of ignorance. That is not the case, though. They do understand the science, yet they pursue a political agenda contrary to knowledge, and to this end I brand them liars and hypocrites.

"how else can one describe their behavior other than moronic?"

desperate?

now ask yourself, why are they so desperate?

It actually is a very important question. the only one that really needs to be addressed to resolve this whole issue, IMO.

I can see multiple levels too it, but don't forget that the more desperate one becomes, the more dangerous.

intellectually, the issue was decided long ago, but emotionally, economically, and politically, the war is very hot, and getting hotter.

cheers

at the risk of sounding a bit redundant, if you want a view from inside the thought processes of the "average" creationist, check out the public forum on the exodus site:

http://christianexodus.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=index

i highly recommend it. It might clear up some (at least one) of the questions about why delinski, dembski, behe, etc. keep pushing so hard.

however, I seriously doubt ideology is the only reason for the recent heavy push of creationism in the political and economic arenas. Like they always say, "follow the money"... it usually won't steer you too far wrong.

cheers

Edward Gibbon summarized his great book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by saying that the work "decribed the triumph of barbarism and religion." Sound familiar?

I finally rediscovered that link where Charles Thaxton was talking about creationism long before he decided ID was the right word to use in Of Pandas and People (Thaxton was the Academic Editor for Pandas):

Charles Thaxton & Jon Buell (1983). "Why All the Fuss About Creation and Evolution?" The Foundation Rationale, Vol.1, No.1, 1983. Published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, P O Box 721, Richardson, TX 75080. Excerpt online at Creation Social Science and Humanities QUARTERLY: http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v15n3p23.htm

Posted by John A. Davison on April 6, 2005 06:07 AM (e) (s) Of ccourse Sermonti must be a fool. After all he published 6 of my papers. Don't forget to add that to the list of reasons to discount him folks.

To correct J A Davison,

No one is studying the trivial parody of evolution that creationists paint it as. Since the basic idea has never been seriously suggested to be less than many times a human lifetime, the trivial "experiment" of "observing" the process from beginning to end is not a pressing concern. There are many people who are at least working professionals modelling the numerous processes already known to be operative in heritable biological change. Undergrads often get to meet and talk with them, and often are put through exercises duplicating key aspects of the more basic genetic events involved.

Phylogeny may or may not be finished. No one has observed that presently reproducing organisms do not vary, or that such variance is not heritable, nor that environmental change is impossible by means of climate change or even locomotion. To state otherwise suggests that the precious observation of all things till the end of time has already been done.

Sexual reproduction is capable of dispersing new alleles rapidly in a population in relatively few generations. Clearly this is anti-evolutionary if you didn't read your undergrad notes. It is possible for new alleles to arise by a process that JAD has not yet heard of called mutation. This occurrs in all cells. Since not enough time has elapsed for all possible alleles to be generated by random or pseudo-random mutational events, and since JAD has not tested all such he is actually wrong to state that none such will arise. Something that William Bateson clearly did not emphasise enough was the point that Natural selection is normative in a constant environment, but normative to new optima in varying environments. Undergrads, yet again, can correct JAD and his source.

JAD has a funny idea of what "chance" is as well, but to say that natural selection does not exist at all is like denying the existence of gravity. It is as apparrent to biological practicioners as such, and JAD is simply playing to an audience when he makes this sort of silly assertion. I can personally assert that mutations can and do occur in organisms, and that these can be induced (as they are in nature, and in all other settings) by a number of agents controllable by man in experimental settings. These agents, and similar ones common in nature, often mutate DNA with some specificity for bases and for base sequence (pairs or triplets, sometimes longer sequences). It should be noted that while there is specificity for "hot spots", plenty of other bases are affected by any single agent. Naturally occurring mutations are an example of randomness with some statistically observable bias. Since mutations occur and are generated by random events, how could they not exist and not be examples of "chance". I think JAD is trying to fool someone, and not the professionals in the field.

The darwinian myth?

Change of genetic material by physical processes (tick)
Capacity of such change to affect biological forms (tick)
Capacity of such change in genes and resultant form to affect survival (tick)
Heritability of such change change (tick)
Observation of and selection of such change in contrived settings (tick)

Correction, the darwinian observed process is just fine.

Sorry JAD, but anybody actually working this field, pipettor in hand, gels in the background, can regard your remarks as rubbish.

Rustopher.

The posts here (not to be confused with the comments) are, IMHO, generally well reasoned. Sometimes they do point out the absurdities of the anti-evo folks without using kid gloves.

— russell

aCTa:

(1) I'm not "all hurt"; just unimpressed
(2) I stand by my analogy; Atta had a pilot's uniform - probably a better comparison to Wells's PhD
(3) Stone, greenhouse, cat? Is this a mixed metaphor or an example of Brits and Yanks separated by a common language?

Re Sermonti, why don't you ask Massimo Pigliucci (who, after all, is italian) about his career? AFAIR is a curious mix a decent researches in the first phase and absurd and amazing ideas about immanent "plans" in evolution unfolding. But that's all I remember. Maybe he's not a down and out creationist, but definitely antidarwinian. Let's say he despises the role of chance in evolution and thinks some kind of orthogenesis (inner or outer, if you know what I mean) is better as an explanation of life diversity and evolution.

Marco Ferrari

whereas Jonathan Wells has a PhD.

Re "that environmental change is impossible by means of climate change or even locomotion. "

Or evolutionary changes in the other species with which they interact. If prey gets harder to catch, or predators get better at the catching, that could produce what's been called a "biological arms race", an example of what an engineer would call a "positive feedback loop" - it keeps going until some limit is reached.

just to indicate what seems to be popular with the majority, Nick pointed gave us a link to a rather disreputable journal, Cryptozoology...

and yet, the cable tv channel Animal Planets newest show is titled:

Animal X

er, can you guess what it is about??

people, we are LOSING the battle for the hearts and minds of americans.

the intellectual battle over evolution vs. creationsim was won hundreds of years ago. How do we win the battle for the hearts and minds of the average american? This has become an economic and political battle, now.

I guess what i am saying is that while the continuing replay of the evidence for evolutionary theory is always useful at the university level, this battle will really be fought at the "grassroots" level.

I ran into a failure to realize this a lot when i was a grad student at Berkeley. Profs just didn't want to deal with the fact that to win this battle, they would have to become "activistis" *shudder*.

If you can work with your community, with your neighbors, with your local politicians, to educate them about the fact that science really does NOT threaten their faith, the current rise in the abandonment of reason might be stemmed.

as pointed out in the newest thread in the forum, IDers don't gain much ground at the University level, they are however, gaining much ground at the grass roots level, which translates into political clout.

sorry, felt a need to rant :)

cheers

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true." Bertrand Russell

"...A PhD makes him a better biologist than Atta was a pilot? I doubt it."

no, in fact it makes him exactly the same: crash and burn.

pardon the rather sickening image, but it is appropriate in this case and others where people claiming to be "scientists" have turned their backs on everything it means to be a scientist.

I am only sorry I didn't get an invitation too. The fact that the establishment (Darwinian atheists) are boycotting this discussion is a dead giveaway of the insecurity of their paradigm. I think the membership of Panda's Thumb may be in for some real surprises when this whole business is published and subjected to rational scrutiny by unbiased observers. No reasonable scientist is in a position to deny the reality of a past evolution and no reasonable scientist could ever believe that chance could have played any role in it. The only conceivable explanation is that evolution was an internally controlled, front-loaded and strictly emergent process for which the external world played virtually no role, exactly as ontogeny is controlled today. Get used to it folks because that is the way it really is or rather was. You see evolution WAS a goal directed, irreversible ascending phenomenon exactly like ontogeny and, like ontogeny, it was self-limiting and self-terminating. To continue blindly claiming otherwise is naked mysticism and ideological bigotry, unfortunately the prevalent posture at Panda's Thumb, one of the last surviving bastions of Darwinian mythology.

John A. Davison

John, you still haven't convinced me you are not an alien yet.

which establishment do you mean? are all "darwinians" atheists by definition or by practice, in your mind? What is it about those who utilize functional theories of evolution that makes you so afraid?

I can only image fear for your own beliefs being at risk that prompts you to post such unsupportable and ridiculous claims.

?? which whole business would that be? and which "unbiased" observers would you pick to review the "whole business"?

but you are not even a scientist, let alone a reasonable one. so who are you speaking for? It has been demonstrated time and time again that chance has been the ONLY role of any significance. i would go farther and say that no RATIONAL, even more than reasonable, scientist would deny this.

uh, hmmm. that's exactly what i would pose is YOUR position. The question then becomes, why are YOU so insistent on it? what can you provide as direct evidence to support it? why are you so insistent on ignoring all of the evidence available to support evolutionary theory?

lol. you mean other than every single university and college campus that teaches biology in the united states?

mythology *snort* I wish some of the Greek mythology i studied actually had 1/1000000000 of the evidence to support any basis in reality as current evolutionary theory does. it would make the world a more interesting place if there was actually some truth to it. Imagine a visit from Zuess or Poseidon?

You yourself recognize the invalidity of Larmarckism. How did you come to that conclusion, if you would be so kind as to trace the key argument that made you reject it?

John - i truly feel sorry for you that the paradox of faith vs. observable reality has created such an imbalance in your reasoning.

I'm actually giving you credit for still being able to think.

OTOH, i guess your posts, since they are so similar and so easily debunked, might have an ulterior motive that you have not made us aware of?

At the risk of being dense and missing something that is only obvious to yourself, why DO you keep posting the same argument over and over again? What is it exactly that you hope to accomplish? is there some overarching economic or political motivation? do you fear for our souls, brother? do tell.

If you just repeat the same mantra, rather than actually showing us what your motivations are, I will continue to think you an alien.

a bit more...

John,

If you claim to be a scientist (not saying you do anymore, mind you), then please use the scientific method to show us how you came to the conclusions you so repeatedly post here.

just that simple.

otherwise, your explanations are philosophy, not science, and should be regarded as such, just like ID is philosophy, not science.

6 publications in a journal reviewed by NON scientific peers does NOT make you a scientist. prove to me that you have not abandoned science in favor of philosophy.

you can still be one of us, John... JOIN US....

Referring to me as an alien or a crackpot or as Nosy or Nosivad or Salty adds nothing to our undertanding of a process which has never been observed. Those tactics are the earmarks of a failed ideology.

Whether Darwinians regard themselves as atheists or not is not the issue. The Darwinian model has no role for God. It places the entire evolutionary sequence in the hands of Nature, namely that which had already been created. As I have argued before, just when in the creative process did the Creator hand over the reins to Naure, that which had been created? Surely I am not the only one to recognize the absurdity of that question. My answer has always been - never. The entire Darwinian paradigm is a myth and a fabrication devoid of any semblance of reality as defined by laboratory experiment or the fossil record. It is nothing more than a mandatory hypothesis for a mentality that denies any purpose in the universe, a mentality which I am convinced has a strong genetic component. As such it is sterile and completely meaningless. It has been tested to death and failed every one of them. I really don't know what else to say except that with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis I have offered what to me is the only conceivable alternative to the failed hypotheses proposed by Lamarck and Darwin. Even if the PEH should prove to be incorrect, which I doubt is likely, the failure of Darwinism in any form is as plain as day. That there are still those that can support it baffles me beyond description, yet Panda's Thumb is crawling with them as every thread continues to demonstrate.

"Here I stand. I can do no otherwise."
Martin Luther

John A. Davison

"Nosivad"

? I claim cultural ignorance. what does this mean. just curious.

which process is it, EXACTLY that you think has never been observed?

If it is mechanisms involved in speciation, there are plenty of good examples of such. did you have a scientific refutation of the methods or statistics used? or just a general belief that their conclusions are simply "wrong"?

"Whether Darwinians regard themselves as atheists or not is not the issue"

indeed it is not, because it is irrelevant to scientific analysis. is it an issue wrt to what creationists regard themselves?

"The Darwinian model has no role for God"

SCIENCE has no role for god. nor should it. that is the realm of philosophy, which you can equally well get a PhD in.

"As I have argued before, just when in the creative process did the Creator hand over the reins to Naure, that which had been created"

you are a very sad, blind man. what you have described is NOT SCIENCE. it is philosophy. even a layman in philosophical studies could probably make a decent argument proving that what you have just said is pure philosophy, simply becuase of the assumptions you begin with.

why is PEH your only conceivable alternative? it is like saying the only alternative to gravitational mechanics is to say that Apollo drags the sun around the earth in his chariot. Can you not see this?

Why is your faith so challenged by simple science? why have you become so afraid, John?

If you could demonstrate even one peer reviewed article demonstrating how "PEH" does a better job of explaining observable events, and leads us to interesting predictions and conclusions, you would find thousands attempting to test your theory.

however, sadly, there is NOBODY testing your theory.

it is not because there is a vast consipiracy against you, John, it is simply because your "theory" is not theory at all, it is simply philosophy, and untestable because of it.

Invent a better mousetrap and the world will flock to your door.

you have not invented a better mousetrap, John, you have simply attempted to tell us a mouse is a cat, and so no longer even needs a "trap".

What happened to you to make you abandon science so thoroughly?

Why do you feel such a great need to impose your emotional perception of the world onto the actual observable one?

I still offer my hand to you... if you wish to challenge current evolutionary theory, come up with something that works from a scientific standpoint, not something that merely satisfies an emotional one.

You can blind yourself to the thousands of studies done over the decades if you wish to, if that gives you emotional stability, but you would still need to come up with an idea that is eminently testable using the scientific method.

If not, please don't claim to be a scientist. you do yourself and science in general a grave disservice.

Whether Darwinians regard themselves as atheists or not is not the issue. The Darwinian model has no role for God. It places the entire evolutionary sequence in the hands of Nature, namely that which had already been created. As I have argued before, just when in the creative process did the Creator hand over the reins to Naure, that which had been created? Surely I am not the only one to recognize the absurdity of that question. My answer has always been - never. The entire Darwinian paradigm is a myth and a fabrication devoid of any semblance of reality as defined by laboratory experiment or the fossil record. It is nothing more than a mandatory hypothesis for a mentality that denies any purpose in the universe, a mentality which I am convinced has a strong genetic component. As such it is sterile and completely meaningless. It has been tested to death and failed every one of them. I really don't know what else to say except that with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis I have offered what to me is the only conceivable alternative to the failed hypotheses proposed by Lamarck and Darwin. Even if the PEH should prove to be incorrect, which I doubt is likely, the failure of Darwinism in any form is as plain as day. That there are still those that can support it baffles me beyond description, yet Panda's Thumb is crawling with them as every thread continues to demonstrate.

— john a davison

Referring to me as an alien or a crackpot or as Nosy or Nosivad or Salty adds nothing to our undertanding of a process which has never been observed. Those tactics are the earmarks of a failed ideology.

Unlike, for instance, constantly referring to Darwinian atheists, mystics, mythology, failed tests (never actually cited)... or constantly repeating the oh-so-witty "Darwimpian"... or repeating over and over and over the same quotes from famous dead guys (including Bertrand Russell, who would be rolling over in his grave if he knew his name were being used to bolster something as anti-intellectual as "intelligent design theory")

John, as i said earlier:

"If you just repeat the same mantra, rather than actually showing us what your motivations are, I will continue to think you an alien."

I still think you are an alien bent on world destruction, John.

again, i ask you, what are your true motivations for contuining to post the same thing over and over again?

Science my skeptical friends IS the work of God and nothing more. The laws that produced and guided life on this planet are just as real as the laws that define the physical universe. The only difference between them is that evolutionary laws like ontogentic laws are not yet revealed to us. That both processes proceeded in definite predetermined steps is obvious and undeniable. We have not yet scratched the surface of these laws, yet you Darwinians claim they have never existed, postulating that everything we now see was produced by chance. Chance never had anything to do with anything in this universe living or dead. Until you abandon your random, mutation happy, natural selection determined view of the evolutionary scenario you are unceremoniously doomed to oblivion and ultimate ridicule. I think it is a fitting end for the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.

For anyone to claim I have not presented concrete evidence for my views discloses an abysmal ignorance of my several papers and especially those of my distinguished nonDarwinian predecessors. You are all living in a self-induced intellectual coma from which I have been quite unable to rouse you. From now on I intend to sit back and watch the egg drip off your smugly grinning faces as the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis assumes the primacy which I am confident it will soon realize. You now have my express permission to return to the comatose condition in which I found Panda's Thumb when I first arrived here some time ago. Sleep tight. I have more importnt things to do than to waste my time with you all.

"Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jamming common sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest."
Thoman Henry Huxley.

Thank you so much for providing me with such glorious pleasures.

John A. Davison

Um-m, Salty(just for old time's sake),

Does this mean that you have finally decided to stop pestering us with your self-serving and frequently off-topic, one-trick-pony posts? If so, thank you; if not, why not?

Science my skeptical friends IS the work of God and nothing more.

The laws that produced and guided life on this planet are just as real as the laws that define the physical universe. The only difference between them is that evolutionary laws like ontogentic laws are not yet revealed to us.

That both processes proceeded in definite predetermined steps is obvious and undeniable.

We have not yet scratched the surface of these laws, yet you Darwinians claim they have never existed, postulating that everything we now see was produced by chance.

Chance never had anything to do with anything in this universe living or dead.

Until you abandon your random, mutation happy, natural selection determined view of the evolutionary scenario you are unceremoniously doomed to oblivion and ultimate ridicule.

I think it is a fitting end for the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.

For anyone to claim I have not presented concrete evidence for my views discloses an abysmal ignorance of my several papers and especially those of my distinguished nonDarwinian predecessors.

You are all living in a self-induced intellectual coma from which I have been quite unable to rouse you.

From now on I intend to sit back and watch the egg drip off your smugly grinning faces as the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis assumes the primacy which I am confident it will soon realize.

You now have my express permission to return to the comatose condition in which I found Panda's Thumb when I first arrived here some time ago.

Sleep tight. I have more importnt things to do than to waste my time with you all.

"Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jamming common sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest." Thoman Henry Huxley.

Thank you so much for providing me with such glorious pleasures.

John, you are an alien, no doubt about it.

with delusions of granduer, no less.

i hereby claim you legally insane, as well. now please go back to your rubber room while those of us in the real world continue on our merry path.

And if you can't trust a diagnosis of insanity from someone who calls himself Sir Toejam, what can you trust?

ROFL

ack! now that John has "left" we lost the most representative person for the title of the thread.

the clowns have left the building, and i shed a single tear.

Sir Toejam's name sounds vaguely familiar:

He wear no shoeshine he got toejam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say I know you, you know me
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me

lol.

that's me alright. I'm actually the one the song was written about!
I'm here to bring us all together.

no wait, I think JAD's delusions of grandeur are rubbing off.

just to spoil it, I think it's actually "trojan" football. as in USC trojans.

could be wrong, tho.

the genesis of my online handle is a private story. if you want to know, you have to email me. suffice it to say, it has worked well for me for many years in many different circumstances.

cheers

wow. i just looked it up. i stand corrected. all these years i thought it was trojan. guess that's a hint to where i grew up.

eh, one more item to add to the history of my moniker.

wtf is toe-jam football anyway?

John A. Davison said: Whether Darwinians regard themselves as atheists or not is not the issue. The Darwinian model has no role for God. It places the entire evolutionary sequence in the hands of Nature, namely that which had already been created. As I have argued before, just when in the creative process did the Creator hand over the reins to Naure, that which had been created? Surely I am not the only one to recognize the absurdity of that question.

From now on I intend to sit back and watch the egg drip off your smugly grinning faces as the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis assumes the primacy which I am confident it will soon realize.

— John A. Davison

Of course he's a loony. Take a look at the Crackpot Index:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

His score is astronomical. He just scored a number 34 - his favorite, apparently.

To the extent that anyone claims to be a Christian and that same person proclaims to be a Darwinian, that person is by definition a hypocrite because Darwinism has no place for a higher power of any sort now or in the past. It is a Godless doctrine which, with every one of its postulates, denies any purpose or design in the living world.

Of course I am gleeful. I have exposed Darwinism countless times as have every one of the sources on which my hypothesis so firmly rests. It is now finally an occasion for celebration and I intend to enjoy every moment of it with or without any elses approval.

"Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconciousness."
George orwell, 1984

Curiously, 1984 also marks the date of my first exposure of the Darwinian myth published in the Journal Of Theoretical Biology.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Aureola

You are the best cut-and-paster in all of cyberspace. Congratulations on realizing your limited abilities. Also thanks for reprinting my pearls of antiDarwinian wisdom for all to see and reflect upon.

John A. Davison

Aw, heck, I need to get out of this habit of reading the most recent post first. I missed JAD's stomp-out-the-door tantrum. Blunts the point of my post, I suppose, though the Crackpot Index is no less applicable to some of the other resident trolls (y'all should post that Index somewhere on this site, you really should).

Ah, well. It's no less happy news, for all that. And hilarious to boot. I'm waiting a few days before I start singing "Ding, dong the witch is dead", but wouldn't it be grand to not have to read about John's apples three or four times per thread?

If only the clowns who were the original topic of this thread would do the same.

And once again I speak too soon.

Put it under the heading of "one brief, shining moment" and move on.

You are the best cut-and-paster in all of cyberspace.

Congratulations on realizing your limited abilities.

Also thanks for reprinting my pearls of antiDarwinian wisdom for all to see and reflect upon.

what are these new (e) (s) doodads? Can they be used somehow to hide comments by JAD and Heddle?

"wtf is toe-jam football anyway?"

*Hint, Hint* In America English football is called soccer.

Only someone who has never played barefoot would kick the ball with the toe. It hurts.

"*Hint, Hint* In America English football is called soccer."

doh! *smacks head* of course! that's what i get for not drinking that second cup of coffee.

?? i thought you were done wasting time on us?

well, from me, thanks. i hate to think we are hopeless. however, it still begs the question which you have yet to answer:

why do you post here?

"To the extent that anyone claims to be a Christian and that same person proclaims to be a Darwinian, that person is by definition a hypocrite because Darwinism has no place for a higher power of any sort now or in the past. It is a Godless doctrine which, with every one of its postulates, denies any purpose or design in the living world."

no, John, what you keep failing to realize is that science never has nor ever will try to disprove belief in the existence of god. that is not its purvue, nor is it the purvue of many other disciplines, for that matter.

An equivalent statement to yours would be: economic theorists are by default, non christian, because they don't include god in their calculations.

absurd. can you not see this? What is wrong with you that you cannot differentiate between such simple concepts?

"denies any purpose or design in the living world."

that's just it JOHN! it FREAKIN' DOESN'T!!! *raps fist on empty coconut that is John's head*

it doesn't a priori exclude anything, it's just that including such assumptions, would make the entire theory untestable, just like yours, and relegate it to philosophy instead of science. Since evolutionary theory IS science, it simply can't include untestable postulates and maintain itself as a viable scientific theory.

simple as that.

At what point in your life did you forget what science was? around the same time you decided god decided the interest rates on you bank account?

you are a very sad man (er, alien). it is no surprise they did not invite you to the party.

"master-paster"

ROFLMAO!!

"Curiously, 1984 also marks the date of my first exposure of the Darwinian myth published in the Journal Of Theoretical Biology.

How do you like them apples"

hmm. ladies and gents, i am beginning to believe we are being duped.

Looking at "john's" posts, I am now thinking this is just some sort of sick joke.

just meant to push buttons so the poster can sit back and laugh.

why else would he return less than a day after he said he was done with us?

it's obvious there is no reality to any of it. the "pearls of wisdom" he wrote could have been written by any one of us in a couple of days, in order to attempt a similar scam for fun.

all of his reponses are SO over the top, how could I not think that I am simply being duped for someone's amusement.

that is one reason i kept asking what the motivations were for John posting here to begin with.

In fact, i feel stupid that I didn't see this before. I wonder if "John" is even their real name?

alternatively, maybe this is just a front so he can plant even more ridiculous "publications" into the general literature the ID'ists rely on.

I think the poster may have even given us hints to that effect.

some at the ID movement must have at least some inkling of this as well, hence the no invite to kansas.

I was right in thinking John is a plant, it's just that he is human, and i'll bet one who is actually well versed in evolutionary theory and is simply hiding his true identity until he can show how ridiculous the ID folks are for accepting and publishing his "theories".

makes way more sense to me than the idea that he could even possibly be genuine.

anyone else here see what i am talking about?

cheers

Nick Diamos wrote: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

oh, i don't think there actually is any malice involved at all. In fact, as i thought more about it, I could easily see myself attempting the same stunt.

my motivations would be:

1. amusment; bait the sharks and see who bites.

2. to see just how much folks on PT understand the arguments involved.

3. to see if someone was actually smart enough to figure out my ruse.

on the id end:

1. to add more fuel to the fire; to publish "articles" and a new "theory" to add ever more ridiculousness to the ID side of the debate, and draw "believers" into a trap.

2. to see if ANYONE on the ID side has the intelligence to figure out they are being duped.

if i am right about "john's" motivations, I sure feel stupid for not seeing it sooner.

alternatively, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to set up more fake personas just like this in order to accomplish the same goals as i set out above....

OTOH, I'm sure occam would agree with you; much simpler to think it is just all attributable to stupidity.

how would we set up an experiment to test between these competing hypotheses of John's behavior?

Toejam, you are named perfectly. It was very thoughtful of you to describe yourself in such endearingly fungal terms. What a loser you are. I think ypu will find that the upcoming hearings in Kansas will give you some real pause while you frantically try to wipe that omelet off your smugly sneering face. Incidentally I have no intention of stomping off in a snit as some would love to think. I am having a ball eliciting the same old rabid Darwinian nonsense that I have been expertly producing for the last twenty years. I have it down to an art form now. Besides if I left you clowns would immediately lapse back into the coma in which I found you when I invaded PT some time ago. That is exactly what happened at "brainstroms" and EvC. I am sure you wouldn't want that to happen would you? Be grateful I am here to keep your blood pressure up.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison, unfair as they come, deluded of course (just ask Toejam), and still unafraid, indeed delighted to taunt the Darwimpians with undeniable truths to his ancient heart's content. Darwimpianism remains today exactly what it was at its inception, the most hideously grotesque hoax ever generated and sustained in historical times.

Comment #23811 From now on I intend to sit back and watch the egg drip off your smugly grinning faces as the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis assumes the primacy which I am confident it will soon realize.

Comment #23932 Incidentally I have no intention of stomping off in a snit as some would love to think.

"Besides if I left you clowns would immediately lapse back into the coma in which I found you when I invaded PT some time ago"

if a tree falls in the forest...

"Toejam, you are named perfectly. It was very thoughtful of you to describe yourself in such endearingly fungal terms. What a loser you are. "

lol. got your attention did i? I can picture you almost foaming at the mouth as you wrote your response. actually, i really picture you as sitting back with a slight smile, deciding whether it is time to let us in on the joke or not.

"Incidentally I have no intention of stomping off in a snit as some would love to think."

er, actually you were the one who said you were stomping off.

"I am having a ball eliciting the same old rabid Darwinian nonsense that I have been expertly producing for the last twenty years. "

20 years, eh? i suspect rather less; indeed i am more and more of the opinion that i was correct to call you a front. fess up, now. you've had your fun. Let us in on the joke, show us how your "articles" are allowing the IDer's to fall into your trap. Just let us know when you plan on spilling the beans to them so we can watch.

you have done a good job! I intend to see if i can mimic your efforts and convince IDer's of some great new theory or evidence in support of their philosophy, and see if they'll bite.

I won't detail it here; that would spoil the fun.

"How do you like them apples?"

I like apples just fine, thanks. think i'll take a big bite myself...

contact me via email if you would like to give me some pointers on pulling this off.

cheers

what are these new (e) (s) doodads? Can they be used somehow to hide comments by JAD and Heddle?

"How do you like them apples?"

http://www.joehilldispatch.org/industry/archives/003333.php

http://ramage.typepad.com/ramage/2005/03/how_dya_like_th.html

http://shauny.org/pussycat/2002/08/how_ya_like_them_apples.php

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=75139

food for thought

:0

I have little respect for what are called IDers. I never regarded Intelligent design as a matter for debate. It is evident to anyone with half a brain. It represents a necessary starting point from which, as I have done, one can then produce a whole new hypothesis for organic evolution.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

anyone want to get back to examining the list of participants the thread was all about?

I found this one amusing:

"Bryan Leonard, MA High School Biology Teacher and candidate for doctoral degree in science education"

a candidate for a PhD in SCIENCE EDUCATION??? anyone know which university is handing this fellow a reward for a complete lack of understanding of science education?

gees

sorry John, i realized after i posted that you couldn't admit your ruse as it would spoil the beans with the ID crowd before you were ready.

email me privately if you think i should wait to spring my attempt until after you are done with your ruse.

cheers

oh, just to help continue the ruse..

"I have little respect for what are called IDers."

I figured as much.

"I never regarded Intelligent design as a matter for debate. It is evident to anyone with half a brain"

exactly, evident that it is bunk.

cheers

Re: Bryan Leonard, MA, PhD candidate - from http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/leonard.html

Teacher, Hilliard-Davidson HS, seems to be a wealthy suburban area of Columbus OH

Wrote the sample ID lesson for the bastardized Ohio state science standards.

Ohio has lots of universities & colleges, many private. Not sure how many are PhD-granting.

Using Google Scholar:
Cell Immunol. 1993 Oct 15;151(2):309-19.
Macrophage control of Brucella abortus: role of reactive oxygen intermediates and nitric oxide. Jiang X, Leonard B, Benson R, Baldwin CL. Department of Microbiology, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210-1292

the attempt to document the CV's of these folks is a good one, imo.

so, no way to find out what university is giving him a PhD then?

Bryan Leonard - last I checked - was still in the education program here at Ohio State University, I'm sorry to have to say.

*nods head somberly*

i hear your pain.

ever talk with him yourself?

I believe, incidentally, that Leonard's dissertation (in progress, last I heard) is supposed to explore the value of teaching ID. His contention is that, whether ID is right or wrong, kids learn about evolution more thoroughly - quantifiably so - if they're exposed to "both sides".

ever talk with him yourself?

his thesis makes for an interesting pickle for an advisory committee, doesn't it?

"Of course he's a loony. Take a look at the Crackpot Index:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html"

ya know, if you look at that index, JAD has posted on almost every single point. as if he was doing it methodically...

more support for my "red herring" hypothesis.

actually I've decided to call it my "stalking horse" hypothesis. more apt, imo.

One of the participants caught my attention

Nancy Bryson, PhD Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Kennesaw State
University Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

She's not new to the ID sceen
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/MS/688_intelligent_design_proponent_3_20_2003.asp and

http://www.creationequation.com/archives/An_Academic_Ax.htm

Kennesaw State University is deep in the heart of Cobb County, GA. This is my old stomping ground and Alma Mater (cringe).

Re "ya know, if you look at that index, JAD has posted on almost every single point. as if he was doing it methodically...
more support for my "red herring" hypothesis."

Is it really possible for a sane person to put that much time and typing into a mere practical joke?

Just wondering...

Henry

depends on how deep they want their cover to be, yes?

However, I believe that the assertion "It is (ID) evident to anyone with half a brain." is completely true. There is still question, though, whether "half a brain" is taken to be a minimum requirement or maximum requirement for seeing ID as evident.

The effects of an Intelligent design are manifest everywhere one looks. Those that ignore that transparent demonstration are doomed to adhere to the atheist Darwinian paradigm because they have no other choice.

Those, like myself, that recognize purpose and design in the living world are thereby able to present a whole new hypothesis for the great mystery of organic evolution, an hypothesis that has no place for chance or accident, an hypothesis that immediately finds accordance with the findings of the experimental laboratory and the fossil record and an hypothesis that daily is receiving direct support from molecular biology and chromosome karyology. So much for the mindless, purposeless, aimless Darwimpian hoax to which so many here at Panda's Thumb remain so inexplicably dedicated.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

"Never have so many been so perfectly screwed by so few."

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne

How do you like them apples?

John A. davison

"Never have so many been so perfectly screwed by so few."

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."

You have already convinced me that you are trying to screw the ID crowd, and that they have bitten on your apple.

No need to continue.

really.

There was once a man who went to the local village to get the advice of the village shaman on a matter of some importance to him.

"Elder, I wish to show you this rock i have found."

"Very well, please take me to it", said the Elder.

The man led the Elder to the middle of a large field, whereupon there stood a rock of some size.

"So, what do you think?" asked the man.

The elder replied, "My son, i see the beauty of this rock, can you not see how the spirit of the rock interconnects with the spirit of the earth, sky, and even your own spirit? A valuable lesson for sure, thank you for showing it to me."

The man, now with a puzzled look on his face, responded, "But, I just wanted your opinion on how to move the rock so I could plow my field!"

The ID folks are right on but they made a strategic error when they assumed they could communicate with homozygous damn fools who simply won't hear of it. They should have done exactly what I have done which is accept that which is obvious and build upon it directly. That is why I have no interest in joining with them or with Discovery Institute or any other institution that attempts to reason with those that cannot. My energies are not going to be wasted in such an unproductive fashion.

Dembski, Behe and the other IDists have ignored me for the same reasons the Darwinians have. They are unable to accept on face value that which is obvious to any truly objective observer. An intelligence far beyond our comprehension produced this universe and everything in it and set it in motion fully aware of the outcome, an outcome which has been realized. I remain supremely confident of this view of the evolutionary scenario and will continue to do so until some scrap of evidence to the contrary is produced. To date that has not yet transpired. I have summarized my views and the evidence both direct and indirect for those views in my paper "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis."

"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Albert Einstein

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

@Stalking Horse:

whee, this is fun. I wonder how long i will keep responding before i get well and truly bored?

"The ID folks are right on"

"I have little respect for what are called IDers."

er, at least be consistent, Stalking Horse. You are in danger of letting your scam be visible to even the most dense of IDer's.

"My energies are not going to be wasted in such an unproductive fashion"

lol. as opposed to posting your cover drivel here??? Really, as i said, I think we get the point. you can stop now.

"Dembski, Behe and the other IDists have ignored me for the same reasons the Darwinians have"

er, weren't at least some "IDists" responsible for getting your "articles" on PEH published? doesn't sound like to me like they are ignoring you. Also, lots of us here have responded to your drivel, yet you keep posting the same over and over again. I think you are confusing who is ignoring whom.

"I remain supremely confident of this view of the evolutionary scenario and will continue to do so until some scrap of evidence to the contrary is produced"

What you are really saying is:

'I remain irrationally confident of this emotional extrapolation of my own deluded thinking derived from a psychological schism in my own head. I will continue to keep my eyes closed to everything around me until such time as someone gives me a prescription or electroshock therapy in order to repair my brain imbalance.'

right...

it doesn't matter how many folks you manage to quote inappropriately, nobody is testing your "theory", Stalking Horse. If they could, then I guess your ruse would be blown too quickly eh?

You don't even have to be honest about it, but I am still curious as to why you continue to post here. Will you at least provide some sort of answer?

c'mon, Stalking Horse! What do you expect us to believe is more likely?

that the thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals are all run by blind bigots, and so they wouldn't publish your "work", or that your "work" is simply a ruse to lure IDists into a trap, and so you succeeded in getting them to publish it?

Stop trying to pull my leg. It's obvious what you are up to.

Sir fungousamungus

All my papers ahave been published following review by several scholars including Giuseppe Sermonti who I suspect does not agree with me on every point. Real scholars are like that, don't you know. But of course you don't You are just another blind Darwimpian moron, totally conned into the biggest hoax in scientific history by such lightweight mystics as Ernst Mayr, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.

"Never in the history of Western Cvilization have so many been intellectually so thoroughly screwed by so few."
John A. Davison

Write that down and remember who said it.

John A. Davison

who said what?

Davison writes"
"I have little respect for what are called IDers. I never regarded Intelligent design as a matter for debate. It is evident to anyone with half a brain."

Well John, I couldn't agree more. Its evident to those of us with a full brain as well..

Dembski, Behe and the other IDists have ignored me for the same reasons the Darwinians have.

"Never in the history of Western Cvilization have so many been intellectually so thoroughly screwed by so few." John A. Davison Write that down and remember who said it.

Davison ran for governor of Vermont but did not do much better at 'being heard', managing a meager 700 signatures.

Whenever an energetic system is open the second law of thermodynamics takes over and the total energy of the system tends to a minimum.

Stalking Horse's public statement on his guvernatorial run:

"Finally, let me offer one more perspective on education. A good teacher will inspire his students to learn. The greatest tribute I ever received as a teacher came in the form of a six-word statement in an anonymous student questionnaire: "He made me want to learn."

If I ever met a "teacher" with such intractable, illogical thought processes as JAD, I too would be promtped to learn more. More about how someone could possibly become so irrational, that is.

Did this student go on to become a psychologist, I wonder?

I'm going to ignore any further posts from you, Stalking Horse, and ruin your fun, unless you answer the question i have repeated so many times now:

"You don't even have to be honest about it, but I am still curious as to why you continue to post here. Will you at least provide some sort of answer?"

c'mon now, you know you've been having fun trying to convince me this isn't all just some sort of scam... if you want to continue your fun, you must answer this simple question. Not hard, really, I even allowed you quite a bit of lattitude.

*buzz*

time's up and I have decided you bore me. To liven up my day, and at least do a peremptory exploration into your background, I sent a letter to the President of UVM to have him clarify your status with the University:

To the honorable Daniel Fogel, President, University of Vermont

I have taken the opportunity to peruse the last 20 years worth of publications (both "academic" and non) of a "professor" who claims association with your esteemed University, namely John A. Davison.

after reading the mission statement of your University, and noting the following as the very first goal listed:

"Our aspirations reflect our values, which include:

A commitment to rigorous intellectual inquiry and critical thinking; "

I am extremely puzzled as to why you allow someone who is obviously suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance or phychological schizm to continue claiming to be a professor at your University.

I know high school students who would find his treatises irrational at best, let alone any college student versed in basic logic, or moreover any sane professor (at least any that didn't have an ulterior motive that is disengenuous).

Could you clarify his status for me? Does he actually teach classes at your University? Do you endorse the drivel he calls "theory"? If so, you do a grave disservice to your students, unless you use him as an example of how NOT to think.

I wouldn't normally be moved to inquire thus into the status of any claimed professor. However, do you really think even allowing him to utilize University resources is appropriate? Image is everything to a University, and I wouldn't dare allow any relation of mine to attend a University that even remotely offered intellectual support, implied or direct, for such an obviously mentally disturbed individual.

Again, I implore you to clarify the University's position wrt to this individual.

thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

...

If i get a response, I'll post it here word for word (leaving names and contacts out to protect the innocent).

cheers

Since Paul Flocken was kind enough to respond when I asked for his credentials, I now ask Toejam for his. Is he just another unfulfilled blow hard, a two time college drop out and a self described anti-intellectual Phillistine or does Toejam's problems stem from some other cause? I don't have to ask Pim (yours in Christ) van Meurs what his difficulty is as his reputation as the quintessential sockpuppet leaves little doubt in anyones mind. He is the perfect leader of this herd of Darwimpian sheep.

I can't remember what question fungus foot put to me but if it was the claim of 20,000 extinctions per year, that was the estimate of Robert Leakey. Of course he probably is just another loser too in the eyes of Panda's Thumb. Anyone who questions anything about the Darwinian hoax is you know. I am still waiting for those "beneficial mutations."

I didn't come to Panda's thumb to answer questions any way. I came to rouse it from its Darwimpian coma, a state in which I found "brainstorms" and EvC as well. Once you have banned me you will quickly lapse back into your natural condition just as they have. I don't know what to make of ARN. They are no fun at all, but you clowns are a never ending source of thigh-slapping hilarity for me and I am not easily amused.

Since I was publishing before most of you numbskulls were even born I was delighted to find this little jewel, one of over three hundred which Henrietta Huxley extracted from her husband's voluminous writings.

"Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jamming common-sense down the throat of fools is perhaps the keenest."

While Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog," he also was the author of:

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."

That is the frontispiece to Berg's "Nomogenesis."

and

"All truth, in the long run, is only common sense clarified."

If there is anything that characterizes the Darwimpian congenital syndrome it is the absence of anything that could be even remotely described as common sense.

How do like them apples?

John A. Davison

"Since Paul Flocken was kind enough to respond when I asked for his credentials, I now ask Toejam for his"

tut tut, patience; all in good time. I promise I will post such as you request, for whatever it's worth, soon enough.

just to continue this charade of yours (besides which I'm obviously very bored):

"I can't remember what question fungus foot put to me but if it was the claim of 20,000 extinctions per year, that was the estimate of Robert Leakey"

gees, can't you even be bothered to read back one post?

I asked a lot of questions of you at first (although i never asked the one you post above), now I repeatedly only ask one:

why do you post here? (6th time now)

last chance. after this post, anything coming out of your keyboard not directly answering this question will be ignored, at least by myself.

"Anyone who questions anything about the Darwinian hoax is you know. I am still waiting for those "beneficial mutations.""

er, is this an implied question of myself? I don't recall you ever asking me this before. I think you have me confused with someone else. Not that that surprises me in the least.

Do you actually wish me to address this myself? naw, you couldn't possibly want to know the answer to your implied question, as it is so easy to pull up references about mutation and selection that even you could do it (I think). So I'm convinced you have no interest in the answer to your question.

"Of course he probably is just another loser too in the eyes of Panda's Thumb"

actually i never called you a loser. that is your term for us, remember? I did call you insane, deluded, suffering from a cognitive dissonance, and a Stalking Horse, finally, when i became convinced your posts were all a sham, as no normal human being could be so irrational without an intent to deceive, or a severe psychological problem. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and decided you were smarter than your posts suggest, and therefore were a Stalking Horse.

After posts from others however, I'm beginning to lose confidence in my hypothesis, and so decided to see if any clarification could be forthcoming from "your" University.

"They are no fun at all, but you clowns are a never ending source of thigh-slapping hilarity for me and I am not easily amused"

well, you acted in the same fashion for myself, at first anyway. However, I'm getting seriously bored now, and more than a little concerned for your well being and sanity.

"If there is anything that characterizes the Darwimpian congenital syndrome it is the absence of anything that could be even remotely described as common sense"

"common" is an altogether relative term, don't you think? I'm sure the many voices in your head consider your drivel to be "common" sense, since it is repeated so often.

I don't think you have managed to convince anyone else, however.

Please seek treatment.

cheers

ah, on re-reading your post, I see i could extract an answer to my question as to why you post here. let me see if i have it right:

1. amusment

2. to "cram common sense" down our throats.

is this correct?

I explained long ago why I post here or anywhere. It is to enlighten, the same reason I publish in refereed journals. I am not responsible for the reactions I have always evoked here as at EvC, "brainstorms" and elsewhere. It is probably just one more manifestation of The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Everything has been determined don't you know, just as Einstein claimed. I hope that answers your question if that is the question.

"It is to enlighten, the same reason I publish in refereed journals"

well, if we felt you were actually enlightening us, then you probably wouldn't evoke the reactions you invariably get, everywhere you go, apparently.

as to refereed journals... You USED to publish in scientifically peer reviewed journals. now...

are you saying just your theory by itself evokes manifestations? Delusions of grandeur indeed. I personally find your treatise less than satisfying, from both an emotional and intellectual standpoint. It evokes feelings of boredom and sympathy, more than anything else.

Oh yes, it answers my question alrighty.

OK, you have convinced me you are not an alien, and I now find my Stalking Horse hypothesis about you to be unsupported based on your behavior.

You are a sick man, John. I highly suggest you get professional help. I'm sure some good counseling would help tremendously.

I have a friend who could refer you to some good therapists if you like, though there are likely good group therapists in your area.

Please, John, plug yourself back into reality before you whittle away the rest of your life in some deluded fantasy of your own making.

*signs cross*

Gesundheit und viel Gluck.

I apologize to all the rest of PT for taking so much time rejoinding John in his fanatasy world.

I hope there is still interest in discussing the original topic.

getting back to a specific point I had an interest in, Russel a while back posted:

"I believe, incidentally, that Leonard's dissertation (in progress, last I heard) is supposed to explore the value of teaching ID. His contention is that, whether ID is right or wrong, kids learn about evolution more thoroughly - quantifiably so - if they're exposed to "both sides"."

Can anyone else imagine the problems a dissertation commitee in science education is going to have with this?

If they let him use this as a thesis topic, isn't that tatamount to to an implicit support of teaching ID side by side with real science?

What happens if his thesis is successful in demonstrating a positive quantitative difference in kids learning evolution "better" when exposed to both sides?

won't the results of his thesis be jumped on by those arguing to do that very thing?

I can easily imagine the ID folks calling this "scientific evidence in support of teaching creationism"

Am i just whistling out of my ass?

cheers

I refer you over to the Bathroom Wall where I just gave the Darwimps a piece of Leo Berg to chew on.

Toejam just said a mouthful when he admitted my thesis does not satisfy him intellectually or emotionally. Why the poor thing. Who ever said it was supposed to pray tell? What a strange view of the truth he professes.

Suck on this one for a while.

"An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi

or

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell

or

"Matters of fact are very stubborn things."
Anonymous

or

"Liberals* are clueless, amoral sexual degenerates, communists and pacifists."
Ann Coulter

* Political liberalism and Darwinism are pliotropic expressions of exactly the same genetic condition, a deficiency (rr) at the "rational" (RR) locus.

If Toejam thinks he might be whistling up his ass, who am I to question his introspection?

How do you lke them apples?

John A. Davison

"whistling up his ass"

that's whistling OUT of his ass. Once more, you indicate the inability to comprehend even the simplest of things anymore.

"I refer you over to the Bathroom Wall where I just gave the Darwimps a piece of Leo Berg to chew on. "

If i cared what you had to say, anymore john, I'd visit the toilet and see what log you had left in there.

Anyone left in here that actually is interested in the questions I posed about Leonard's thesis topic?

cheers

You have to remember I'm senile. I get the senile citizen's discount every Tuesday at Ben Franklin's. I used to get it at Kmart too but they stopped when Martha went into stir.

Hey JAD, you (?) little (?) man.

'Within the same discussion, you prophetically announce that life has been created many times, after which you let us know that "past evolution" is beyond doubt.

Is there a huge contradiction here or is it just me?

It is also interesting, to me, that you should deny some of the best evidence of past organic evolution, namely the fossil record, the living world, with its signs of continuity.
There is little evidence for saltation, but considerable evidence against it.

'Cheers to everyone. :)

"I used to get it at Kmart too but they stopped when Martha went into stir"

lol. the first actually funny thing I've heard from you in a whole week.

On that note, I'm going to assume that there is nobody left who is actually interested in the topic of the thread.

I officially proclaim this thread dead, fred.

Re "I officially proclaim this thread dead, fred."

[Sound of TAPS playing]

Close it then.

I came, I saw, I conquered.

Of course if you haven't had enough, leave it open. I have lots more.

John A. Davison

I say this with the utmost sincerity: we will all reap the profound benefits of Mr. Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and otherwise peripheral ruminations in the fullness of time.

at the current rate of influx of IDers into the national political arena, you are probably right, unfortunately.

St. McHinx

Thank you very much. I really don't know what more to say.

John A. Davison

the last word

If you are one of the powers here like PvM and insist on having the last word, close the thread. Don't expect me to do it. I am having too much fun and am powerless anyway here at Panda's Thumb. I am not one of the chosen few granted power by Wesley Elsberry. My role here is simply to force Panda's Thumb to engage in all sorts of hideous behavior in a frantic attempt to sustain the most insane hypothesis ever to emerge from the imagination of the human intellect. It has been one of greatest pleasures. I treasure it.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

JAD,

engaging anyone on anything requires actually saying something meaningful. Posts "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", do not even register. Provocation can only gain you a spot on a reality show, but even there, you'd be kicked out pretty soon.

Unluckily for you, PT does not censor comments. Your words are recorded for posterity, with no chance of your ever escaping the scorn they deservedly brought upon you.

I recommend Aureola read my papers and limit her remarks to what is in hard copy preserved on the library shelves of the world. I wouldn't give you a nickel for all the mindless trash that characterizes this or other internet forums.

Oh no, PT doesn't censor comments. Oh no. It just deletes them, garbles them beyond recognition or ships them off to the Bathroom Wall. Wake up and understand this forum you apparently defend. It practices methods that would never be even imagined at a decent forum presumably dedicated to the understanding of something as mysterious as organic evolution. It is the bottom of the forum barrel which is why I am here exposing it as such.

John A. Davison

JAD:

We are still waiting for you to wake up from your pipe dream and give evidence of anything you say, regarding evolution, religion, or how your posts have been treated on this forum.

In this specific instance, you seem moronically incapable of admitting that no frigging post of yours ever got deleted, exactly one (which contained the exact same drivel you endlessly repeat just to annoy people) got disemvoweled, and most of your off-topic posts got rightly moved to the Bathroom Wall, in order to keep the normal threads on topic (which is by far the mildest sanction I've ever seen inflicted to a troll on any forum).

Now, this being PT, you are free to continue your content-free, insulting ramblings. However, as much as you are free to keep not supporting any of your off-the-wall ideas with any evidence whatsoever, the sane portion of the visitors is free to keep not being impressed by your prose, which would be considered offensively stupid even for a ten-year-old kid.

Here's a novel idea for you: instead of proclaiming the "obvious truth" of your PEH as if you had actually given evidence for it; instead of quoting people as if that proved anything; instead of insulting people for the ultimate crime of not accepting your word on evolution as if it were divinely inspired; why don't you try respecting other people and "engage" them, as you mistakenly thought you had done, by discussing honestly whatever evidence you have?

That's how adults behave.

Aureola,
Hope you have plenty of aspirin on hand. ;)

Henry

naw, let her have her fun.

nobody warned me, and i had lots of fun.

so did JAD, apparently.

DaveScot, my only ally here was of course banned. He has been posting over at SciAm forum where I have joined him in trying to wake up that collection of Darwimps led bravely on by John Rennie. Between the two of us we have closed down discussion on at least 4 threads. The reaction there is exactly what the reaction has traditionally been to anyone who challenges Darwimpian nonsense. We simply do not exist. That is what makes Panda's Thumb so much fun. You clowns don't have enough sense to ignore us. Instead, powerless to repond rationally, you resort to insult, banishment, ridicule, deletion, garbling and several other kinds of bizarre behavior in a perfect demonstration of your clueless ignorance of a phenomenon about which so little is known with certainty. By knowing nothing you somehow manage to know everything by what must be some sort of instinct. I wish I had it.

You are a pleasure to deal with and I thank you for it.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

"Between the two of us we have closed down discussion on at least 4 threads."

closing down discussion, that's a troll's MO alrighty.

what will you do when everyone here finally tires of you, John?

Apparently they already have. I was blocked from posting this morning on the Bathropom Wall.

Apparently they already have. I was blocked from posting this morning on the Bathroom Wall.

Apparently they already have. I was blocked from posting this morning on the Bathropom Wall.

Sorry about the repeats. That is what is to be expected when you are being blocked.

That is what is to be expected when one is a clueless luser. Delayed posts happen to all of us, except that those who have more than one neuron firing in the correct sequence understand it and stop clicking the Post button.

You, on the other hand, see it as proof of the Vast Atheist Conspiracy to Silence John A. Davison, Trollifex Maximus.

"Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger

"Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger

Oh, we know that you are paranoid, JAD. The point is that, in this case as much as in everything else you say, you start with an unwarranted assumption and proceed to draw all sort of conclusions from it.

No, you are not being "blocked", whatever you mean by that. No, "Intelligent Design" is not "obvious". No, Avida is not front-loaded.

And so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

You are sure right about Avida not being front loaded. That is exactly why it as useless as tits on a boar. Creative Computerism is nothing but the latest manifestation of Darwimpian Damnfoolishnessism. It is all the rage as the last word in lifting ones self up by ones bootstraps. You should try it sometime.

I have earned my paranoia dealing with morons on internet forums. I have literally driven myself crazy trying valiantly but vainly to enlighten those incapable of enlightenment, genetic disasters, chance worshipping imbeciles and genetically handicapped subnormal ideologues whose only contribution is to deprecate anyone who deviates a millimicron from the most absurd, the most insane, the most discredited and idiotic hypothesis in the history of mankind. Is it any wonder I am no longer able to maintain my own stability? You swine have finally gotten to me. Congratulations.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

JAD:

Bald assertions make you appear foolish, not enlightened.

Refusal to give evidence in support of your claims makes you look like a coward.

Trying to bully people with insults, provocations and so on makes people know that you are a coward.

Oh, and by the way, for the millionth time: natural selection is anything but chance.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

JAD, you know *nothing* of computers. You even get confused with such easy concepts as posting lag and website broadband limitations. Your pathetic attempts at giving us "facts" of computers, like you do in other sujects, are particularly ridiculous after you yourself having admitted you have no knowledge of the topic.

The fact that Avida was not front loaded is what makes it so damn amazing. The fact that computers can be "creative" (in the sense that they come up with designs that far surpass human design) is a fact, and I have given you a link to it before. And I am giving it to you again. This won't shut you up, of course, since you've reached the point were being found to lie about every single fact you utter has long since stopped you from continuing to try and pass those lies as facts.

JAD, your stated goal is to somehow show people at PT how intelligent you are and how stupid the rest of us are. So far, the fact that you must resort to distortions of reality and, more often, to blatant lies, makes that goal *very* far fetched. After all, why should we believe your opinion about evolution when you have been shown to be wrong about everything else?

Want us to take you seriously? Try posting things that are true, for a change. Or at least some that make me engage my brain to answer them. And maybe you should stop trying to teach us about computers, given that you cannot even operate a webrowser

Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

"Darwimpian Damnfoolishnessism"

lol. sorry, just had to laugh at that one.

how bout "Creationist Crockery"

"Right-wing rockheadedism"

"PEH puerileism"

Why the heck is everyone wasting their time on such a drooling idiot? Haven't we got enough REAL enemies who are actually able to DO something?

Let the pit yorkies yap harmlessly. They're not even worth kicking. We have MUCH more important things to worry about.

Geez.

c'mon, Lenny.

some of us like throwing rocks at the trolls.

it's just mindless diversion.

geez.

I think I'm going to start a new list:

You can tell a noob on PT by:

1. they respond to John Davison as if he was rational.

2. they respond to John Davison at all.

3....

feel free to fill in the list

My comment is in response to Comment #23535
Posted by Greg on April 6, 2005 12:15 PM

I graduated from Northwestern College, the institution of Dr Bruce Simat's employment, in May of 2004. I received degrees in Bible, Biology and Psychology. Greg's comments were incredibly disparaging of the college, and I am here to say he is dead wrong in his understanding of the school's current science program.
Greg says he's spent 20 years unlearning the science he learned at NWC. The science program has been in existence for less than ten years. Any science classes he would have received would not have been from the most credible of professors or based on the hardest of sciences.
This is most certainly not the case at Northwestern today. Upon graduation, I looked back on the body of knowledge I had been introduced to and "saw that it was good" (to also borrow from the bible). Of course it is hard to objectively determine how good one's education is until they are able to have a benchmark to compare it to. I have since found my benchmark. I am currently in my first year of medical school at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, PA. When looking around at my classmates in discussion and workshops, I quickly notice that I am tutoring them and helping them along far more than they are helping me. These concepts I am learning now had all been introduced to me in the four years that I spent at Northwestern.
Hearing Greg's comments frustrates me to no end. I may not like or defend everything about Northwestern college but I will always defend the scientific education I received there.