Templeton Foundation and Santorum Losing Faith in ID?

Santorum has been subtly moderating for a while now. I'd hate to think the explanation is as crass as the 2006 election and his standing in the polls. Rather, I would call it a dawning awareness in little Ricky's mind that he is not the junior senator from Alabama.

But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."

Santorum just continues to be a lackey for the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute wants people to think they don't want intelligent design creationism taught in schools. Santorum is more than happy to spread their propaganda, especially when it makes him look like he's less of a lackey.

I have thought for a while now that teaching ID in the schools is premature. My position is that ID should wait for 10 or 15 years and do the hard work of coming up with a more secure scientific foundation for their position. Once they have done that they will win over more of the scientific community and only then should the theory be taught in high school.

he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

My position is that ID should wait for 10 or 15 years and do the hard work of coming up with a more secure scientific foundation for their position.

Problem is theonomo, ID doesn't have a model from which to derive testable hypotheses. Without such a model, you can't even start the process of doing the hard work of supporting the "theory". That's why you haven't seen a single novel discovery come from any ID 'scientist' using ID - there's no basis from which to make such a discovery. ID is scientifically vacuous (or sterile or impotent, whatever terminology you like).

Mr. Wason adds that Mr. Templeton is more interested in applying the scientific method to exploring spiritual questions such as the nature of forgiveness.

He's just aligning himself with the Discovery Institute message. When he thought the message was "teach ID," he went around supporting the notion of teaching ID. Now he realises the message has mutated to "teach the controversy" or "teach the arguments against evolution," he's adjusted his support to match. Once the retooled Supreme Court gives the go-ahead to teach creationism in any and all forms in school, he'll get behind that message. This is simple opportunism: the typical creationist "do what it takes to get what you want" approach.

the argument that Santorum Rub (TM) just got a phone call from DI telling him to back off seems the most plausible to me as well.

the politics haven't changed enough to warrant a total about face; remember the furor in the extreme right that had a significant impact on the Harriet Miers withdrawl?

this last vote was more on local issues than national ones.

I wish it were possible to buy stock in ID and short sell the Grand Darwinian Creation Myth. You guys would all be lining up to be my suckers.

Unfortunately for the DI wedge strategy, while Americans aren't overwhelmingly thrilled with naturalistic evolution, they are quite enamored of science's in almost all other respects.

What's more, I think most Americans have a intuitive grasp of rational inquiry, since so much of what people do in an information age society depends heavily on just that.

As the outcome of the Dover case shows. When faced with the profound disconnect between ID/Creationism and naturalistic evolution, voters went with rational inquiry.

I was just as surprised as anyone by the school board election outcome. Perhaps I shouldn't have been.

And perhaps Sen Santorum isn't as immune to that disconnect as many here believe (NB: I am not a Santorum fan.)

the Grand Darwinian Creation Myth

naturalistic evolution

Actually, I suspect that I'm more concerned with facts and evidence than you are. You rule out an entire class of possible explanations (i.e., anything that has to do with God) before you even begin to look at the evidence. I don't. I'm happy with Naturalism and I am happy with Theism -- it just looks to me like Theism is the more sensible position given the evidence.

science is based on naturalistic assumptions, the scientific method only works if we base it on such assumptions to begin with.

thenomo appears to forget that he can readily invest in "ID" if he so chooses.

all he has to do is donate all of his worldly good to the Discovery Institute, whose strategies have a proven trackrecord of success.

so.. the question then arises, why hasn't he already done that?

does he have a better strategy to invest in than that of DI?

oh please tell us 'nomo whatever would that be? will you make an ngo or corporation out of it for everyone to invest in?

why not?

And if those assumptions are incorrect, then you will arrive at incorrect conclusions.

You rule out an entire class of possible explanations

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/occam_razor.gif

— WinAce

science is based on naturalistic assumptions, the scientific method only works if we base it on such assumptions to begin with. the whole argument of "naturalism" reminds me of the tactic that republicans over the last 30 years have used to make the word "liberal" seem like something one should use soap to clean up after saying. don't fall for it.

— Sir TJ

I wish it were possible to buy stock in ID and short sell the Grand Darwinian Creation Myth. You guys would all be lining up to be my suckers.

Theonomo, only that stuff that God chooses to hide supernaturally is ruled out of science. All the rest of God's creation is available for research, and is the topic of biology, chemistry and physics. You ask that we claim most of God's creation is wrong, and that the only stuff we know is what we can't see. That's silly.

You're asking that we eschew most of God's creation to hunt for ghosts. You've been watching too many Bill Murray movies.

"Actually, I suspect that I'm more concerned with facts and evidence than you are."

I suspect you're wrong and have some amusing definitions of "facts" and "evidence" that don't even remotely resemblance to those of science. I suspect, like Santorum, you are merrily telling the world what the Discovery Institute tells you.

Santorum loves Big Brother.

But demanding 'presumed naturalism' is phrasing things too strongly - in my new-found opinion

But demanding 'presumed naturalism' is phrasing things too strongly - in my new-found opinion.

Science investigates that which can be investigated

Do a google search on "santorum" and go to the first website on that list. HAHA. Poetic justice!

"an entire class of possible explanations"?

I'm sorry, but the term "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron. Think about it: a "supernatural explanation" (a.k.a. "miracle") is invoked by those who have no explanation and are uncomfortable with admitting (as science often does) "we don't know." Or, to put it another way, if you can explain it, it's not a miracle.

I'm sorry, but the term "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron

Regarding the Santorum bit, this is old news.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/santorum_vs_san.html

He's just using the DI's standard issue talking point, which serves to clarify things by throwing mud all over them.

I have thought for a while now that teaching ID in the schools is premature. My position is that ID should wait for 10 or 15 years and do the hard work of coming up with a more secure scientific foundation for their position. Once they have done that they will win over more of the scientific community and only then should the theory be taught in high school.

Santorum just continues to be a lackey for the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute wants people to think they don't want intelligent design creationism taught in schools. Santorum is more than happy to spread their propaganda, especially when it makes him look like he's less of a lackey.

You rule out an entire class of possible explanations (i.e., anything that has to do with God) before you even begin to look at the evidence. I don't.

damnit! i wish folks would stop ruining my fun. I was hoping 'nomo was going to just attempt to explain how non-naturalistic science is done, but i bet you just scared the poor boy away lenny.

oh well, there's pleny of other suckers, er i mean "fish" in the sea.

PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen: "Do a google search on "santorum" and go to the first website on that list. HAHA. Poetic justice!"

That some twisted moron manages to draw attention to this mindless filth every time a certain U.S. Senator is mentioned by name is an obvious comment on the quality of individual who frequents this board. What'll it be next...plugs for NAMBLA? (I realize that some of you people don't live quite that far down the sewerpipe, but don't you ever wonder why your viewpoint holds so much attraction for those who do?)

I wish it were possible to buy stock in ID

NCSE welcomes Steve #666 Stephen J. Libby University of Washington School of Medicine

NCSE welcomes Steve #666 Stephen J. Libby University of Washington School of Medicine

you know, that's a rather obvious point i hadn't even thought about. I guess we just use the term "supernatural explanation" for discussion purposes. care to suggest a better phrase?

Theonomo I have a much simpler test that shows how ID works. Results guaranteed. This prediction when applied to any form of Human thinking included but not limited to science art theology will result in the same outcome- ignorance.

The test is an algorithm it is -

start
do not think
go back to start

you can test it on your PC
hold down these 3 keys

ctrl alt del

an obvious comment on the quality of individual who frequents this board

It's a point that has been made many times, by Lenny and others.

note that i INTENDED to be denigrating to neurode, but not to you, morbius.

If you want to discuss posting behavior further, perhaps we could start an ot thread over at ABC?

Well, I'll be damned.

— buddha

It's a point that has been made many times, by Lenny and others. perhaps it's just my language filter, but it seems you choose often to begin your posts by an apparent attempt to denigrate the previous poster? is it just me?

If you want to discuss posting behavior further, perhaps we could start an ot thread over at ABC?

ok, then, i'll just learn how NOT to turn an offensive phrase by watching your posts, and maybe mine will improve (mine are pretty abysmal at times too).

how am i supposed to ask if you want to discuss the issue further, without asking you here first?

i'll take it from your continued response in same vein, that you aren't.

fair enough. do let me know if you change your mind.

how am i supposed to ask if you want to discuss the issue further, without asking you here first?

Dudes, chill out.

Geez.

(Hard to believe that *I* am saying that, huh.)

2 of the Seven Samurai engage in mild bit of arm wrestling while the rest are waiting to take on the Invading Outlaws.

You're a cool dude(tte?), k.e. STJ and I are indeed on the same side in the larger battle.

Tres Bon morbius
older and greyer than Lenny

To get back to substance:

Lenny's response to those who complain that science arbitrarily excludes the supernatural is to point out that the scientific method doesn't say anything about natural or supernatural; it does not require that we make such distinctions. It provides a framework for reaching causal explanations -- if these things happen, then those things will happen. The scientific method is based on evidence, evidence is based on observation and measurement, all of which is implicitly based on causal relations. We can speculate all we want on the "supernatural", but you can't get there from here -- this is the interaction problem that killed Cartesian dualism. Descartes proposed that the mental was a different sort of substance from the physical, but this raises the question of how they can interact -- how thoughts can cause actions or actions can influence thoughts. Descartes proposed that it happens somehow in the pineal gland, but he couldn't provide any details, and neither can anyone else. It would seem that the natural world is causally closed as a matter of logic. If souls, ghosts, Gods, etc. exist in any meaningful sense -- if they have some perceivable consequence on the state of the world -- then there's no way to distinguish them in principle from anything else in the world, and no reason to call them "supernatural". This is why so much that we call "supernatural" is clearly a figment of the imagination, and we don't call things "supernatural" -- no matter how mysterious they may have once seemed -- once we are able to measure them and come up with a causal explanation for them.

This is totally off-topic, but I'm sticking it in here for curiosity's sake:

Alex L on November 11, 2005 12:05 PM said

"Anyway, the only thing that gets left in a lab for 30 years is a scientist's moldy sandwich. If you're willing to babysit a project for that long then so be it, but it's comparatively unpractical in academia"

I was off-line and missed this on a now-closed thread. The long-term experiment I thought most cool in my undergraduate days was a glass/ceramics researcher who put a glass rod under tension for (I think) 20 years, released the tension, and the rod bounced back to its original shape, thus proving that glass under a stress does not, as commonly believed, deform plastically (i.e. "flow").

Anyway, the only thing that gets left in a lab for 30 years is a scientist's moldy sandwich.

I think Ken Miller estimated that by Behe's figures you should get a new disulphide bond ever couple of hours in a football field. Remember, Behe is not a biologist.

It's late to bother adding this comment, but after considering all the comments to the effect that Santorum is merely following lockstep with DI, I still think the first order explanation is pure politics.

Rasmussen Reports shows Santorum polling 36% to his opponent Casey at 54%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ Rasmussen generally seems to include a slight bias in favor of Republicans, at least compared to other polls, so this can't look good to Santorum. Usually incumbents have an advantage, but Santorum's position is continuing to weaken. He's floated other trial balloons for moderates, such as daring to criticize Bush on the Iraq war.

Santorum might want to parrot DI's policy, but his position is different from somebody like Coburn in Oklahoma who can run a campaign on asinine statements about lesbians in high school bathrooms. Santorum knows that PA has a lot of Democrats in metropolitan areas and even the Republican senators are usually pro-business moderates. Ricky is scared of losing and most of his behavior can probably be explained in terms of being scared of losing.

Neurode,
First of all, you need to get a sense of humor. Second of all, you need to quit being a hypocrite and realize that your Fuhrer over at uncommondescent deletes ALL critics. You are like a pustulent pimple on my ass----every time i sit down, i'm reminded that you exist until you finally pop. I've read every one of your nonsensical posts over on Dumbski's website and you obviously have very little scientific background. Go pray for Jesus to give you the answers, you twit.

Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

Did someone publish a Theory!!!??? Geesh!!...I miss all the good stuff!

Sense of humor?

I appreciate a good joke as much as the next guy. But filth is filth, and libel is libel, and PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen is up to the hilt in it.

From where I sit, it's impossible to imagine how anyone but another dirty-minded moron could think otherwise, or how this sort of thing can be tolerated by any forum which puts any value at all on its reputation.

it's impossible to imagine how anyone but another dirty-minded moron could think otherwise

Well, PaulC, if this is the direction in which your taste runs, then I guess I'll leave the rationalizations up to you.

Of course, phrases like "political guerilla tactic" and "funny in a cruel way" don't quite cut it as justificative parameters, but if you think they do...again, that's up to you.

But in any case, my own opinion, and I daresay the opinions of millions of others who prefer not to be gratuitously exposed to such disgusting garbage, will remain just what it was before.

Ricky is scared of losing and most of his behavior can probably be explained in terms of being scared of losing.

Of course, phrases like "political guerilla tactic" and "funny in a cruel way" don't quite cut it as justificative parameters, but if you think they do...again, that's up to you.

Neurode,
Your arrogance and self-righteous snobbery are more than apparent. Do you take this attitude of superiority with you everywhere or just in this forum? Many may find the Santorum link ironic and even funny, believe it or not. From your posts here and on Dumbski's blog, you seem very narrow-minded and seem to enjoy displaying your very, very limited worldview to everyone. Grow up, I say. Quit isolating yourself within fairy tales and ritualistic dogma. You'll be happier, you twit.

"political guerilla tactic" and "funny in a cruel way" don't quite cut it as justificative parameters

— neurode

an obvious comment on the quality of individual who frequents this board

But in any case, my own opinion, and I daresay the opinions of millions of others who prefer not to be gratuitously exposed to such disgusting garbage, will remain just what it was before.

— neurode

didn't somebody say something about what it indicates when someone protests too much about something?

you know, aside from neurode really artificially inflating the issue for his own gratification, he would only legitimately have a point if someone here had actually made up that thing about Santorum to begin with.

neurode's complaint is the same as if he had accused a paper for libel for printing a story about the website that originally published the Santorum rub (TM) issue to begin with.
No, wait, it's even worse... it's like accusing a paper for libel for printing a letter in the opinion section that had a link to the website.

it's beyond pathetic.

PaulC: "It's not how my taste runs, and I don't intend either phrase as a justification. You asserted your inability to imagine any point to it besides being gratuitously potty-mouthed, and I attempted to explain."

I don't think you quite understand. A justification is an explanation involving things like motives, opportunities and expectations. To that extent, your attempt to explain this bit of repulsive behavior constitutes an attempt to justify it.

Now please pay careful attention here: I don't find your attempted justification adequate or even slightly convincing, and as a consequence, neither I nor anyone who understands my point will be changing his or her evaluation of those who find this sort of thing "funny", or of any website which invites or retroactively condones their juvenile idiocy.

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it "funny", are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target. And like it or not, that's how it is, and how it will stay.

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you, and in all probability, the opinion of the vast majority of others as well. (Of course, you may well be nothing more than a despised minority around here, same as on the street.)

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you

Dan Savage, author of the newspaper column "Savage Love" came up with the Santorum bit. I remember reading the original article and his attempts to tie that definition to Santorum's name. It was actually pretty hilarious. I'm sure all of this escaped Neurode's limited capacity to appreciate any kind of humor outside of his limited tunnel-vision. Why are you even here, Neurode, if all of this bothers you so much?? Go somewhere else, you twit.

I was here first. So why don't you go penetrate yourself?

I don't think you quite understand.

"I was here first. So why don't you go penetrate yourself?"????????????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The retort of a juvenile comes from Neurode. This is not unexpected after observing the inane and puerile posts you make on a frequent basis. Grow up, you microencephalic coprophagous simian ignoramus. You really are pathetic, you twit.

I'm sure the "simian" bit especially hurt.

microencephalic

Microencephaly or micrencephaly are the correct medical terms for a small brain...look it up yourself. If you aren't sure what you are talking about, please don't challenge me.

Having a medical school education and having completed a residency followed by board certification in my specialty really helps in these matters. Microcephaly is the correct term for a small head---i was specifically referring to neurode's small brain, not his small head.

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it "funny", are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target.

That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you

anybody care to guess what Lenny would say to that?

Microencephaly or micrencephaly are the correct medical terms for a small brain

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s) PaulC: "It's not how my taste runs, and I don't intend either phrase as a justification. You asserted your inability to imagine any point to it besides being gratuitously potty-mouthed, and I attempted to explain." I don't think you quite understand. A justification is an explanation involving things like motives, opportunities and expectations. To that extent, your attempt to explain this bit of repulsive behavior constitutes an attempt to justify it. Now please pay careful attention here: I don't find your attempted justification adequate or even slightly convincing, and as a consequence, neither I nor anyone who understands my point will be changing his or her evaluation of those who find this sort of thing "funny", or of any website which invites or retroactively condones their juvenile idiocy. Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it "funny", are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target. And like it or not, that's how it is, and how it will stay. That pretty well sums up my opinion of the lot of you, and in all probability, the opinion of the vast majority of others as well. (Of course, you may well be nothing more than a despised minority around here, same as on the street.)

What is "phallocephaly" the medical term for?

Microencephaly or micrencephaly are the correct medical terms for a small brain...look it up yourself. If you aren't sure what you are talking about, please don't challenge me.

What is microcephaly? Microcephaly is a condition that is present at birth in which the baby's head is much smaller than normal for an infant of that age and gender. "Micro" means small and "cephaly" refers to the head. Most children with microcephaly also have a small brain and mental retardation.

Microcephaly - Microencephaly/Microcephaly is always caused by microencephaly, a small brain, and the two terms are used interchangeably

i was specifically referring to neurode's small brain, not his small head.

Even if there were something funny in this tatter of filth, it clearly has the intended effect of robbing a human being of his basic dignity. Those who not only do this nasty sort of thing, but find it "funny", are reprehensible (rotten, despicable, of poor character, etc.) in every conceivable sense, regardless of how much they happen to dislike the target.

Steviepinhead, Neurode may be incapable of understanding your post. Could you dumb it down a little for him or put it in terms of Jesus and the Bible? You may have to explain to him again who Dan Savage is and that Santorum is a homophobic bigot. I'm sure we're all in for another witty response from Neurode that will further enlighten us to the infantile concepts that reside in his head.

I'm firmimg my opinion on this
Theo.. only got to "pulpit thumper" he did't see the last line "blind sheep"
This is the typical 'I'm a victim' position the creo take up and is much more to do with "Identity Politics" (look it up I don't know about you but it certainly concerns me) than the message of all religions.

Actually, Shaft, I'm content with your reformulation, except I'd probably want to clarify that Santorum has almost certainly adopted the stance of "homphobic bigot" for reasons of political opportunism.

Being a hypocritical homophobic bigot (didn't Savage "out" a ranking member of Santorum's own staff?) is possibly one whit more (to borrow Neurode's terminology) "reprehensible, rotten, despicable, and of poor character" than being a homophobic bigot in the first place.

In so saying, I'm of course operating on the assumption that there exists the occasional sincere homophobic bigot, for what little sincerity may have to offer in such a case.

If you go through the PT archives, you'll find I have already copyrighted the term - inspired by such obvious phallocephalics as DaveScot.

Ahem, I'm pretty sure that "pinhead" qualifies as a transcription of microcephaly, but--despite the ongoing unauthorized slinging of the term about on this thread--you don't see me plumping for licensing fees, do ya?

On the other hand, maybe it would be a way to earn tonight's pizza--forfeited on another thread--back again?

Remember, Behe is not a biologist.

I see that some of you here take particular exception to the alleged "homophobia" of Senator Santorum.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Senator Santorum's views on homosexuality:

"Senator Rick Santorum was labeled a homophobe by critics for making a declaration that he believed consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts."

If this is true, then I don't agree with the Senator. I think that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want with each other in private, on their own time.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want my kids to hear too much about their activities, and I suspect that I'm in strong agreement with the Senator on such issues as the availability to young children of books about same-sex couples, gays adopting and raising kids with a skewed notion of what normal human sexuality and family life are all about (at least where normal families are willing to take the kids instead), gays burdening the national health care system with devil-may-care risky behaviors like "barebacking", "gift-giving" and "bug-chasing", and then blaming their resulting STD problems on the intolerance of society, and so on ad nauseam. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many others, this sort of thing crosses the line from the private behavior of consenting adults, to exerting an unwholesome and potentially destructive influence on society at large.

That being said, I do notice that many of you here seem quite personally invested in these matters. Indeed, you seem to be positively titillated by what most people would consider the disgusting imagery evoked by the saucy, tushy-waggling PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen.

So what do we have here, boys - a gay pajama party?

It's nothing to be ashamed of, mind you...lord knows you can't be expected to withstand the burning yearnings inside your quivering breasts for ever and ever! I'm not homophobic and I promise I won't hold it against you for a minute. But even if that's what's up with you, as it appears to be, don't you think that in return for the tolerance you're always self-righteously demanding of others, you owe the rest of the world at least a modicum of decency and civility? And wouldn't "no more Internet filth" be a good place to start?

The least you can do is put it under your pillows and sleep on it.

normal human sexuality

again, neurode, if you find our behavior so offensive.... it begins to make us wonder why you keep posting here.

Is anybody at PT keeping track of how often Neurode postings infect and kill previously viable threads?

Why hasn't the Thumb, in all these cyberyears, evolved better troll defences than fact, logic, or blunt & fancy name-calling?

Congratulations, Neurode! (Have you been keeping count?)

Templeton discussion, R.I.P.

* DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS *

Sir_Toejam: "again, neurode, if you find our behavior so offensive.... it begins to make us wonder why you keep posting here."

In this case, Toejam, it's because I can't turn my back and leave without hearing the delighted giggles of you and your little friends. And lo and behold, when I come back to see what's going on, there they are: a string of snide mini-posts clearly intended to be at my expense! And that, of course, encourages me to write a little something in response.

I suggest that if you want me to go away, you change your giggling-and-scribbling behavior. (That goes for you too, Pierce.)

tee hee hee.

* DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS *

actually, it's very easy to get any thread here back on track.

just pick up where the last substantive post left off, and the rest of us will jump on board.

many of us find feeding the monkeys to be a great source of amusement on PT, but most of us will drop it in favor of contributing to any substantive discussion.

the reason to respond at all to nuerode (other than for fun) was to point out his vacuous attempt to paint all of us on PT as slanderous for one person quoting a link to the santorum site. It's obfuscation at it's finest, and a common tactic amongst creationist "debators".

I doubt neurode is intelligent enough to have intentionally attempted to derail any substantive discussion here.

I myself often let my fun get the best of me, but i can usually be easily convinced to get back on subject if someone slaps me hard enough, or there is actually further subject matter presented to discuss.

Is there an open question you would like to see addressed at this point?

Neurode,
You asinine turdmonkey, get a grip, boy. I'm beginning to think that neurode may be a teenaged neopubescent boy with a lot of time on his hands sitting up in his bedroom with the door closed with two open Internet Explorer windows on his computer----one permanently fixated on Panda's Thumb, and the other displaying jpg's of naked ladies.

Neurode, your sense of reality is much askew. Thanks for perpetrating various myths concerning aspects of society that aren't approved by your puritan doctrine. It really is good that you keep the party propaganda alive, because you never know when one of those gays is going to get a hold of your kids and infect them with AIDS or, even worse, turn them homosexual.

You are a sad person, Neurode, and i hope some day that you and Santorum come to your senses. The probability of that happening is about equal to the probability that god exists, but i'll keep the faith that eventually your bigotry will come back to bite you hard in the ass. Any questions? Just email me, you twit.

What's next Neurode? More infantile and baseless attempts at insults? HAHA. "saucy" "tushy-waggling" HILARIOUS, BOY. What's next? Are you going to insult the size of my penis? Are you going to insinuate that i'm a virgin? GROW UP, YOU TWIT

i'm just a lurker, but i must agree with sir toejam on the troll feeding philosophy. seems most of you folks can make substantive conversation on evolution and the farce of id. why waste time on jackasses like neurode? where i am, it's too late at night to be reading and typing anyway. that's when these back-n-forths get started. everybody go to bed (or take a nap) and start over in the morning (evening). neurode will be at his (her?) wednesday morning church service and some decent discussion can be had.

just throwing that in.

i like reading this blog, but the troll-slapping gets tiresome.

actually, *ahem* i think you mean to praise Pierce's post, not mine.

but thanks just the same

cheers

I'm guilty of feeding the trolls as much as anybody on PT.

just to be clear.

Hello there, people. I just stopped back in to see if you'd followed my advice and turned your incredible collective brainpower, all two or three watts of it, back to weighty thoughts of Evolution Proud and Triumphant.

But what do I find? Seven mini-posts, and nary a weighty thought in the bunch...in fact, just more complaining about how the big mean "trolls" have knocked you down, tied you up, and gagged your mouths before a single weighty thought could escape!

Right. Sure they have.

Now I'm going to go away again. But I'll be coming back soon to absorb more of your priceless anti-God, anti-ID wit, and needless to say, I'll be terribly disappointed if all I see is more pointless carping, behind-the-back slights, and hypocritical "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS" signs.

So why don't you see if you can say something new and intelligent-sounding to get the thread back on track, which is where you say you want it? If you do, and if you can stop yourselves from saying something nasty, I'll probably just turn around and leave without saying a word.

Now I'm going to go away again

we'll be waiting for you neurode after you came back from the Madras

neurode,

I'll cut you, bitch.

you must actually like neurodes posts, there shaft.

I think the subject material of this thread has been asked an answered.

I vote for thread closure.

High comedy.

Ha!

I suggest that if you want me to go away

As a biologist and a longtime adult who is not normally offended by frank or edgy discussions of human sexuality, I find much of this thread to have become about as much a frank discussion of human sexuality as Uncommon Descent is a frank discussion of multiple dissenting viewpoints.

The traps that people set out for Japanese beetles contain both a food lure and a sex lure. In this case, perhaps a negative version would make a better troll trap. Don't feed 'em, and try not to titillate them, either.

Posted by neurode on November 15, 2005 10:52 PM (e) (s) I see that some of you here take particular exception to the alleged "homophobia" of Senator Santorum. This is what Wikipedia has to say about Senator Santorum's views on homosexuality If this is true, then I don't agree with the Senator. I think that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want with each other in private, on their own time That being said, I do notice that many of you here seem quite personally invested in these matters. Indeed, you seem to be positively titillated by what most people would consider the disgusting imagery evoked by the saucy, tushy-waggling PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen. So what do we have here, boys - a gay pajama party?

It just gets better and better around here, doesn't it?

I regret to disillusion you, but I wasn't merely indulging in schoolyard rhetoric. I honestly suspect that of those capable of deriving an illicit thrill from the kind of vicious, sexually-loaded slur to which I initially objected, a substantial percentage more or less conform to a certain common (and possibly unfair) stereotype: that of the bitchy male homosexual. After all, Senator Santorum has been widely reviled as a "homophobe", and who hates homophobes more than those who fancy themselves the victims of homophobes? It makes perfect sense.

This isn't the first time that the slur in question has been propagated here on the Panda's Thumb. Not too long ago, I was directed to the same disgusting website from this very board. I found it offensive then, and I find it offensive now. I can't think of a serious science-oriented forum in the world, or for that matter on any other planet, that would tolerate it even once, much less repeatedly. It is devoid of meaningful scientific or social content, being the sort of thing that serves only to get psychologically dysfunctional teenage boys slapped in their sewer-like mouths and deprived of their allowances for a year.

This unequivocally being the case, some of you desperately need to get straight about something: people who viciously denigrate other people whom they don't even know, and/or countenance others to do so in close proximity to them, and then add insult to injury by calling anyone who dares to object a "troll", can't really get away with claiming the moral high ground. That's obviously a no-go, and when they try it anyway, they just end up looking stupid (which, let's face it, they almost certainly are).

Trust me, you really ought to come to terms with this before flying off on another patented PT hypocrisy binge.

Interesting. The Templeton Foundation supported Chris Macosko's Creationism class at the University of Minnesota.

who hates homophobes more than those who fancy themselves the victims of homophobes?

On the other hand, I wouldn't want my kids to hear too much about their activities, and I suspect that I'm in strong agreement with the Senator on such issues as the availability to young children of books about same-sex couples, gays adopting and raising kids with a skewed notion of what normal human sexuality and family life are all about (at least where normal families are willing to take the kids instead), gays burdening the national health care system with devil-may-care risky behaviors like "barebacking", "gift-giving" and "bug-chasing", and then blaming their resulting STD problems on the intolerance of society, and so on ad nauseam. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many others, this sort of thing crosses the line from the private behavior of consenting adults, to exerting an unwholesome and potentially destructive influence on society at large.

— neurode

Well then, I guess we'll just have to hope that you (or God forbid, your son) ends up with Bubba instead. At least you're emotionally prepared, you'll know how to take the necessary precautions, and your enlightened liberal conscience will remain clear whether they work or not.

Posted by neurode on November 16, 2005 10:12 PM (e) (s) It just gets better and better around here, doesn't it? I regret to disillusion you, but I wasn't merely indulging in schoolyard rhetoric. I honestly suspect that of those capable of deriving an illicit thrill from the kind of vicious, sexually-loaded slur to which I initially objected, a substantial percentage more or less conform to a certain common (and possibly unfair) stereotype: that of the bitchy male homosexual. 1: After all, Senator Santorum has been widely reviled as a "homophobe", and who hates homophobes more than those who fancy themselves the victims of homophobes? It makes perfect sense. This isn't the first time that the slur in question has been propagated here on the Panda's Thumb. Not too long ago, I was directed to the same disgusting website from this very board. I found it offensive then, and I find it offensive now. I can't think of a serious science-oriented forum in the world, or for that matter on any other planet, that would tolerate it even once, much less repeatedly. It is devoid of meaningful scientific or social content, being the sort of thing that serves only to get psychologically dysfunctional teenage boys slapped in their sewer-like mouths and deprived of their allowances for a year. This unequivocally being the case, some of you desperately need to get straight about something: 2: people who viciously denigrate other people whom they don't even know, and/or countenance others to do so in close proximity to them, and then add insult to injury by calling anyone who dares to object a "troll", can't really get away with claiming the moral high ground. That's obviously a no-go, and when they try it anyway, they just end up looking stupid (which, let's face it, they almost certainly are). Trust me, you really ought to come to terms with this before flying off on another patented 3: PT hypocrisy binge.

1. It doesn't. It just raises the probability.

2. These cases clearly involve different levels of viciousness (e.g., one involves scatological, sexually perverse imagery, while the other does not).

3. Not necessarily. The Wedge Document only betrays the motives of a subset of ID supporters, while ID theory itself makes no reference, direct or indirect, to religion.

Now why don't you stop trying to claim the moral high ground? As I've already explained, it doesn't work that way.

neorode,

I was under the impression that the ID and creationist movement was trying to claim the moral high ground. Unbelievably enough through the use of lies.

Last year I was an ID supporter myself; until I found out just how deceitfull it was.

What is ID theory btw? What does it say? What does it predict?

Neurode,
I think you are just a Panda's Thumb attention whore. Well, you're clearly the center of attention on this thread now. Your goal is achieved. Congratulations! Prudes like you don't come around here too often, so I guess the rest of us are just enjoying the freakshow. Ya sher gots a purty mouth, boy. Over on uncommondescent, you don't seem to revel in the same inane vomit you spew out here. Why is that? I think you just enjoy having the focus on you. Grow up, you self-centered twit.

Grow up, you self-centered twit.

Give him a break, he's just suffering from the toxic interactions of religious fundamentalism and (barely) repressed homosexuality.

Mmmm...a sodomite and a giggler. Sounds like a good match, at least by current PT standards!

HAHA, Neurode just can't give up the baseless "sodomite" accusations. It sure makes him look like an elementary school playground bully tossing juvenile epithets around. Even if i were a "sodomite", what difference does any of that make to you, neurode? If you are trying to get under my skin, you are failing miserable. Keep trying, you homophobic twit.

*miserably--sorry for the typo

Yeah Ogee I was thinking the same thing myself, weird isn't it ?

Like the Military neighbor on "American Beauty"

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html

I'm still not sure you quite understand.

As I've already stated, I'm not homophobic (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don't care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves a pull-all-the-stops gay hootenanny over here, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it.

I only object when your behavior becomes public and vicious. Since your public viciousness involves Senator Santorum, who (along with the Templeton Foundation) figures in the topic of this thread, I have every right to voice my revulsion at your disgusting, reprehensible slurs against his name (and/or implicit support of same).

And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let's-admire-each-other's-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria's-Secret. Fair enough?

neurode you obvioulsy find that arousing
Bow are Bill Baby and Salvadore "Sancho Panzo" Cordova getting on?

I'm not homophobic

And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let's-admire-each-other's-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria's-Secret.

Give him a break, he's just suffering from the toxic interactions of religious fundamentalism and (barely) repressed homosexuality.

Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s) I'm still not sure you quite understand. As I've already stated, I'm not homophobic (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don't care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves a pull-all-the-stops gay hootenanny over here, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it. I only object when your behavior becomes public and vicious. Since your public viciousness involves Senator Santorum, who (along with the Templeton Foundation) figures in the topic of this thread, I have every right to voice my revulsion at your disgusting, reprehensible slurs against his name (and/or implicit support of same). And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let's-admire-each-other's-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria's-Secret. Fair enough?

Oh, come on now, boys.

Look at the slur to which I objected, and the obvious sexuality of the author. Look at the handle chosen by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen (both of them, the one with the spaces and the one without). Look at their comments. Hear the whimpers of protest emitted by the Offical PT Gay Antidefamation League, punctuated by flurries of girlish giggling.

The message is as plain and sharp as the points on your 9" stilettos. So why not give yourselves, and the rest of the world, a much-needed break, and stop pointing your manicured fingers at others? Out-of-the-closet may not be such a bad place once you get used to it.

Don Quixote is visibly crazy to most people. He believes ordinary inns to be enchanted castles, and their peasant girls to be beautiful princesses. He mistakes windmills for oppressive giants sent by evil enchanters. He imagines a neighboring peasant to be Dulcinea del Toboso, the beautiful maiden to whom he has pledged love and fidelity. Sancho Panza, his simple squire, believes his master to be a bit crazy, in particular he knows that there is "really" no Dulcinea, but he plays along, hoping to get rich. He and Quixote agree for instance that because Dulcinea is not as pretty nor does she smell as good as she should, she "must have been enchanted", and from that point on the mission is to disenchant her. Both master and squire undergo complex change and development throughout the story, and each character takes on attributes of the other as the novel goes on. At the end of the second book, Quixote decides on his deathbed that his actions have been madness. Sancho begs him not to give up, but to no avail. Master and squire have numerous adventures, often causing more harm than good in spite of their noble intentions. They meet criminals sent to the galleys, and are victims of an elaborate prank by a pair of Dukes, when Sancho is made "governor" of the nonexistent Barataria.

Hey people,
I think this is just a game for neurode. No one can be serious about posting lame crap like that. He's all show. I mean, come on, he doesn't even make sense logically. I think he's just trying to rile everyone up. He clearly is homophobic and a bigot and likes to propagate stereotypes about groups of people just like his buddy, Santorum. Neurode, maybe you need to expose yourself more to the real world since I think all you do is sit at a computer. Your witty and clever retorts to our commentary are coming a bit too fast for someone who truly has a fulfilling life and other things to do. I have designated a new category of fetish for you, Neurode-----"Santorophilia". Keep entertaining us, you santorophilial twit.

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 17, 2005 12:41 PM (e) (s) Hey people, I think this is just a game for neurode. No one can be serious about posting lame crap like that. He's all show. I mean, come on, he doesn't even make sense logically. I think he's just trying to rile everyone up. He clearly is homophobic and a bigot and likes to propagate stereotypes about groups of people just like his buddy, Santorum. Neurode, maybe you need to expose yourself more to the real world since I think all you do is sit at a computer. Your witty and clever retorts to our commentary are coming a bit too fast for someone who truly has a fulfilling life and other things to do. I have designated a new category of fetish for you, Neurode-------"Santorophilia". Keep entertaining us, you santorophilial twit.

Poor neurode. All of this theatrical overcompensation isn't really necessary.

So you were looking at a few pictures of Bill Dembski's glorious bespectacled face on the web, only to find that your left hand had gotten up to some rather un-Christian mischief. So what?

No one's judging.

I can see it now the next DI release of ID on DVD Block buster "Info-tainment"

So you were looking at a few pictures of Bill Dembski's glorious bespectacled face on the web, only to find that your left hand had gotten up to some rather un-Christian mischief.

— Ogee

Well, there you go. (OK, I admit it - it's hard not to get a kick out of a forum that's widely recognized as a bottomless pit of human psychopathology, but whose major participants don't seem even remotely aware of it.)

Let's review. I began by objecting to a slur against a U.S. Senator. Nobody can coherently argue that this slur is anything but disgusting and reprehensible; that's painfully clear to anyone with a vestige of ethical awareness.

One or two of you then argued that the forum as a whole should not be blamed for the trangressions of a few random dirtbags. Why, it was simply unconscionable of anyone to suggest that even though PT occasionally provides a willing haven for the twisted viewpoints of such people, its lily-white participants can be held responsible in any way!

And yet what do we now witness? Instead of moving on to matters of weighty scientific and philosophical import, these selfsame immaculate participants, these mental giants and pillars of probity, have now targeted yet others - others who are not involved in the discussion, and not present to defend themselves - with vicious, sexually-loaded verbal attacks!

Now here's a question for all of you: does this really say nothing at all about the Panda's Thumb, and/or the type of person attracted to the general philosophical viewpoint most often espoused by its participants?

Don't be afraid to think about it a little before opening your mouths again.

neurode:

no, it tells us very much about you.

Tell us, do you really think it is you pushing our buttons?

Because to everybody else here it looks exactly the other way around.

Don't be afraid to think about it a little before once again claiming to be somehow morally superior to anybody else.

HAHA
I think neurode may be starting to lose it. If we push a little bit harder, that intracranial aneurysm in his head just might rupture and render him a drooling idiot without the ability to type, instead of just a drooling idiot. Again, his hypocrisy rears its beady-eyed little head for all to see. The santorophiliac just can't see beyond his brainwashed agenda. Rock on, you drooling twit!

Said it before,
neurode amuses me. Not so much that I would miss The Simpsons though.
I do find his hypocrisy a huge indication of what the fundies are really like.
I was into ID myself about a year ago. The contrast in honesty between them and you persuaded me they (the fundies/ID crowd)were just a crock.

Comment #58377 Posted by neurode on November 17, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s) I'm still not sure you quite understand. As I've already stated, I'm not homophobic (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don't care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves a pull-all-the-stops gay hootenanny over here, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it. I only object when your behavior becomes public and vicious. ...

— neurode

I'm still not sure you quite understand. As I've already stated, I'm not racist (at least as far as I know from introspection alone). In fact, I really don't care if you witty little joyboys have yourselves negro friends, in private, as consenting adults. I mean it. I only object when your behavior becomes public then it is vicious.

Not necessarily. The Wedge Document only betrays the motives of a subset of ID supporters

, while ID theory itself makes no reference, direct or indirect, to religion.

Lenny: "What's the ID take on that?"

The unofficial ID take on that, Lenny, is that if this is the kind of "science" that lights your fire, then the proper place to discuss it is in the bedroom, with your boyfriend(s). In that private setting, as consenting adults, you can try to (1) replicate the key experiments, (2) work up the data to your full mutual satisfaction, and (3) enjoy a cigarette when you're finished.

Not necessarily. The Wedge Document only betrays the motives of a subset of ID supporters

And who are the other subset?

, while ID theory itself makes no reference, direct or indirect, to religion.

Then why all the bitching and whining about "naturalism" and "materialism"?

By the way, Neurode, I've heard of scientific studies showing that homophobes tended to become measurably more sexually aroused when watching gay porno than did non-homophobes, suggesting that many homophobes are actually self-hating and self-repressing homosexuals. What's the ID take on that?

The unofficial ID take on that, Lenny, is that if this is the kind of "science" that lights your fire, then the proper place to discuss it is in the bedroom, with your boyfriend(s).

I noticed neurode didn't make a comment on my post.
Do you think he might actually be coming to terms that he is portraying himself and a homophobic biggit?

I bet you he's just in denial. Just like many people in the south used to claim they where not racist in one breath and say African-Americans should not go to school with their kids in another. After all neurode isn't saying that homosexuals can not exist. Just that they are not allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Lenny: "And who are the other subset? Well ... . ?"

That would be the subset consisting of those ID supporters whose motives differ from those expressed in the Wedge Document. (As far as most of us are aware, the Wedge Document came out of the DI, with which the majority of ID supporters have little or nothing to do. Of course, it's entirely possible that you've tracked down all the ID supporters, dissolved their resistance by forcing them to read your PT posts, and made them confess their total obedience to the Wedge. But if so, then you must have slipped them all a memory eraser, because nobody seems to remember telling you squat.)

Lenny: "Then why all the bitching and whining about 'naturalism' and 'materialism'? Well ... . . ?"

Well, Lenny, I think it may be because unlike you, most people just don't realize that materialism and naturalism are where it's at. So when you gripe and grouse about how their religion just won't stand up to the powerful rays of enlightenment streaming from your materialistic, naturalistic worldview, they sort of feel as though they have the right to disagree. Now, as all PT regulars are well aware, they're dead wrong about that; nobody in his right mind disagrees with Lenny Flank, because Lenny Flank is always right. But for some strange reason, word of this hasn't yet filtered down to the street.

Lenny: "just one condition, Neurode ---- we get to hook you up to instrumentation and measure your sexual reaction to it. Anything you want to tell us first, Neurode ... ?"

I hate to disappoint you, Lenny, but I'm afraid I won't be participating in any sexual measurements performed by you and your little friends. I suggest that you go find a drunken sailor instead.

neurode do you live by the sea ?
Is the drunken sailor ...a tip ?
I used to drive a Cab for a few months and the one thing I noticed with all the sailors I picked up was their voracious appetite for pussy.
Tell us about your drunken sailor neurode.

neurode again avoids/ignores my point that his own statements clearly show he is a homophobic biggit. Possibly I struck a nerve and he realizes that he might be racist too.

He'll be OK...so will his daughter that he refuses to openly talk to about sex. She's be good and stay a virgin never even kissing a boy until she is married because she is a good Christians and has the fear of the lord in here. When she gets pregnant at 15 it will be someone else's fault completely because neurode would have instilled in her the threat of eternal damnation if she participates in any form of sexual contact with either herself or another person.

Lenny: "And who are the other subset? Well ... . ?"

That would be the subset consisting of those ID supporters whose motives differ from those expressed in the Wedge Document.

(As far as most of us are aware, the Wedge Document came out of the DI, with which the majority of ID supporters have little or nothing to do.

Well, Lenny, I think it may be because unlike you, most people just don't realize that materialism and naturalism are where it's at. So when you gripe and grouse about how their religion just won't stand up to the powerful rays of enlightenment streaming from your materialistic, naturalistic worldview, they sort of feel as though they have the right to disagree.

Lenny: "just one condition, Neurode ---- we get to hook you up to instrumentation and measure your sexual reaction to it. Anything you want to tell us first, Neurode ... ?"

I hate to disappoint you, Lenny, but I'm afraid I won't be participating in any sexual measurements performed by you and your little friends.

Well, Lenny, I think it may be because unlike you, most people just don't realize that materialism and naturalism are where it's at. So when you gripe and grouse about how their religion just won't stand up to the powerful rays of enlightenment streaming from your materialistic, naturalistic worldview,

— neurode

Stephen Elliott: "As for your material/naturalistic argument; I do not see the relevance."

That's Lenny's baby. I was just responding to Lenny.

Stephen Elliott: "I may be wrong on this but; as far as I can make out, science just says that science is the search for natural explanations for phenomena (or words to that effect)."

To even be "wrong", your position would need to be better-defined. The terms "science" and "nature" are coupled without respect to any additional nonlogical constraint. Science is the study of nature; nature is that which science studies. So for any kind of "natural explanation" with a modicum of observational relevance, "science" can be defined to accommodate it pending empirical confirmation.

On the other hand, if your definition of science doesn't accommodate it, then the burden is on you to establish the validity of your definition. People have been asking you "ID critics" to do that for years; you haven't even made a step in the right direction. The obvious conclusion: you can't. So why do you continue to bitch, moan, and write your congressmen as though you have something useful to say? It's a waste of taxpayer resources designed to stop American citizens from deciding how their own children should be educated.

Stephen Elliott: "Now how does that threaten belief in God? God by definition is supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science."

Obviously, the terms "supernatural" and "outside the realm of science" are coupled in a way parallel to their complements, science and nature. So if you regard God as supernatural (non-natural), the burden is on you to establish the validity of your corresponding definition of non-science. But this is something else that ID critics don't seem able to do; again, they have nothing useful to say on the matter. This may be why they occupy themselves with (e.g.) propagating disgusting homosexual slurs against people they don't know.

Stephen Eliott: "If you think that you can confirm God through science, then you would have to make predictions that are verifiable; hence limiting God's ability to choose what God does. Do you really think that is possible?"

It could be that in order to create the universe, God adopted certain constraints in terms of which this could be accomplished. So to even begin to make sense of the issue you've tried to raise here, you need to distinguish between self-imposed constraints on God, and constraints imposed on God from without. More generally, you and your fellow "critics" need to define your own positions before accusing other peoples' positions of being "ill-defined".

Stephen Elliott

Have a look at these and have another go

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/the_fundamental.html#comment-57636

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/templeton_found.html#comment-57396

Stick around neurode I've got something for you too :)

Obviously, the terms "supernatural" and "outside the realm of science" are coupled in a way parallel to their complements, science and nature. So if you regard God as supernatural (non-natural), the burden is on you to establish the validity of your corresponding definition of non-science.

If you think that you can confirm God through science, then you would have to make predictions that are verifiable; hence limiting God's ability to choose what God does. Do you really think that is possible?

Stephen, I think you may be missing the point. If you want to describe God as "supernatural" and "beyond science", you need to do two things: (1) Show that the God concept is irrelevant to the concept of nature associated with your definition of science; (2) justify your definition of science. You haven't done either of those things.

Regarding predictions, they are meaningless in the absence of coherent causal theories by which they are implied. Therefore, theorization precedes prediction in the scientific process. Theories can be defined at various levels of resolution, from highly general to highly detailed; it is obviously hard to extract meaningful predictions from the former, but relatively easy to extract them from the latter.

For example, the "predictions" of neo-Darwinism deal with statistical population effects rather than the timing of speciation and the specific characteristics of new species. This is because even though the RM&NS component of neo-Darwinist theory has been around for a century and a half, neo-Darwinism affords no real grasp of biological causality on the level of resolution required by such predictions.

It is plainly hypocritical for neo-Darwinists to nevertheless accuse IDT, a brand new theory, of being "nonscientific" because it too fails to make sufficiently detailed predictions.

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s) Stephen, I think you may be missing the point. If you want to describe God as "supernatural" and "beyond science", you need to do two things: (1) Show that the God concept is irrelevant to the concept of nature associated with your definition of science; (2) justify your definition of science. You haven't done either of those things.

Then you lose the argument. In fact, given that neo-Darwinism itself can't past your test (A-F) with respect to the timing and biological novelty of speciation, this is the downfall of your entire position.

Of course, you have the option of declaring neo-Darwinism a theory of statistical population effects rather than speciation events. But in that case, it lies outside the explanatory domain of ID theory, and its proponents need to stop emitting clouds of hot gas designed to obscure this important fact.

(that is, "pass your test (A-F)...")

very good Stephen Elliott-----IDiots haven't even gone through that process, yet they call ID a theory. That just shows you what we are dealing with here------IGNORANCE. Neurode displays IGNORANCE in oodles. I have yet to even hear ONE hypothesis generated by the IDiots that is testable or falsifiable. Let's just hear ONE, Neurode. Gimme just ONE hypothesis. Please? Come on, big boy, you can do it. I'm really getting sick of your double-speak and juke moves to avoid actually addressing a point. This is the display of typical creationists/IDiots. They never actually answer a question; they just avoid the question and dazzle you with a bunch of nonsense. Come on, neurode, throw out ONE hypothesis that you IDiots are postulating. Come on, you homophobic twit.

Neurode wants to avoid the evidence generated by the last 150 years of scientific work---wow, what a TWIT.

Shut up and go powder your nose, nancyboy - by now, even your fellow sex creeps are getting tired of your unremitting venom. (On the other hand, maybe you'd like to address Stephen's argument in something resembling a rational way.)

"......the explanatory domain of ID theory"
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
hahahheheheheh

And that would be ?

1. Nothing until the Constitution separating Church and State is changed

2. Literal reading of Gen1. Gen2. the imagined collective history of the Jewish people, which for some passes as religion.

Change hands Neurode

Here is the theory of ID as it always has been

Its an Algorithm:-

Do until dead
Lie, Obfuscate,Conflate,Confuse,and Lie again
Learn nothing

Oh..... I forgot the prediction of ID

Guaranteed Ignorance

"And that would be ?"

...speciation events, with the correlational properties of which ID currently deals, and with the causation of which it must ultimately deal as well. (Can you read, or were you distracted by an unsightly run in your pantyhose?)

So, where are those testable ID predictions again?

I have a testable non-ID prediction: neurode will dodge and handwave at questions he can't answer, while continuing to indulge his not-so secret obsession with crossdressing and man-love.

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s) Then you lose the argument. In fact, given that neo-Darwinism itself can't past your test (A-F) with respect to the timing and biological novelty of speciation, this is the downfall of your entire position.

Tell us all about it neurode

What was his name, or didn't you get that.
is that the problem ?
he never calls ?
he never writes ?
do you miss his hairy kisses ?

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
hahahheheheheh

The argument you started, Stephen. Remember?

Again, the insufferable twit dodges the question--no hypothesis for the IDiots. Come on, Neurode, can't you answer the question?

Neurode, if the designer is perfect, then why is the design imperfect? Why is human biology open to outside attack, internal mutation and ultimately complete and utter breakdown? Was the designer just lazy and cut corners, did the designer include these "features" intentionally to ensure generations of human suffering or is there no designer?

Come on neurode tell us what "sweet nothings" you and Bill "Don Quixote" Dembski and Slavadore "Sancho Panza" Cordova whisper in each others ears.

Neurode, i know you can come up with something, boy. You don't want to be exposed as a fraud in front of all us nancyboys and sex creeps, do you? You know you are better than us so why not rub it in our faces with some real answers? Come on and do it already instead of stringing us along and withholding the tantalizing details. You can do it, you fraudulent twit.

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 01:02 PM (e) (s) The argument you started, Stephen. Remember?

How on Earth did neurode get sidetracked from discussion of the unknown "intelligent designer" to talking about this "God" fellow?

You'd almost think ID was about religion instead of science.

Neurode just kind of rambles, doesn't he? Not much coherency in anything he says-----the only thing that is consistent in his posts is hypocrisy. He's one of those guys that thinks he has all the answers and wallows in ignorance. Life must be pretty boring for a guy like that. Come on, neurode-----give us one hypothesis proposed by the IDiots. You can do it, you hypocritical twit.

OK, PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen.

The ID hypothesis can be expressed as follows: "Because the structures and behaviors of biological organisms display properties which correlate with the products of human intelligence, species will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent or agency exhibiting a property analogous to human intelligence."

Now butt out, Cornholeo. This is all way over your head.

Posted by PenetratingShaftOfTruthAndSemen on November 18, 2005 01:19 PM (e) (s) Neurode... you hypocritical twit.

Neurode, very good---you did it. Now, provide a prediction derived from this hypothesis and what test will be carried out to see if this prediction holds true. I'm going to pin you down, boy. Way over my head, you say? HAHA, let's see how much "over my head" this hypothesis is. Come on, neurode, play the game. I want answers. If i don't get them, me and my other nancyboys and sex creeps may just have to show you the meaning of Bubba love. Come on, neurode, don't disappoint me now. You can do it, you twattish twit.

What if the properties of the complex structure and behavior of the organism resemble that of the products of a retarded child? What does this imply about your "hypothesis". I'm still waiting for some experimental predictions and some evidence, you low-browed twit.

Good grief. That is a prediction, dingbat. Now crawl on back down the smelly pipe whence you came, and leave the thinking to human beings.

So the hypothesis is the prediction and the evidence is where? What has been done to potentially falsify this hypothesis? Come on, you neanderthal. Let's hear it. Quit dodging and answer the question. Come on, you twit.

If you can't answer this question, i guess the nancyboys and I will just have to agree with you that ID isn't science. But maybe you can prove us wrong with some actual ANSWERS. Quit dodging and quit with the derogatory bull, it really isn't getting you anywhere. It only makes you and your fellow IDiots look worse off than you already are. Come on, you twit.

neurode

"Species will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent similar to thought."

Magical thought

Because the structures and behaviors of biological organisms display properties which correlate with thoughts,

More Magical thought

IF this is the official line take it back and get them to fix it.

Its not a bad description for a god though.

Keep going sunshine because you will kill whatever it is you you are trying to prove. Remember Behe "The man who thought he saw the mind of God"

How about:

"Because the structures and behaviors of God display properties which correlate with the products of human intelligence (e.g. literary fiction), God will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent or agency exhibiting a property analogous to human intelligence."

How about:

"Because the structures and behaviors of God display properties which correlate with the products of human intelligence (e.g. literary fiction), God will be found to originate through a process influenced by an agent or agency exhibiting a property analogous to human intelligence."

HAHA, good job, you guys. This neurode guy is getting filleted like the slimy lake trout he is. None of this will matter, though, since neurode has isolated himself from rationality and reality. Let him believe his fairy tale as long as it keeps him from pulling a Jeffrey Dahmer. Come on, neurode. We are all waiting for you witty and clever response to educate us all, you murderous twit.

HAHA, good job, you guys. This neurode guy is getting filleted like the slimy lake trout he is. None of this will matter, though, since neurode has isolated himself from rationality and reality. Let him believe his fairy tale as long as it keeps him from pulling a Jeffrey Dahmer. Come on, neurode. We are all waiting for your witty and clever response to educate us all, you murderous twit.

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s) Stephen, I think you may be missing the point. If you want to describe God as "supernatural" and "beyond science", you need to do two things: (1) Show that the God concept is irrelevant to the concept of nature associated with your definition of science; (2) justify your definition of science. You haven't done either of those things.

I will attempt to deal with your 2nd point 1st. While it is in no way up to me to define science I will attempt to describe what I understand by the term science. A. Observe an event B. Work out an hypothesis of what caused said event. C. Make a prediction from the hypothesis. D. Carry out an experiment to see if the prediction holds true. E. If the prediction is accurate...make another and go back to D. If the prediction fails change the hypothesis and continue through D and E. F. When a number of predictions have been correctly made then forward hypothesis for review by other scientists. See if they are able to carry out predictive experiments using your hypothesis. When all this has been done; then your hypothesis could become a theory. If that is correct (and I am not a scientist, so likely to be wrong). I can see no way to be able to apply it to God. Which means I am unable to deal with your 1st point.

I'll bet neurode's erection is huge after getting all of this attention.

Stephen Elliot"[1] In what way did I fail to answer your question? [2] How can science test for God?"

You've answered your own question [1] with another question [2]. You're not allowed to do that, especially when your "answer" question is essentially the same as the question you asked in the first place ("How else can God be described other than supernatural?").

It has already been explained to you that if you wish to assert that a certain concept, i.e. God, is beyond science, i.e. "supernatural", then you need to precisely define "science". You seemingly attempted to do this by throwing up a rather naive set of conditions (A-F) which are failed by neoDarwinism itself with respect to speciation. (You then appealed to your betters in the scientific community for aid; they didn't respond.)

It follows that in order to win the argument, or in fact to do anything but lose the argument, you need to dump neoDarwinism. Otherwise, you need to dump the test on which your argument depends, thus pulling the rug out from under your feet like some goofy little Wiley Coyote clone. All of your other comments are extraneous, unless you can use them to save neoDarwinism from flunking your "science" test. Can you understand at least this much?

Remember, not even the entire Gay Navy can protect your little rump if you can't follow elementary rules of logic.

"With our thoughts we create the world"

Buddha 2500 years ago

I think i'm about done with Neurode since he can only evade basic questions instead of answer them---talk about answering questions with questions---Neurode, you are the king. Grow up and learn how to defend your position a little better, you immature twit.

I have a testable non-ID prediction: neurode will dodge and handwave at questions he can't answer, while continuing to indulge his not-so secret obsession with crossdressing and man-love.

— Ogee

You made some mighty lofty claims in that last post of yours, neurode. How about you justify calling a perfectly reasonable formulation of scientific method "naive"? How about you show how neo-Darwinism "fails" by the standards of the scientific method? How about you do anything but whine, lie and generally act like a (sexually frustrated) weasel?

Posted by neurode on November 18, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliot"[1] In what way did I fail to answer your question? [2] How can science test for God?" You've answered your own question [1] with another question [2]. You're not allowed to do that, especially when your "answer" question is essentially the same as the question you asked in the first place ("How else can God be described other than supernatural?"). It has already been explained to you that if you wish to assert that a certain concept, i.e. God, is beyond science, i.e. "supernatural", then you need to precisely define "science". You seemingly attempted to do this by throwing up a rather naive set of conditions (A-F) which are failed by neoDarwinism itself with respect to speciation. (You then appealed to your betters in the scientific community for aid; they didn't respond.) It follows that in order to win the argument, or in fact to do anything but lose the argument, you need to dump neoDarwinism. Otherwise, you need to dump the test on which your argument depends, thus pulling the rug out from under your feet like some goofy little Wiley Coyote clone. All of your other comments are extraneous, unless you can use them to save neoDarwinism from flunking your "science" test. Can you understand at least this much? Remember, not even the entire Gay Navy can protect your little rump if you can't follow elementary rules of logic.

I'm sure it will get discussed elsewhere at PT, but:

More good news for IDiots.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," - Rev. George Coyne, Vatican Observatory's Jesuit Director.

You're making too many bad assumptions there, Stephen. I see no percentage in attempting to educate you, particularly since you don't appear to understand why you lost the argument you started, or even to have read the post in which I explained that the definitions of science and nature are coupled in a way free of additional nonlogical constraints. (If you don't understand what this means, I can only suggest that you think about it, somewhere else, on your own time.)

For now, suffice it to say that your rules A-F do no more than skim the very surface of scientific methodology, and cannot do the job you seem to want them to do: prove that God is supernatural. If you dispute that, then feel free to write a paper on it. If I see it out there someplace, I'll be happy to critique it for you at length.

As far as the rest of you are concerned, I'm terribly sorry, but I have better things to do than trade ripostes with the PT's (obviously sizable) subpopulation of bitchy little brain-dead fags (with due exception, of course, for rational and socially responsible members of the gay community). Accordingly, we'll have to wait until something resembling a normal, mentally healthy person posts something at least vaguely suggestive of real intellectual activity.

What an ass. Neurode will forever be ignored by me beyond this point. Funny thing is, on Dumbski's blog, neurode is considered somewhat of an intellectual by the other sycophants allowed to post there. HAHA

Can it possibly be true? Ueber-troll neurode has decided he has better things to do than spouting pseudointellectual gibberish in plain sight of people who can actually, like, think?

I don't believe it for a moment. My bet is that he will continue to insult homosexuals while denying being homophobic, to insult logical thinking while accusing everybody else of not knowing how to think logically, and generally to behave in his usual neurodic, sorry, neurotic way.

By the way, if you still have two neurons connected, neurode, re-read your first sentence. Nobody else sees any "percentage" in trying to educate you, either. Please explain, for the amusement of the crowd who's watching you devolve in real time, what exactly your superior intellect was thinking when you typed that brainfart.

For now, suffice it to say that your rules A-F do no more than skim the very surface of scientific methodology, and cannot do the job you seem to want them to do: prove that God is supernatural. If you dispute that, then feel free to write a paper on it. If I see it out there someplace, I'll be happy to critique it for you at length.

And so hemorrhode flees, having accomplished nothing but exposing himmself as a coward, liar, moron and bigot.

Hey Neurode, if ID isn't about religion, then why on earth do you keep dragging your god-thing into the discussion?

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 06:57 PM (e) (s) Hey Neurode, if ID isn't about religion, then why on earth do you keep dragging your god-thing into the discussion?

Hey Neurode, if ID isn't about religion, then why on earth do you keep dragging your god-thing into the discussion?

That was me

They are evasive dishonest liars, all.

Nevertheless, staff members remain reluctant to dismiss intelligent design entirely, in part because the doctrine's popularity could help achieve the foundation's goal of persuading evangelical Christians to pursue scientific careers. The foundation also complains that academia is too quick to censor the doctrine.

Hddl tht's th snst thng 'v sn y pst.(gggl)