Finally, someone proposes an ID model

Dear Nick,

I have just read the Robert Newman ID model you linked. I am now dumber than I was before I started reading it. As I am a working scientist I need all the brainpower I can muster. Please could you give me some tips on how to recover lost intellect after reading such utter drivel.

Regards

Louis

P.S. I am off into the lab to try to regain some of the wit I once possessed.

P.P.S. Ooooh oooh I get to be the first to say that I thought ID wasn't about religion {snicker}. Sorry Lenny.

I didn't see anything in there about the role of angels dancing on pin heads in design. Why not?

Please could you give me some tips on how to recover lost intellect after reading such utter drivel.

We are sure this not a clever parody, aren't we?

I mean, Mr. Newman wouldn't be trying a bit of Dembski street theatre, would he?

I have just read the Robert Newman ID model you linked. I am now dumber than I was before I started reading it. As I am a working scientist I need all the brainpower I can muster. Please could you give me some tips on how to recover lost intellect after reading such utter drivel.

Demons--however they may be related to angels properly so-called--can inhabit humans, drastically affecting their lives and the lives of others around them. They are able to inhabit animals also, though we only have a glimpse of this in the biblical record.

Louis,

If it's any consolation I sincerely doubt you are dumber now, since laughter acts to protect ones body and brain.

"Could predation be malevolent design? That was certainly the way Darwin viewed the matter. As I read the geologic record, predation goes all the way back to the Cambrian period. If it is malevolent, then the fall of Satan is much earlier than that of Adam, and creation is already not so good by the time Adam comes along."

Paradise lost.

Oh, and I like this too: "the natural law of the gaps". The gap between the angels "intermittent and personal" actions, I presume.

But how could we tell scientifically whether or not angels operate in our world? [...] Early in the space age, satellites were only capable of making pictures of earth in daylight and with relatively poor resolution. Researchers interested in looking for extra-terrestrial intelligence decided to try and use these pictures as a test to see if they could detect signs of human intelligence on earth. The only evidence they were able to find was a massive logging operation in Canada, where a large crisscross pattern had been made.[14] They were surprised to find so little evidence, but the situation did not improve until it was possible to photograph the night side of our planet and see all the light from our cities. From this example we can see that intelligent activity could be at work, but we might not have the tools to detect it, or we might only be able to detect the most blatant cases. [...] How might we find scientific evidence for angelic activity? Our proposal here is that angelic activity is not like natural laws, which are operating continuously. Rather, they are more like human actions, which are sporadic. But here we have the additional complication that we cannot see the actors.

— Robert Newman

And yet, for all the mirth that this "ID model" has inspired here, it is-- let's admit it!-- a step closer to being a scientifically testable idea than the concept that some unspecified designer with unspecified goals, unspecified limitations, unspecified abilities, and unspecified aesthetic tastes designed something somewhere at some point in history and translated that design into something biological (or maybe cosmological) through some unspecified mechanism(s).

I almost feel sorry for the IDers. Staying utterly silent about the details of their theory is the best they can do. Because they can't flesh out that theory, even a little bit, without veering into absurdity or blasphemy. Or both.

I've never heard of Robert Newman, and what he's written sure-as-hell reads like a parody.

BTW, have I ever mentioned how much I like Pandas Thumb? I just feel like mentioning that...

organisms which possess incredible complexity beyond what natural selection could "design" from the available offerings of chance, and which also seem to be clearly malevolent, might well be the work of malevolent spirit beings. There are, of course, other possibilities. They may be the direct or indirect work of God and we are mistaken in viewing them as malevolent.

The demons at Gerasa are able to control about two thousand pigs, but this may have been no more than one demon per pig.

A veritable scientific tour de force. My only minor quibble is that he does not discuss using the same methods to detect the actions of gnomes, leprechauns, faeries, sprites, poltergeists, ghosts, gremlins, bigfoot, the loch ness monster or el chupacabra.

I see what you mean about this guy not being some "random internet wacko." He's obviously a specific, discretely identifiable wacko. Much different.

and here I enter the thread thinking, wow, at last, no more talking, some action from the ID crowd. About bloody time too! So I click the link and start reading... it's not the first of April yet, is it?

And I wonder, that why is it that if ID is not about religion, that the only thing we ever hear from them is religion.
The poor ID crowd. No matter how hard they try to tell their supporters to shut up about their religion, the more their supporters ruin it all.

"Die arme moere"

The Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute? Angelic activity? Give me a f$#@ing break. Go back to the Bronze Age, asshole.

"I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: "Okay, you've heard from Darwin. Now we'll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation..." and so on."

Great essay by David Brin in Sketptic at:http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_other_ID_theories.php

Robert Newman was an essayist for the book Mere Creation, also contributed to by Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Behe, Johnson and Nelson. He's an ARN featured author. He's listed on designinference.com as an endorser of Dembski's book. Definitely not a random wacko - this wacko's both complex and specified

Incidentally, DaveScot's modification of the trackbacked UD post is... interesting. He's apparently gone from insulting Nick for picking on people stupider than him to insulting Nick for picking on people smarter than him. Highly amusing.

Justin Olson, it is clear that you are controlled by a spirit of the demon type (as per this topic). Use ID to detect the excact type, colour and intention. Then, once this knowldge has come to you, eat a bowl of Lasagna (with a good wine), so that the noble FSM may cleanse you of it ;)

i found it hilarious that he went into such detail on the biochemistry of how HIV hijacks the replicative machinery of lymphocytes and then escapes, without remarking in any way that this entire biochemical cascade of transcription and translation is universal among terrestrial life, OR that the mechanisms of the hijack are pretty much standard among retroviruses. then he points out that the Ebola virus uses the SAME protein as HIV does to escape the cell! ("coincidence?" i can hear him crow, "i think not!") we have here an example of the old maxim: "a little learning is a dangerous thing."

new hypothesis? bull-pucky! this entire diatribe is just an updated version of the old 'anciliary hypothesis': "god is good and omnipotent and always benevolent, and created perfection. anything that does not fit this utopian vision must therefore be the work of an evil, nearly-as-powerful counterdeity," with the added frosting of "incompetent assistants".

note, however, the proximity of this missive to april 1... i smell an april fish.

derek

p.s.
BUT: isn't it amazing how cats have holes in their fur EXACTLY where their eyes are? how can evolution explain THAT?!

This article may be a hoax, but several times I have heard Dembski mention, in all seriousness, that angels might be derived or surrogate intelligent agents responsible for design.

Thanks for all your support people!

After I finished the Sam Harris book I felt a lot better.

I am sure it has occured to everyone else that DaveScot (or whatever his name is) is following the line of Winston Churchill.

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

In other words DaveScott, of course not being religious in any way {cough cough}, will attack ANYONE who dares to critique the drivel of an avowed supporter of IDCism. Not of course that I am equating Hitler and the devil with any person or subject. I'm referring to Churchill's "zero tolerance" policy viz Adolf. DaveScot clearly has a similar policy regarding evidence, logic, reason, intellect and indeed anyone that (rightly) criticises his precious IDCism.

I see the opportunity for some fun. Anyone want to run a faux smear campaign on a prominent PTer's works on Saturday and see how long before the IDCIsts snap up the juicy bait?

Finally, an IDist has actually come out and proposed an ID model. Read it here. It is a version of Richard Hoppe's Multiple Designers Theory, but admirably more specific. Note that the author, Robert Newman, is not some random internet wacko, he is a longtime contributor to the ID literature.

It seems fairly obvious that the solution to detecting demon and angel activity is to borrow the instruments used in the Ghostbusters movies. It worked for them, didn't it?

Where does he explain how we can detect witches?

I haven't read the full thing yet. I'm hoping it explains
pygmies and dwarves.

Now definitely we know where the EVILUTIONISTS came from. The spawn of demons and evil angels. Beware we are watching you IDers.

[luskin]
I just want to reiterate that ID has *nothing* to do with religion. I don't even get how you could connect the two.
[/luskin]

"Between the actions of an infinite, eternal, omniscient being and those of us lowly humans, could we find evidence for the actions of intermediate beings such as angels?" Lenny,and all, how does it feel to be a LOWLY human?

Sorry for the attempted previous post. This darn KwickXML is full of demons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What I tried to post previously was;

Now we definitely know where do all the EVILUTIONISTS came from, the spawn of demons and evil angels. Beware IDers, we are watching you.....

I'd like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It's about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even sm...

Angels! (slaps forehead) How could we have been so stupid as to overlook angels?!

I'd like to conduct an experiment to quantitatively measure "malevolence" among various parasitic wasp species. Can anyone describe a methodology I could use? Some index of ecological evil perhaps?

Note that the author, Robert Newman, is not some random internet wacko, he is a longtime contributor to the ID literature.

I'd like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It's about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even smarter than he does now. Update: Awe shucks. It looks like I was wrong. The adversary is Dr. Robert C. Newman who was awarded a doctorate in theoretical astrophysics from (Ivy League) Cornell in 1967. Nick has not only failed to attain a doctorate, he switched his major at an unremarkable school from chemistry and biology to the much more lightweight field of geography. What's next for Nick, a doctorate in basket weaving from the ITT Technical Institute? Theoretical Astrophysics is pretty much your stereotypical rocket science and far beyond Nick's meager intellectual abilities. My abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.

— DaveScot

What a great essay! I'm jealous--I wish I could write such subtle, understated satire with a straight face.

I especially like the idea about the ichnewmans--we can extend that thought a bit. If the wasps merely bit off the caterpillars' heads and swallowed them whole, there would be nothing malevolent. Consider how a goose is prepared for fois gras; the obvious explanation is that humans were created by evil angels!

Isn't it sad that even the IDists like DaveScott can't tell the difference between a serious ID proposal and parodies of IDism? How do you tell the difference between Newman's article and this: href=http://tinyurl.com/elzpm ?

I'd like to conduct an experiment to quantitatively measure "malevolence" among various parasitic wasp species. Can anyone describe a methodology I could use? Some index of ecological evil perhaps?

ABSTRACT: Because of the tension which has developed between the scientific and the evangelical communities in the past century and a half, Bible believers are often (rightly or wrongly) suspicious of the discoveries and theorizing of modern science. This has led to a rather widespread attraction to theories viewed as crackpot by scientists and other educated people. Some examples are discussed and strategies proposed to protect Christians from looking unnecessarily foolish before the watching world.

Re: UD trackback

It certainly is funny to watch the DaveScot progression. It seems that first he just read the article, recognized it as silly, and then ripped into Nick for attacking a far inferior opponent (comparing Newman's work to fairly tales). Then, after figuring out that the author is a "credentialed" ID proponent, he switched, and ripped Nick for trying to attack a far superior opponent. Oops.

BTW, the essay contained some elements of DandD-style analysis of the abilities of the angels. I am left wondering how many hit points they have.

"ABSTRACT: Because of the tension which has developed between the scientific and the evangelical communities in the past century and a half, Bible believers are often (rightly or wrongly) suspicious of the discoveries and theorizing of modern science. This has led to a rather widespread attraction to theories viewed as crackpot by scientists and other educated people. Some examples are discussed and strategies proposed to protect Christians from looking unnecessarily foolish before the watching world."

The malicious psycho appointed by Dembski to maintain his miserable blog points to Newman's being a degreed astrophysicist as a proof he can't be a complete wacko. What unusual is in that? Gerald Schroeder has a PhD in physics from MIT but thinks that masers emit atoms and that weight and mass is the same. There are a few ID advocates who managed to percolate through the imperfect filters of the degree-awarding system, and to hide their wackiness behind a seemingly normal activity in some legitimate field. It must be a balance on a thin wire, but schizophrenics are often great artists as well.

It certainly is funny to watch the DaveScot progression. It seems that first he just read the article, recognized it as silly, and then ripped into Nick for attacking a far inferior opponent (comparing Newman's work to fairly tales). Then, after figuring out that the author is a "credentialed" ID proponent, he switched, and ripped Nick for trying to attack a far superior opponent. Oops.

I have a memory of reading about somedthing like this in New Scientist years ago. A real physicist noted that the first time a physical constant was measured, the measurement was some way from the true value, and later measurements were closer. He hypothesised that when the first meaurement was made, the exact value of the constant wasn't set, so Archangel Gabriel (or whoever - my knowledge of celestial management structures is inadequate) would set an approximate value, and then rush off to God to ask what the exact value was. Once he found that out, he could make sure that everyone else got close to the right value.

The physicist then proposed an interesting experiment to investigate his hypothesis. If it was true, then there would be a time delay between the first measurement and measurements that were getting the correct value (as the Archangel filled in the paper work, arranged the meeting with his boss etc.). This delay should be measureable, simply by having several groups do the same experiment at slightly different times. The upshot of this is that it would be possible to measure "archangelic time", i.e. the time it took the Archangel to fly off to Heaven, get an answer, and come back.

I'm not sure if the grant proposal was ever written.

Bob

Nick has not only failed to attain a doctorate, he switched his major at an unremarkable school from chemistry and biology to the much more lightweight field of geography.

The malicious psycho appointed by Dembski to maintain his miserable blog points to Newman's being a degreed astrophysicist as a proof he can't be a complete wacko. What unusual is in that?

In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and science, and invariably; and, on the other hand, all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and science.

— Andrew Dickson White

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!

Mr. Madison, what you've just said...

— yellow fatty bean

AR: Oi! I pointed out the schizophrenia first dammit! And that information is complex and specified so you must have been plagiarising my comments! Or something like that...

Did he just call HIV and Ebola viruses malevolent angels?

And I love the argument that since physicists don't understand what matter is how can they deny the existence of spirit. If the lack of understanding one topic is grounds for dismissing a person's understanding of other topics then we have a major, major problem.

BTW, couldn't we turn this around and say that since IDists do not know who their designer is (she/he/it isn't God, right?)how can they dismiss her/his/its lack of existence?

Robert C. Newman is also the coauthor of What's Darwin Got to Do With It? (InterVarsity Press 2000), a comic-book-style "intelligent design" primer, of which Phillip Johnson said, "This brilliant critique is deadly accurate--and more fun than a barrel of Australopithecines." I wrote a piece about it that appeared in two parts (part 1, part 2) on the Metanexus website, if anyone is interested.

Too funny! I particularly liked the helpful table with the attributes of God, good angels, evil angels and man so nicely tabulated. I just wasn't sure if by the panda's thumb being a candidate for angelic intervention he was referring to the animal or the website.

Traitorous infidels! There is no religion in ID! Anybody saying there is, is insane and will burn in Hell! The angels and demons are nowhere near the airport either! It is all lies!

MSS
Iraqi Information Minister
(currently on leave)

Robert C. Newman is also the coauthor of What's Darwin Got to Do With It? (InterVarsity Press 2000), a comic-book-style "intelligent design" primer, of which Phillip Johnson said, "This brilliant critique is deadly accurate---and more fun than a barrel of Australopithecines." I wrote a piece about it that appeared in two parts (part 1, part 2) on the Metanexus website, if anyone is interested.

I think I can fairly summarize Mr Newman's 'paper' thusly: 'If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had any eggs.'

I didn't look at the source of the paper when I began reading it and I swear I thought it was some parochial high-school student's term paper. "Predation goes all the way back to the Cambrian period." I guess prior to the Cambrian "period", life was just magically - oops, intelligently - sustained?
These people don't have a fncking clue, no matter how many we throw to them.

Time continues to march backwards aided by Newman's own SNRF. Not to be confused with the salad dressing, Newman's own SNRF could be theoretically employed to detect positive and negative intelligences. The detection of secondary positive and negative intelligences could be considered analogous to particle physics and detection of these intelligences similar to detection and description of particles. These paired intelligences, like quarks, would come in different flavors, up/down, charm/strange, and top/bottom. It is interesting to note that the conveniently named up, charmed, and top quarks, presumably analogous to positive intelligences, all have a larger charge compared with the negative intelligences analogous to down, strange, and bottom quarks. Stable positively charged (good) protons are composed of 2 up quarks and a single down quark suggesting that positive intelligences dominate in stable positive matter while in neutrons it takes 2 down quarks to balance a single up quark. This of course does not address antiquarks, but the interaction between quarks and antiquarks always leads to unstable particles which rapidly decay, suggesting perhaps an unknown set of intelligences as yet unconsidered by the ID community. If such an analogy is valid it further expands the range of intelligences that may be responsible for the order of the universe.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Then, after figuring out that the author is a "credentialed" ID proponent, he switched, and ripped Nick for trying to attack a far superior opponent

That research proposal is "IBRI Research Report #56". So I guess there are at least 55 more such articles available.

Hmm. Don't know about wasps, but you may have heard of Ellenberg indicator values for European plants. They're ranked on a 1 to 9 scale of evil. For example, pretty flowers like orchids and truly divine plants like barley and hops get a 1 rating, whereas nettles, brambles and Brussels sprouts get a 9.

I already responded to PZ's remarks on Pharyngula, and don't see the point of rewriting for this forum, so here is my unaltered (except for a slight correction at the end) post:

It's far from a specific hypothesis. What is more, it's old fundie stuff recycled into a slightly more sensible form (i.e. they pay attention to the age of the earth--no reason to do that while ignoring evidence for evolution, however). I grew up hearing that mosquitos and the like were "bred up" by Satan.

I guess someone finally balked at the nihilistic blather of Dembski and decided that their "designer" had to be something other than an indifferent idiot savant who unfathomably designed (according to evolutionary patterns) creatures to eat each other in the most miserable and horrific manner. After all, many of the most amazing "designs" are of parasites who manipulate behaviors in order to further their need to eat up defenseless organisms from the inside.

The traditional problem for invoking evil gods is simply that supposedly only God can create life (why I was told that Satan used breeding programs). The creationists are now hollowing out their theology via ID, deciding that after all a human is just a collection of parts, tubes, "wires", and molecular machines, which any reasonably good alien or demon might master. In a sense I expect they're right, though it really remains to be seen if anything could design the complexity of life and ecological and evolutionary relationships from "first principles" (I'd agree that "designers" could likely copy what we have now at some stage--or make something similar, though different, using evolutionary algorithms). The life cycles of parasites in particular seem to be of the sort that humans would be quite unlikely to design (had they a reason--why don't the IDiots ever ask the reasons for design by gods and demons?), and make sense only as opportunistic evolutionary developments.

Of course this is what the IDiots always ignore, the fact that we now use evolutionary processes to develop what thinking from first principles could not, or at least what intelligence would not readily conjure up. That is to say, there is overlap between what intelligence thinks up and what evolution produces, however each means of developing complex systems has specific strengths and weaknesses which we may and do use to our advantage.

Unfortunately the dolts still refuse to ask why even demons are "designing" by utilizing evolutionary algorithms.

I think that the upshot is that eventually we are going to have IDists who posit that intelligent beings, as intelligent beings, in fact did use evolutionary algorithms to produce life. They'll still claim that biological evolution is not adequate to produce "incredible complexity beyond what natural selection could "design" from the available offerings of chance", but they'll note that we use evolutionary algorithms to "design", and so could gods, demons, and aliens.

We might still ask them how evolutionary algorithms themselves ever arose (we picked them up from the evolutionary pattersn we see, after all). But the real point is that one really cannot argue down IDists, for they will always invoke ad hoc possibilities to save their "hypothesis". It would be absurd to suppose that they will not pick up on evolutionary algorithms at some point as the design process that demons and angels have used, and then they will have achieved their ultimate end, an "ID hypothesis" that cannot even conceivably be falsified, even by the critics who so far have attempted to treat ID as a sort of proto-science and thus have introduced meaningful restrictions in their critiques.

That IDists continually come up with "hypotheses" that differ [predictively] in no manner whatsoever from evolutionary predictions (sensibly we can understand herbivory, carnivory, and parasitism as predicted by evolution) points to one fatal flaw--they have no real knowledge of science and of what constitutes a scientific hypothesis. Though tiresome to repeat and to contemplate, it is the master explanation for all of their bewilderingly complex evolutions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

It looks like there has been a trend over the past three or four centuries in these disciplines: first, angels were removed; then God's miraculous intervention; then His providential control; finally, His existence is ignored altogether. The recent upsurge of popular interest in angels has not reversed this yet, though it may be a symptom that modernism is retreating before a postmodern mindset.[1] [1] Some more or less scholarly recent treatments of angels are Anthony N. S. Lane, ed. The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm (Paternoster/Baker, 1996); Duane A. Garrett, Angels and the New Spirituality (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995); and C. Peter Wagner and F. Douglas Pennoyer, eds., Wrestling with Dark Angels: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Supernatural Forces in Spiritual Warfare (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990).

I'd love to see an experiment designed to test how many pigs one demon can control.

I find it amusing that on the same day I read this, I was also directed to this article:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/14202379.htm

Newman calls geocentrism "crackpot science". :)

Now, if you want to encounter a real brawling bug that will get right into your face in a most malevolent fashion, I suggest checking out this one. One of these malcontents once tried to beat me up on a footpath in Michigan simply because I strayed into his territory. If I hadn't run away, this evil creature would undoubtedly have put my eye out with his proboscis!

Proposing that the natural world is infested with evil spirits may be an innovation for some I.D. types, but it is business as usual for the faithful. Since the world is not all roses and delight, defenses of theism naturally require a demonology. Anyhow, Surveys consistently show that most Christians in the U.S. believe in the literal reality of the devil and his minions--it's minions, not employees, by the way, since Hell is even harder to unionize than Walmart.

Apropos of this nonsense, somebody recently complained in one of the comment sections that a skeptical poster had treated Christianity as a second-rate superstition. I must agree. Christianity is definitely not a second-rate superstititon.

Ho hum
Childish fantasies no different to believing in Santa.
These guys should start a science fiction club for common sense challenged theologians.

How about a mythical creator just sitting back and watching nature take its course to see what would happen, then stopping time winding everything back to the start and then interfering with every single boson, neutrino, electromagnetic Field, time itself (of course), space, dark matter and so on.

No rush you understand 10 or so billion years of pushing everything around and then making the solar system etc etc now he didn't need to be a scientist to work all this out since he had seen it all happen before he had all the tools imaginary microscopes, imaginary super colliders, imaginary computers, unlimited abilities just so he/she/it could take the credit.

Then waits for earth to cool and the rest is history.

Mans imagination is all that limits his creations including imagined history and imaginary creators.

Karen: Talking of AIG here are their views on Aliens, UFO's, extraterrestrial life etc.:

I'm sure I've heard Gary Bates on TV saying that UFO sightings were satanic in nature and ETs were demons.

I find it amusing that on the same day I read this, I was also directed to this article: http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/w... Newman calls geocentrism "crackpot science". :)

Geocentrism is a less-known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society's trust in science, instead using religion to explain how we got here - and, in geocentrism's case, just where "here" is.

Meanwhile, Sungenis wants to make sure "people don't classify geocentrists with Flat Earthers. We don't believe that at all."

Meanwhile, Sungenis wants to make sure "people don't classify geocentrists with Flat Earthers. We don't believe that at all."

Arden, only once have i seen two creationists here talk to each other, and that's David and Carol, and that's when they both loved talking about how inerrant the bible is, and they avoided mentioning the fact they were talking about two different bibles.

So now that everones had a while to adjust, what do people think of the new arrangement of the comment box, comments, and trackbacks? I think it sucks.

Arden, only once have i seen two creationists here talk to each other, and that's David and Carol, and that's when they both loved talking about how inerrant the bible is, and they avoided mentioning the fact they were talking about two different bibles.

I posted the first comment on the trhead, suggesting that DaveScot post a pointer to his curriculum vitae, so we could compare it with Nick's. Oddly enough, that comment was deleted.

You don't think it's possible, do you, that DaveScot wrote an ad hominem against someone else's scientific credentials, while having none himself? Why, that would be just so hypocritical!

I think I figured out how they could make it worse though. Put the comment box at the very top, then trackbacks, followed by the comments section with the most recent comments at the bottom, followed by the article. That would be slightly worse than the current arrangement.

So now that everyones had a while to adjust, what do people think of the new arrangement of the comment box, comments, and trackbacks? I think it sucks.

I think I figured out how they could make it worse though. Put the comment box at the very top, then trackbacks, followed by the comments section with the most recent comments at the bottom, followed by the article. That would be slightly worse than the current arrangement.

only slightly though, steve.

My abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.

— DaveScot

Give me a concrete example of what you mean by an "evolutionist" research program. I'm curious about what practical benefits there are in any "evolutionist" research programs to begin with. My opinion is that there is no practical benefit that comes from presuming that bacteria somehow morphed into mammals via time & chance and constructing phylogenetic trees with everything placed just-so in a presumably historically accurate manner has no practical benefit either. -ds

They could also try scrambling the chronological order of the comments. That would be new and exciting.

Dr. Newman, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not sure if this an appropriate place for this, but wanted to share this quote I picked off uncomondescent.com and wanted to share it with everyone. I'm a newcomer to pandasthumb so please forgive a newbie's lack of "protocol".

Note that the author, Robert Newman, is not some random internet wacko, he is a longtime contributor to the ID literature.

You don't think it's possible, do you, that DaveScot wrote an ad hominem against someone else's scientific credentials, while having none himself? Why, that would be just so hypocritical!

No, he wouldn't do that. He's told us of his massive qualifications, which include the fact that he's smarter than everybody who he encounters here, an engineering degree (and supposedly some fantastic invention), and the fact that he reads Scientific American cover to cover.

Not to put down SciAm, but that one sure made me laugh. It's a good magazine, but not even one that outlines the proper procedures used in the scientific investigations that it reports on. What a dullard! I mean, he may be intelligent enough, yet clearly he's compensating for not learning enough to be able to think scientifically.

It's like Norm on Cheers in one episode. Sam said that he could send in a poem for publication and receive the same letter in reply that Diane had received for hers. Then Sam turned to Cliff and Norm and asked if they knew anything about poems. Norm replied that he knew how to make fun of them.

That's our endearing DaveScot, not a clue about science, but he has some capacity to make fun of scientists. And he's way smarter than anyone who reads this, don't forget it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/finally_someone.html#comment-91103Pete mentioned above how some YECs attribute UFOs to demons. In "Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men" Hugh Ross (Ph.D. Astronomy Universith of Toronto), Kenneth Samples (M.A. Theology) and Mark Clark (Ph.D. Uni. of So. Cal., Prof. Cal State, San Bernadino) make the same argument.

*Irony meter red alert*

Their book's subtitle is "A rational Christian look as UFOs and Extraterrestrials."

DaveScot--He's our "special" little man. Spewed out his vile attack on Newman for being as "poorly versed in science" as Nick is supposed to be, then read of his "qualifications". Now he's down on his knees, begging for it.

This is the problem with mindless dolts like DaveScot. He can't vet any science, being "special" and all, and can only "evaluate" what people say based on their credentials and their incapacity to understand historical science.

I like that Dembski continues to allow us to bask in the radiance of his countenance, silently blessing the ravings of a lunatic. Got to rein in such "special" people now and then, like when they decide to agree with the evidence of common descent, but it's only (relatively) intelligent remarks that make Dembski step in to hold back our "special boy". Otherwise it's all, "unleash the brat".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

That's our endearing DaveScot, not a clue about science, but he has some capacity to make fun of scientists. And he's way smarter than anyone who reads this, don't forget it.

Just one more thing: I am always amazed at the single-minded interest in what is written on Panda's Thumb by "independent thinkers" like Berlinski, DaveScot, and Dembski. DaveScot reads most posts before I do, and maybe more to the point, he actually does read most.

For me it's hit and miss. Panda's Thumb is all well and good, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds the whole matter to be repetitious and often boring. And I never go to Uncommon Descent, unless a post is linked either here or on Pharyngula--most times not even then. DaveScot, otoh, is obsessed with what is written here, which I suppose makes sense if we consider that he doesn't have anything intelligent and positive to say about ID (then again, who does?).

A number of IDists seem to be among the most faithful readers of this blog. Wouldn't it be nice if they'd just go away and do some research? I mean, there's nothing really to do with ID "research", but can't they be convinced enough that there is something to ID that they would at least for a few months do some pretend research and shut up for most of that time?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

The panda (a relative of the bear) has its five regular digits structured as a paw, as is typical in four-footed animals such as the carnivores.

It is arguable whether or not the panda's thumb is a poor design.[29] But even granting that it is, may it not be the work of genetic manipulation by angels, who are constrained by history to work with what is available in the ancestral panda lineage, unlike an omniscient, omnipotent God making a new design from scratch?

Hehe...maybe Davey should have looked up "abject" and found out what it means. But now that I think about it, maybe it was what he meant.

— Jim Wynne in Comment 91183

Nothing at all, and it provides an opportunity to mention Gerardus Bouw, B.S. in astrophysics, Ph.D. in astronomy, proponent of a geocentric universe, and (surprise surprise) evangelical Christian.