Dembski on Forrest

Posted 11 December 2007 by PvM

Has Forrest ever debated or had a substantive exchange with any ID proponent?

and

Ironically, last year around this time she published an essay in which she called me a coward.

Let's look at the context and see if we can answer Dembski's question.

These tactics by DeWolf and Dembski highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry. The trial was Dembski’s moment to shine, to explain on the legal record why ID is a “full scale scientific revolution,” as he wrote in The Design Revolution (InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 19). Instead, plaintiffs’ witness Robert Pennock read to Judge Jones Dembski’s statement regarding ID’s revolutionary status — and then dismantled it. Ironically, Dembski had his arch-critics right where he wanted us — on the witness stand and under oath. He could have been there, implementing his strategy, helping to “squeeze the truth” out of us, “as it were.” In November 2005, after the trial ended, Dembski posted on his “Design Inference” website a pdf made from his May 11 and 16, 2005, “vise strategy” blog pages, labeled as a “Document prepared to assist the Thomas More Law Center in interrogating the ACLU’s expert witnesses in the Dover case.” He appended a list of “Suggested Questions,” which, he wrote, “will constitute a steel trap that leave the Darwinists no room to escape.” But when he had an opportunity to witness firsthand how his trap would operate, he was nowhere to be found. He “escaped critical scrutiny” by quitting rather than face cross-examination. He is apparently $20,000 richer for it, however, marking yet another difference between us: whereas I served pro bono, Dembski charged $200 per hour and threatened to sue TMLC for payment for 100 hours of work he claims to have done prior to quitting. After ID’s dramatic, unequivocal defeat in Kitzmiller, Dembski’s priorities remained remarkably consistent: “This galvanizes the Christian community. . . . People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.” [70] If failure is that lucrative, one can only imagine how well-remunerated he and his ID colleagues would be if they could tell the truth and back up their claims about “intelligent design theory.”

The “Vise Strategy” Undone: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District By Barbara Forrest In other words, Forrest showed up to testify and the outcome of the trial shows how her contributions were instrumental in demolishing the case and exposing the religious foundations of the Intelligent Design movement. Quite a substantial contribution

Yet, like Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell, neither DeWolf nor Cooper was anywhere in sight when they had a chance to defend ID in court.

And that is the rest of the story. Yes, ID is rightly afraid of the formidable lady as the following excerpt shows

After Forrest had been deposed, the TMLC tried but failed to have her stopped from testifying. In a motion to have her removed as a witness, they described her as "little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing, ‘cyber-stalker’ of the Discovery Institute..."[1][2] Judge Jones denied the motion and Forrest's testimony began October 5th. According to Forrest, after the TMLC's attempt to exclude her as a witness had failed, and only a few days before she would be testifying, the Discovery Institute attempted to publicly ridicule her on their website. She wrote, "On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is 'to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature' ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host 'Marvin Waldburger' refer to me as 'Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.' If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today."[3] During her testimony the defense would again ask the court to exclude Forrest from testifying as expert witness. Judge Jones allowed them to present their case for dismissing her and then denied their request. Forrest would go on to testify on the religious origins and nature of the intelligent design movement, the wedge document, and also demonstrated that the drafts of the textbook at the center of the court case Of Pandas and People, substituted terms such as "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" in place of "creationism" and "creator" in an attempt to circumvent the ruling in the Edwards v. Aguillard which determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution. Her testimony had a significant impact on Judge Jones's decision.

Wikipedia On Dispatches from the Culture War, Ed Brayton similarly concludes

As for being afraid of Barbara Forrest, one need only look at the incredible lengths the defense went to in the Dover trial to keep her off the witness stand. You see, Bill, Barbara did "mix it up" with the other side and she did so under oath. Guess what? She kicked your ass up one side and down the other. Her testimony was almost as devastating to the ID side as Michael Behe's was.

Nuff said.

101 Comments

Bob · 11 December 2007

Thanks for this. Dr. Forrest did indeed kick ass - by going to the primary texts.

Sounder · 11 December 2007

She kicked your ass up one side and down the other. Her testimony was almost as devastating to the ID side as Michael Behe’s was.

This is what always amuses me most about creationists on trial: no matter how damning our evidence against them is, presenting it will almost never be better than simply having the idiots open their mouths and speak. I'm reminded of one of the creationist trials back in the 80's where, on the witness stand, a creation "scientist" declared he believe UFO's exist, but that they were created by Satan. In this decade, we have Behe telling judges that his re-definition of "science" would and should include astronomy. I have a hard time deciding whether I should be outraged by these people, or just laugh at them like a carnival side show. And pseudoscience advocates want our children to be taught by these people?

Erasmus, FCD · 11 December 2007

I think you might have meant astrology, Sounder. But you are right, it is better to let them speak. That DI 'barking forrest' skit is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Now it says 'Parody' though.

Henry J · 11 December 2007

Sounder - I'm guessing you meant astrology?

Sounder · 11 December 2007

Gah, I always get those two mixed up. Yes, astrology.

Reading this article gave me the urge to go and re-read the judge's recollection of Behe's testimony in his judgement. I always laugh when I see their sophistries eviscerated like that.

Paul Burnett · 11 December 2007

And after Behe's public evisceration at the Dover trial, you can bet that Dembski, Meyer, Campbell, DeWolf, Cooper - and Behe - will fight like demons to ever be sworn in to testify and then undergo cross-examination. They're cowards (much like FL, who refuses to use his real name here).

Mike Elzinga · 11 December 2007

And, of course, the venue the ID/cdesign proponentsists/ Creationists always prefer is the choreographed debate; never, ever research and peer review. Now that is what cowardliness is all about.

PvM · 11 December 2007

Nonsense, FL may be wrong but I see nothing coward-like in refusing to use one's real name.

Paul Burnett: And after Behe's public evisceration at the Dover trial, you can bet that Dembski, Meyer, Campbell, DeWolf, Cooper - and Behe - will fight like demons to ever be sworn in to testify and then undergo cross-examination. They're cowards (much like FL, who refuses to use his real name here).

JD · 11 December 2007

Sounder, "Gah, I always get those two mixed up. Yes, astrology."

I can almost hear my brother, the professional astronomer and researcher, yelling from here (some 1500 km away). There is no greater insult; I know, from first hand experience.

Dale Husband · 11 December 2007

I think I missed something. Where did Dembski attack Forrest? Link, please?

Sounder · 11 December 2007

I can almost hear my brother, the professional astronomer and researcher, yelling from here (some 1500 km away). There is no greater insult; I know, from first hand experience.

Tell him I asked for a horoscope. :D And there are many reasons not to use one's real name online, cowardice being the least of them. Let's not throw accusations around recklessly.

badger · 11 December 2007

She appeared on the letters to the editor pages for years back in the '90s in the local paper, the Daily Star of Hammond, LA. The creationists have been trying to introduce their agenda into the classrooms of Tangipahoa and Livingston Parishes for quite a long time. Dr. Forrest and several other professors at Southeastern Louisiana University did their absolute best to counter the assault on science. Her experience here is possibly what galvanized her to take action nationally.

She wrote an article about some of her experiences back in 1997.

Dembski is probably well aware of this. The man is a known dissembler.

badger · 11 December 2007

She wrote an article about some of her experiences back in 1997.

Dembski is probably well aware of this. The man is a known dissembler.

sparc · 11 December 2007

Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody,

So why should anybody believe that Botnik's faked e-mail was a parody?

badger · 11 December 2007

Dug up another article.

Frank J · 11 December 2007

I'm sorry people, but Dembski clearly wins this round.

I am of course referring to his onging friendly competition with Michael Behe over which one demonstrates the most chutzpah.

Mr_Christopher · 11 December 2007

Dembski's impotent challenges to debate Forrest are too funny. What exactly does Dembski think they'd debate about? Not surprisingly he's never mentioned what the subject matter would be in such a debate.

Would they debate whether or not IDC is science? We already know the answer to that question and when it was debated in a federal court of law, and refereed by a federal judge, Forrest won that debate hands down.

Bottom line is Dembski is mental. He should stick to debating the loons who populate UD where he can continue to simply silence the debates when it's obvious he's losing. That's Dembski's strength, stifling debate when hit's obvious he can't win.

Neville Chamberlain · 11 December 2007

With apologies to Monty Python...

Brave Sir Dembski ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When Dover reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dembski turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Billy!
("I never!")

Mike from Ottawa · 11 December 2007

The cdesign proponentsists are nothing but a bag of answers to Voltaire's prayer.

ravilyn sanders · 11 December 2007

Has Forrest ever debated or had a substantive exchange with any ID proponent?

Almost all of you have missed the most important qualifier Dumbski (spelling mistake intentional) threw in there. Asked to explain what he means by substantive, he would lay down a few conditions, like, IDiots should not be under oath or pain of perjury prosecution first. Then the rules of debate should offer equal time to 150 years of painstaking research and evidence gathered for evolution and 20 years of refined rhetorical questions created by PR machine for ID. The judge should be hand picked by an uninterested third party like Behe or TMLC or may be Rick Santorum. The winner of the debate should be solely judged by the boos and cheers of audience. The ID side should be given sufficient time to rustle up enough loonies from all over the state. That would be considered just indicators of "substantiveness" of the debate. But whether or not it is truly substantive will be known only by who wins the debate. No prizes for guessing the true indicator of substantiveness. Sorry. Too obvious.

Moses · 11 December 2007

JHM: You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case -- there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest's bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge's decision was a foregone conclusion -- he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. You may not be so lucky next time.

Yes. Because a George Bush appointee, well known as a conservative man, suddenly became a flaming liberal when confronted with the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy(TM). I'm surprised he hasn't joined Larry Craig in trolling mens' rooms as it no doubt turned him to "teh Gay." Next week, we'll hear about how he's started to gun down Christians at church after forcing them to have abortions while singing hymms to Satan....

soteos · 11 December 2007

JHM: You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case -- there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest's bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge's decision was a foregone conclusion -- he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. You may not be so lucky next time.

Lol @ weak trolling. Let me try my hand at it. Well it's obvious Judge Jones is a christian hating atheist activist and a liberal extremist who has absolutely no ties to president Bush whatsoever. I mean, since the Evilutionists had such a staggeringly weak case, and there were so many top scientists there brilliantly defending ID, it's apparent that the case was rigged against poor, poor cdesign proponentists who by the way have absolutely no religious affiliation at all.

Frank J · 11 December 2007

Yes. Because a George Bush appointee, well known as a conservative man, suddenly became a flaming liberal when confronted with the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy™.
— Moses

Actually a true conservative, and a Christian who truly believes "thou shalt not bear false witness," would have done exactly what Judge Jones did. The DI was hoping that Jones was a flaming authoritarian, as the DI is with its insanely liberal idea of what science should be. Do I have to remind anyone of Behe's admission about astrology?

You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case...
— JHM

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling, I have some questions: Do you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? dogwoods? both (like Behe)? neither? (please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do) Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

Mike Elzinga · 11 December 2007

You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case – there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest’s bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle.

Perhaps you would prefer courts in which you are convicting of a heinous crime because of “revealed truth” from the testimony of a “true believer’s” visions instead of being cleared by scientific DNA evidence?

PvM · 11 December 2007

Yes, a biased republican appointed judge who managed to uphold the constitution despite some hopes that he would side with ID. So many excuses for losing, but nobody seems to take responsibility, it's all about blame. Then again, what else does ID have to do.

JHM: You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case -- there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest's bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge's decision was a foregone conclusion -- he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. You may not be so lucky next time.

Henry J · 11 December 2007

Obviously, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (possibly with help from some lasagna or ravioli) interfered with the trial proceedings!

Henry

Crudely Wrott · 11 December 2007

JHM, you have failed to comprehend the facts. Your predilection for mythology has clouded your eyes.

I suppose the most salient fact is that, despite great claims otherwise, your guys didn't show up. 'S a fact.

Chris Noble · 11 December 2007

I can almost hear my brother, the professional astronomer and researcher, yelling from here (some 1500 km away). There is no greater insult; I know, from first hand experience.

My younger cousin took great delight in calling me a scientologist. Scientist / Scientologist what's the difference.

Bobby · 11 December 2007

JHM: You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case

We sure were! Not lucky to get the ruling -- lucky for a chance to parade these charlatans in public.

JHM: You may not be so lucky next time.

Yeah, they may be smart enough to avoid another court case.

apollo230 · 11 December 2007

Why should Barbara Forrest debate William Dembski concerning evolution/intelligent design when Dembski refuses to allow open debate on his home blog - Uncommon Descent??

One cannot snuff unfettered discourse in one venue and ask for it in another, period.

JGB · 11 December 2007

You know what is really amazing as I read through JHM's post is that I get all the way through it and I have to think really hard because my first instinct is that anything so ludicrous must be intended as pure hyperbole and sarcasm. And it's not the first time, someone actually meant what they wrote and weren't joking.

Lou FCD · 11 December 2007

You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case – there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest’s bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge’s decision was a foregone conclusion – he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not “true” religions. You may not be so lucky next time.

Huh. That's funny, because as I heard it,

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

But then again, that source may be biased towards Darwinism.

KL · 11 December 2007

JHM: You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case -- there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest's bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge's decision was a foregone conclusion -- he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. You may not be so lucky next time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!................... 'whew'....thanks, I needed that after the day I just had.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 11 December 2007

You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case – there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest’s bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge’s decision was a foregone conclusion – he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not “true” religions. You may not be so lucky next time.
— Larry Fafarman, banned at PT for impersonation and other Rule 6 violations

'Cause after all, claiming that using "an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason," "engag[ing] the world by constantly questioning and persuading others," and "free, rational inquiry," to "guide [one] each day as a federal trial judge" is a clear attack on organized religion. He was obviously lying when he claimed "I am daily exposed to many disciplines, I must learn and relearn things constantly, and I am at risk of deciding a case incorrectly if I accept that which is presented to me at face value." Nope, it was all a vicious, close-minded attack on organized religion. [/sarcasm]

Peter Buckland · 11 December 2007

Forrest did what Dembski didn't. Showed up and kcicked ass.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 11 December 2007

JHM = John Hunt Morgan, Confederate General in the US Civil War, and an old alias of Larry's

onein6billion · 11 December 2007

"he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not “true” religions."

The 2006 commencement address is here:

http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html

I don't think his sentences mean what I think you said they mean.

Gerry L · 11 December 2007

Anyone ready for another episode of "Can This School Board Be Saved?" Not Florida. Not Texas. Ohio. Pymatuning Valley, Ohio. Wherever that is.

See "Parent wants intelligent design in PV" http://www.starbeacon.com/local/local_story_345202344.html

It's got everything: mixing up Big Bang and "Darwinism." It's just a theory. Teach both sides. And the obligatory "We're Christians."

Pop the corn and make yourself comfy. And be sure to document all the references to the bible, god, jesus and the creator before the DI gets to them.

MPW · 11 December 2007

Larry Fafarman spewed the exact same vomit about that commencement address today over at an epic comment thread on the Comer resigfiring at the Austin-American Statesman site. Under his real name, if that is his real name.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/education/entries/2007/11/28/tea_resignation.html#comments

He also dredged up the "Judge Jones' opinion was plagiarized from/written by the ACLU" garbage, which I hadn't seen for a while, although maybe I haven't been looking in the right places.

Thanks for the amusing trivia on his alias, Kevin.

Doc Bill · 11 December 2007

Remember, Dembski had the Vise Thing that he called, if I remember correctly, the Vice Thing, that Darwinists would be glued to a chair in court and examined by the Vise!

Well, that happened at Kitzmiller. Both Ken Miller and Barb Forrest were in the chair and subjected to withering defense questions.

Oh, sorry, Dembski wasn't there because he chickened out.

Anyway, Miller and Forrest were there and suffered days of questioning under the Vise.

And, it seems, they held up quite well. In fact, it was the creationists led by M. Behe who collapsed into a pile of pseudoscience, astrology and piddling results.

How could that be?

Ravilyn Sanders · 12 December 2007

Gerry L: See "Parent wants intelligent design in PV" http://www.starbeacon.com/local/local_story_345202344.html

From the link: Board of Education President Brad Lane said he was under the impression the district was teaching both sides of the issue, but PV Middle School Principal Andrew Kuthy said that is not the case. “We teach what is out of the state curriculum,” Kuthy said.

Is my reading comprehension bad or he should have said, "We teach what is in the state curriculum"? Or the report got mangled? Or is it correct English usage after all?

Stanton · 12 December 2007

Doc Bill: And, it seems, they held up quite well. In fact, it was the creationists led by M. Behe who collapsed into a pile of pseudoscience, astrology and piddling results. How could that be?

Because Behe had been working with Intelligent Design for so long that he's forgotten how to do science?

Bobby · 12 December 2007

Stanton:
Doc Bill: And, it seems, they held up quite well. In fact, it was the creationists led by M. Behe who collapsed into a pile of pseudoscience, astrology and piddling results. How could that be?
Because Behe had been working with Intelligent Design for so long that he's forgotten how to do science?

Forgot how to do evidence-based thinking.

Tracy P. Hamilton · 12 December 2007

Showed up and kcicked ass.

Peter Buckland: Forrest did what Dembski didn't. Showed up and kcicked ass.

Showed up and kdesign proponentsicked ass.

Mr_Christopher · 12 December 2007

Those of you who like me abuse yourselves by reading UD from time to time know that Demsbki has blamed his coawrdice on the fact he thought the Dover case was a loser.

Funny that, if ID was science then Dembski should have had no problem convincing the judge of that regardless stupidity of the Dover board. The school district may have still lost the case but Jone's might not have ruled ID was religious.

Sounds more like Dembski had/has no confidence in his ability to prove ID is science and did a convincing coward routine.

Henry J · 12 December 2007

And, it seems, they held up quite well. In fact, it was the creationists led by M. Behe who collapsed into a pile of pseudoscience, astrology and piddling results. How could that be?

It was designed that way? :p

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 12 December 2007

How much does Barbara Forrest worry the proponents of ID? In Document 245 of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Brief of Amici Curiae biologists and other scientists in support of defendants, filed October 3, 2005, document page 28 (page 33 in the PDF version I have), Theodore W. Geier's credentials are listed as:
Ph.D. Forrest Hydrology.

I think someone was a bit pre-occupied when they drew up that list.

minimalist · 12 December 2007

HAHAHAH, that's perfect.

Forrest had them wetting their undergrowth.

trrll · 12 December 2007

Supporters of evolution were indeed lucky to get Judge Jones--a judge with a conservative reputation appointed by George W Bush. Indeed, prior to the trial, cdesign proponentists like "davescott" were crowing that the judge would be biased in their favor.

If a liberal, or even middle of the road judge had gotten the case, the Discovery Institute's wails of "bias" might have seemed to have some superficial credibility.

As it is, they just look stupid.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 12 December 2007

Ravilyn Sanders:
Gerry L: See "Parent wants intelligent design in PV" http://www.starbeacon.com/local/local_story_345202344.html

From the link: Board of Education President Brad Lane said he was under the impression the district was teaching both sides of the issue, but PV Middle School Principal Andrew Kuthy said that is not the case. “We teach what is out of the state curriculum,” Kuthy said.
Is my reading comprehension bad or he should have said, "We teach what is in the state curriculum"? Or the report got mangled? Or is it correct English usage after all?

I think what he was meaning was, "What we are teaching comes out of the state curriculum." His syntax is a bit confusing, albeit correct.

Robert O'Brien · 12 December 2007

I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.

Stanton · 12 December 2007

Robert O'Brien: I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.

Uh, Mr O'Brien, are you even aware that fossils are studied extensively by geologists as well as paleontologists, given as how many many kinds of sedimentary rocks contain fossils, or are made out of the remains of shell-bearing organisms, or, did you dismiss this inconvenient fact long ago when you decided to "poke holes" into "evolutionism"?

Mr_Christopher · 12 December 2007

Robert O'Brien said: I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences

Is this your way of publicly admitting you're a dumb ass? I'm not sure how wearing a "kick me" sign on your back helps your cause. Oh wait, you're one of those ID creationists, yes? Ok, I get it now. Yeah...Could be a space alien (wink wink)and be sure and dismiss Barbara Forrest. Moron.

Mike Elzinga · 12 December 2007

I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.

And was this dismissal sufficient to nullify all the cross-disciplinary information and research that has been flowing for many decades among all the sciences (to say nothing of the well-developed scientific methods of inquiry common to all of them)? What’s with the bitterness toward Barbara Forrest? She did a great service for the science community.

Stanton · 12 December 2007

Mike Elzinga: What’s with the bitterness toward Barbara Forrest? She did a great service for the science community.

I think you've just answered your own question, Mike.

Robert O'Brien · 12 December 2007

Stanton:
Robert O'Brien: I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.
Uh, Mr O'Brien, are you even aware that fossils are studied extensively by geologists as well as paleontologists, given as how many many kinds of sedimentary rocks contain fossils, or are made out of the remains of shell-bearing organisms, or, did you dismiss this inconvenient fact long ago when you decided to "poke holes" into "evolutionism"?

Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences. Geology does not need evolutionary biology.

SWT · 12 December 2007

Robert O'Brien: I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.

Your opinion is noted but why don't you get to work dealing with your irrational antipathy toward Barbara Forrest?

Henry J · 12 December 2007

Should it even be necessary to point out that for evolution and geology, the objects being studied are not isolated from each other?

Henry

Stanton · 12 December 2007

Robert O'Brien: Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences. Geology does not need evolutionary biology.

Then, how do you think geologists identify fossils without biology or comprehend changes in fossil species throughout rock layers without biology? Magical thinking and appeals to mysterious and unknowable Designers?

Robert O'Brien · 12 December 2007

Mike Elzinga:
I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.
And was this dismissal sufficient to nullify all the cross-disciplinary information and research that has been flowing for many decades among all the sciences (to say nothing of the well-developed scientific methods of inquiry common to all of them)? What’s with the bitterness toward Barbara Forrest? She did a great service for the science community.

I just don't think B. Forrest is anything special. Her house-of-straw assertion in the oped aside, pouring through old P&P manuscripts with a fine-tooth comb does not require a piercing intellect. In fact, you could probably train a chimp to do it, or perhaps even Mr. Christopher.

Robert O'Brien · 12 December 2007

Stanton:
Robert O'Brien: Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences. Geology does not need evolutionary biology.
Then, how do you think geologists identify fossils without biology or comprehend changes in fossil species throughout rock layers without biology? Magical thinking and appeals to mysterious and unknowable Designers?

That is not the geologist's role. She is there to date the strata and any fossils contained therein, not engage in taxonomy.

Richard Simons · 12 December 2007

Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences.

I take it you've never heard of indicator fossils?

Robert O'Brien · 12 December 2007

SWT:
Robert O'Brien: I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.
Your opinion is noted but why don't you get to work dealing with your irrational antipathy toward Barbara Forrest?

Whatever dislike I have for B. Forrest, I am not clamoring for her ouster from Bayou U. That separates me from people like you who have an unhealthy fixation with Guillermo Gonzalez and seek his ruin.

Stanton · 12 December 2007

Robert O'Brien: That is not the geologist's role. She is there to date the strata and any fossils contained therein, not engage in taxonomy.

Then how come so many geologists have ignored your alleged observation in order to participate in devising revising taxonomies of numerous fossil organisms, including graptolites, oysters, trilobites and brachiopods for the past 2 to 300 years?

Richard Simons · 12 December 2007

Sorry about the previous comment - I was misreading or not thinking straight or something.

Robert O'Brien · 12 December 2007

Stanton:
Robert O'Brien: That is not the geologist's role. She is there to date the strata and any fossils contained therein, not engage in taxonomy.
Then how come so many geologists have ignored your alleged observation in order to participate in devising revising taxonomies of numerous fossil organisms, including graptolites, oysters, trilobites and brachiopods for the past 2 to 300 years?

What is their role in those revisions? Lemme guess: dating the fossils. In any event, your comment does not help BabFo.

Stanton · 12 December 2007

You're wrong on all accounts. Geologists such as Hugh Miller and Joachim Barrande scientifically described enormous numbers of fossil organisms. In particular, Barrande made numerous beautifully illustrated treatises concerning the trilobites and brachiopods of Silurian Europe for which he is famous for. Furthermore, my commentary helps Ms Forrest, if only indirectly, as, I'm pointing out that you're dismissing her for an incorrect and invalid reason that was based on willful ignorance.

Stanton · 12 December 2007

Also, judging from your snide, and ignorant comment about the roles geologists have played in fossil taxonomy, you, no doubt, are physically incapable of researching who Hugh Miller and Joachim Barrande are.

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/miller.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Barrande

Nigel D · 13 December 2007

Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences. Geology does not need evolutionary biology.
— Robert OBrien

You've obviously never heard of stratigraphy. Hey, ROB, here's a radical thought: how about you learn about some science instead of simply opening your trap to parade your ignorance?

Marek 14 · 13 December 2007

Here in Prague, everzone knows of Joachim Barrande :) A part of the city on the hills where he made some of his findings is now called "Barrandov" in his honor.

Of course, searching for fossils is no longer encouraged there, as amateur hunters could do much harm.

Nigel D · 13 December 2007

That is not the geologist’s role. She is there to date the strata and any fossils contained therein, not engage in taxonomy.
— Robert OBrien

Yeah, right. So, before we had radioisotope dating techniques, do you know how geologists used to determine relative dates for various rock strata? It was by identifying the fossils. The terms Carboniferous, Ordivician, Permian, Jurassic etc. all relate to rock strata that bear particular characteristic collections of fossils. A geologist with no interest in identifying fossils would be pretty useless when it came to dating rock layers. The science of palaeontology arose from geology. Are you going to try and claim that palaeontology has nothing to do with evolutionary theory?

Ravilyn Sanders · 13 December 2007

Robert O'Brien: I dismissed Barbara Forrest a few years ago when she claimed in an oped that evolutionary biology is integral to geology and other physical sciences.

But Robert O'Brien, the ontological argument by Goedel and the Lebniz's law clearly proves that not including biology in geology and other physical sciences is not a viable option. [A bit of context for the benefit of others: Robert O'Brien claimed that these two things mentioned prove that polytheism is not a viable option. I asked him to show that he really understands the Goedel and Leibiz by proving something obvious like in non existence of invisible pink unicorns using Goedel and Leibniz. He ran away and is still studiously avoiding the subject. He has very shallow understanding of what the cuts out creationists sites and posts here. I doubt he really understands there are rocks of biological origin. The connection between the terms fossil fuels and biology probably flew 10 feet over his head.]

W. Kevin Vicklund · 13 December 2007

onein6billion said:
“he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not ‘true’ religions.”
— Larry Fafarman, tacitly admitting to yet another Rule 6 violation,
I don’t think his sentences mean what I think you said they mean.

And I think his sentences mean what you think I said they mean. Jones said, “The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry.” So what do you think he meant? He was stating a historical fact to tie three different things to a common theme: a liberal arts education, the Establishment Clause, and his work as a federal judge are all based on free, rational inquiry. These three quotes establish that common theme:

And that reason was best developed, they clearly believed, by a broad based liberal arts education that caused its recipients to engage the world by constantly questioning and persuading others.

At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things," to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."

As I hope that you can see, these precepts and beliefs, grounded in my liberal arts education, guide me each day as a federal trial judge. I am daily exposed to many disciplines, I must learn and relearn things constantly, and I am at risk of deciding a case incorrectly if I accept that which is presented to me at face value.

Larry would try to have us believe that the phrase "precepts and beliefs" refer solely to [certain of] the Founders' beliefs on the nature of religion. But the context of the paragraph and that part of the speech make clear that Jones was referring to "free, rational inquiry," not what constituted "true religion," when he spoke about what guided his decision. As a side note, PRC = Maj. Gen. Patrick Ronayne Cleburne, a Confederate general who managed to stop Sherman at Chattanooga.

Dale Austin · 13 December 2007

PRC: There is a very good reason why you Darwinists are denying the plain meaning of what Judge Jones said in his Dickinson College commencement speech, and that reason is that the plain meaning of what he said showed that he was extremely prejudiced against the Dover defendants.

So, I just read the speech-thanks for inspiring me to do so. I fail to see anything in it that would indicate any "extreme prejudice" prior to Kitzmiller. Given that the speech was after the trial, it can fairly be said that Jones' attitude was formed by the lies and breathtaking inanity of the defendants-as well as the death threats from the sore losers. If you wish to support prejudice you'll have to find something prior to the trial that specifically addresses the trial, or his intentions. (hint, that pre part of prejudice means before)

Nigel D · 13 December 2007

There is a very good reason why you Darwinists are denying the plain meaning of what Judge Jones said in his Dickinson College commencement speech, and that reason is that the plain meaning of what he said showed that he was extremely prejudiced against the Dover defendants.
— Name-changing troll

Yeah, sure. That's why the DI was so pleased that Judge Jones was appointed for the Dover trial. Does it not occur to you that it is actually possible that Judge Jones' decision was the result of the evidence presented during the case, and the poor arguments put forth by Behe et al.?

Robert O'Brien · 13 December 2007

Stanton: You're wrong on all accounts. Geologists such as Hugh Miller and Joachim Barrande scientifically described enormous numbers of fossil organisms. In particular, Barrande made numerous beautifully illustrated treatises concerning the trilobites and brachiopods of Silurian Europe for which he is famous for. Furthermore, my commentary helps Ms Forrest, if only indirectly, as, I'm pointing out that you're dismissing her for an incorrect and invalid reason that was based on willful ignorance.

This is not difficult. I do not dispute geology is integral to evolutionary biology; I dispute evolutionary biology is integral to geology or any other physical science. You have only demonstrated the former, not the latter.

Robert O'Brien · 13 December 2007

Nigel D:
Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences. Geology does not need evolutionary biology.
— Robert OBrien
You've obviously never heard of stratigraphy. Hey, ROB, here's a radical thought: how about you learn about some science instead of simply opening your trap to parade your ignorance?

And here is an even more radical thought: ask a geologist. The last time this came up the geologist participating in the thread (stevef?) essentially sided with me against Andrea Bottaro's anemic defense of BabFo's statement.

Robert O'Brien · 13 December 2007

Ravilyn Sanders: He ran away and is still studiously avoiding the subject.

Not entertaining stupid questions != running away.

Glen Davidson · 13 December 2007

If biological processes were not important to geology, evolution would not be important to geology.

Stratigraphy, index fossils, etc., are possible due to evolution, however index fossils would work so long as different organisms existed at different times (this is why it worked for geologists prior to the development of a scientific evolutionary theory). Successive creations, or successive invasions from other worlds, might work equally well at producing index fossils as evolution is.

However, it is extremely important that life evolved to make enough oxygen to oxidize the world and to produce oxygen gas. In that sense, evolution is undeniably a very important factor in biology. The same would be true for the evolution of trees (forests are the source for coal), the evolution of corals that make coral reefs, the evolution of worms and other organisms which rework so much sediment, and the evolution of diatoms which produce so much sediment.

Could these be important without evolution? Well sure, if they could arise by ID magic. But we have no reason to suppose that magic could produce any of these important geological processes, or the index fossils. So of course evolution is very important to geology.

To believers in the charlatans' magic, however, the "possibility" that the FSM or some other "designer" (if FSM is a designer, that is) is responsible, rather than cause and effect processes, for the crucial role of life in geology must be supported by lies at all costs.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Stanton · 13 December 2007

So, please explain why a federal judge should not be prejudiced against using legal loopholes to skirt the US Constitution so religiously inspired nonscience and nonsense can be inserted into science education?

Dale Austin · 13 December 2007

PRC: I loved the way Buckingham made a monkey out of that ACLU shyster

Refresh my memory, is Buckingham the one that said one thing in the courtroom and another to the press? You know, lied in court? Funny thing, though, his side lost anyway. Judges take a dim view of that sort of thing. Maybe Jones was just predjudiced against perjury-how would we know? And shyster is the best you can do?

Science Avenger · 13 December 2007

PRC said: My argument is that Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against the defendants by saying that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions. I assert that therefore his decision against the defendants was a foregone conclusion...

Leave aside how ridiculous this interpretation of what Jones said is. Since ID is not an organized religion, WTF relevance would Jones' opinion of organized religion have on his opinion? This is as desperate a reach as I've ever seen. It just goes to show no matter how badly the IDers lose on the evidenciary playing field, they will find some way to blame the refs, even if they have to turn logic into a pretzel to do it. Then again, can we expect any better from anyone who thinks Buckingham made a monkey out of anyone but himself?

Glen Davidson · 13 December 2007

As Expelled notes, this is a conspiracy not just by scientists, but by the media, courts and educational system (Stein lists all of these as part of the conspiracy).

Yes, it's odd how just everyone is extremely biased into believing that ID is a narrow sectarian view unsupported by science, except, of course, for narrow sectarians who essentially have no interest in science, let alone any scientific evidence for their view.

Meanwhile, Xians, Jews, atheists, some Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and Shintoists accept the evidence of evolution.

But I guess the narrow sectarian view must be right, that anyone who disagrees with their narrow views is biased. I believe the "theory" (definitely in the vulgar sense of that word) is that only the open-minded will accord the same sense of open-mindedness to religious bias as they do to science and other universal endeavors, hence the only people who think that narrow sectarian views are universal (the sectarians) are indeed the sole universalists.

IOW, IDists/creos fail as badly at sociology as they do at biology, and unsurprisingly, for much the same reasons.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Joe McCauley · 13 December 2007

I read the Dover decision as soon as it was available. I could not believe the judge could be so hard on the witnesses for the defendants. I then read the transcripts, and it was clear that the expert witnesses for the defense could not make their case, and that the school board was populated by avoiders of the truth and some plain old liars.

I read this post on occasion, and I would like to ask that the ID proponents save another school system the expense of another trial. ID will not make it as science. I speak as a science/math teacher with 30 years under my belt.

I have the discussion about "other theories" outside of class time.

Stuart Weinstein · 13 December 2007

Apollo Wrote:
"Why should Barbara Forrest debate William Dembski concerning evolution/intelligent design when Dembski refuses to allow open debate on his home blog - Uncommon Descent??

One cannot snuff unfettered discourse in one venue and ask for it in another, period.
"

Dembski was the coward that pulled out of the Kitzmiller trial. Forrest was cross-examined.

Dembski's claim reminds me of the definition of Chutzpah..

A guy kills his parents and then pleads for leniency on account of the fact that he is now an orphan.

Stuart Weinstein · 13 December 2007

"I read the Dover decision as soon as it was available. I could not believe the judge could be so hard on the witnesses for the defendants. I then read the transcripts, and it was clear that the expert witnesses for the defense could not make their case, and that the school board was populated by avoiders of the truth and some plain old liars."

One wonders how many decisions have been handed down in which the expression "breathtaking inanity" was used
to describe the antics of the defendents.

Stuart

Nigel D · 14 December 2007

ROB said:

Fossils are dated with techniques from the physical sciences. Geology does not need evolutionary biology.

I said:

You’ve obviously never heard of stratigraphy. Hey, ROB, here’s a radical thought: how about you learn about some science instead of simply opening your trap to parade your ignorance?

And here is an even more radical thought: ask a geologist. The last time this came up the geologist participating in the thread (stevef?) essentially sided with me against Andrea Bottaro’s anemic defense of BabFo’s statement.
— Robert OBrien

But, ROB, if you notice the exact point you made that I was adressing, you claimed that fossils are dated in such a way that geology does not "need" MET (modern evolutionary theory). My point, which I thought was clear enough but obviously was not, is this: For geologists to make sense of the sequence of fossils, they need MET. It's all very well to claim that geologists can date fossils without wondering why, for example, the rocks from Permian strata have such different characteristic fossils from the rocks from Triassic strata, but a claim is all that will ever be. To make sense of the observation (y'know, something that all real scientists try to do), geology needs MET.

Nigel D · 14 December 2007

Not entertaining stupid questions != running away
— Robert OBrien

While this is true, you have not shown that the question was a stupid one. In fact, it was pertinent, because it called upon you to demonstrate that you understood Goedel's ontological argument and Leibniz's law, after you used them as an argument from authority in an attempt to dismiss the concept of polytheism. IIRC, you dismissed polytheism after I pointed out that the data support Multiple Designer Theory far better than they do single-designer ID. However, refusing to consider something is not the same as refuting it.

Nigel D · 14 December 2007

One wonders how many decisions have been handed down in which the expression “breathtaking inanity” was used to describe the antics of the defendents.
— Stuart Weinstein

Maybe we should organise a vote on which is the best bit of Judge Jones' decision...? His use of the phrase "breathtaking inanity" would be right up there. :-)

Mr_Christopher · 14 December 2007

I *love* DOver whiners! Blame Jones, blame Forrest, blame Miller, do anything but accept reality - ID is a religious proposition and there is nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

What's funny is no one was more devastating to the ID cause than everyone's favorite psuedoscientist - Michael "it could be a space alien" Behe. But don't blame him, he's a victim of atheist lawyers and an activist judge!

And don't blame IDC, it's science because you say so!

Keep whining, Dover losers!

Bill Gascoyne · 14 December 2007

Not entertaining stupid questions != running away

Labeling every question you can't answer as "stupid" is running away.

Robert O'Brien · 14 December 2007

Bill Gastropod:
Not entertaining stupid questions != running away
Labeling every question you can't answer as "stupid" is running away.

That, of course, is a mischaracterization. I engaged the only person with even a pretense of knowledge on the topic, i.e., Pill Popper's Ghost.

SWT · 15 December 2007

Robert O'Brien:
SWT: Your opinion is noted but why don't you get to work dealing with your irrational antipathy toward Barbara Forrest?
Whatever dislike I have for B. Forrest, I am not clamoring for her ouster from Bayou U. That separates me from people like you who have an unhealthy fixation with Guillermo Gonzalez and seek his ruin.

"People like you" ... you don't know as much about me as you believe you do. I have never sought anyone's "ruin" and am certainly not celebrating Dr. Gonzales's situation. I have never made fun of him, his name, his institution's name, or his book. Since you bring him up, I'll say this. Dr. Gonzales knew what he'd need to do to succeed: teach, get funding, support students, and publish in quality peer reviewed journals. This is clear to anyone starting on a tenure-track position, and is usually emphasized during reviews for reappointment. Dr. Gonzalez failed to meet the requirements for being granted tenure, apparently because he chose to devote a substantial amount of effort to endeavors that were neither fundable or publishable. Bad career choices ... I sometimes wonder who started him down that road, and if they feel any guilt for their contribution to Dr. Gonzalez's current situation. They should.

Nigel D · 15 December 2007

That, of course, is a mischaracterization. I engaged the only person with even a pretense of knowledge on the topic, i.e., Pill Popper’s Ghost.
— Robert OBrien

This is quite a damning indictment of your attitude to PT readers and commenters, ROB. You seem to be saying that you refuse to educate someone who does not understand your arguments. Tell me, do you actually hope to be persuasive with that kind of attitude to people? On the other hand, look back at how frequently people have attempted to educate you when you have failed to understand something. You provided links in your post to descriptions of Goedel's ontological argument and Leibniz's law. I followed your links and read the pages. I did this in an honest attempt to understand your arguments. Yet now you dismiss this effort as "[not] even a pretense of knowledge on the topic". Having said that, I did actually find some genuine objections to your arguments which you have totally failed to address. One commenter challenegd your understanding of Goedel's ontological argument and Leibniz's law, and you have not answered his/her questions. In what way is this not running away from a question you cannot answer? I would have thought that you would relish the opportunity to display the depth of your education and understanding of philosophy, since, for a change, you would be in a position to educate us (whose expertise is largely in science rather than philosophy). Thus, I think Bill Gascoyne's comment was in no way a mischaracterisation of you. As far as I can tell, it is God's own truth. There is an wasy way for you to prove me wrong, however: Answer the original question.

Robert O'Brien · 15 December 2007

Nigel D:
That, of course, is a mischaracterization. I engaged the only person with even a pretense of knowledge on the topic, i.e., Pill Popper’s Ghost.
— Robert OBrien
This is quite a damning indictment of your attitude to PT readers and commenters, ROB. You seem to be saying that you refuse to educate someone who does not understand your arguments. Tell me, do you actually hope to be persuasive with that kind of attitude to people? On the other hand, look back at how frequently people have attempted to educate you when you have failed to understand something. You provided links in your post to descriptions of Goedel's ontological argument and Leibniz's law. I followed your links and read the pages. I did this in an honest attempt to understand your arguments. Yet now you dismiss this effort as "[not] even a pretense of knowledge on the topic". Having said that, I did actually find some genuine objections to your arguments which you have totally failed to address. One commenter challenegd your understanding of Goedel's ontological argument and Leibniz's law, and you have not answered his/her questions. In what way is this not running away from a question you cannot answer? I would have thought that you would relish the opportunity to display the depth of your education and understanding of philosophy, since, for a change, you would be in a position to educate us (whose expertise is largely in science rather than philosophy). Thus, I think Bill Gascoyne's comment was in no way a mischaracterisation of you. As far as I can tell, it is God's own truth. There is an wasy way for you to prove me wrong, however: Answer the original question.

Actually, Nigel, you seem passing tolerable for a common descent advocate. :) If you would like to put a question to me about Gödel's Ontological Argument I will try to answer it.

Nigel D · 17 December 2007

If you would like to put a question to me about Gödel’s Ontological Argument I will try to answer it.
— Robert OBrien

I went back and found the original challenge. Comment #136396 in this thread: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/there-is-no-bot.html

Once the impressive sounding verbiage has been stripped off, the ontological argument and the Leibniz’s Law might have just as much substance as a Tarzan movie. But still, I marvel at the readiness with which Robert O’Brien accepts these to conclude “polytheism is not a viable option”. On the other hand the very same Robert finds it exceedingly difficult to accept a common ancestor between the humans and the chimps, something even Behe conceded! If the ontological argument and Leibniz’s Law prove that there is one and only one God, it should also be able to prove something so obvious as something does not exist (invisible pink unicorns) and something that exists in more than one number (chimps in the jungle).
— Ravilyn Sanders

On reflection, it is maybe not so obvious that this was a challenge to you, ROB. However, you did not address that aspect of it in your dismissal of the challenge. Instead you simply labelled it "stupid". Now, I will agree that it appears whimsical or frivolous on the surface, but if one looks beyond the surface, there is a substantive point. That point was simply to demonstrate your understanding of the arguments that you cited to support your position by applying them to a situation where we would all agree on the conclusion (i.e. the existence or non-existence of invisible pink unicorns). My own questions about Goedel's ontological argument deal more with the axioms. We have no basis to suppose that anything god-like is necessarily good. Thus, in what way does the ontological argument apply to the Christian god? I also questioned the applicability of Leibniz's law to a god-like entity. Surely, a god-like entity is one that is able to transcend natural laws. Leibniz's law is a natural one. Ergo, it cannot always apply to a god-like entity. Thus, in what way is Leibniz's law applicable as an argument against polytheism?

Frank J · 17 December 2007

On the other hand the very same Robert finds it exceedingly difficult to accept a common ancestor between the humans and the chimps, something even Behe conceded!
— Ravilyn Sanders

Then we should expect O'Brien to challenge Behe directly, right? Since Behe doesn't have our prior commitment to (methodological) naturalism, he should be far more easier to debate. The debate can stick to the whats, whens, and hows of the designer's actions without having to get sidetracked into whether there is designer, how many designers, etc.

Bill Gascoyne · 17 December 2007

Nigel D: Thus, I think Bill Gascoyne's comment ["Labeling every question you can’t answer as 'stupid' is running away."] was in no way a mischaracterisation of you. As far as I can tell, it is God's own truth.

Thanks, Nigel. Note also that while I was responding to ROB, the statement is completely general and not targeted specifically at ROB. I did not use his name or any derogatory variant thereof. To borrow a line from Frank Herbert, I displayed a general garment and ROB himself claimed it as tailored to fit him.

Nigel D · 17 December 2007

Well, Bill, I did not spot that aspect of the way the comments developed.

I cannot disagree. In general, labelling questions one cannot answer as "stupid" is running away. Not necessarily running away from the debate (although that will obviously pertain in many cases), but potentially running away from a learning opportunity.

I always try to bear in mind that there is no such thing as a stupid question.

Bill Gascoyne · 17 December 2007

Nigel D: I always try to bear in mind that there is no such thing as a stupid question.

"There are no foolish questions, and no man has become a fool until he stops asking questions."
Charles P. Steinmetz (1865-1923) This, of course, presupposes that what is phrased as a question is not in fact a challenge being made for the umteenth time after having been answered many times before. I recall the story of a '60s professor who entered his classroom to find the words, "Question Authority" on the blackboard. He responded by writing below it the question, "If authority answers, will you listen?" and then proceeding with his lecture with no further comment.

Vernita · 18 December 2007

Links to Dr. Forrest's You Tube Videos entitled,

"Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don't Want You to Hear"

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI