Ben Stein wants to "ruin American competitiveness"

Seriously this has become beyond ridiculous... this guy is like a poor caricature. How do we even comment on this, it is beyond absurd... as often is the case with so many creationist they can seem lucid and intelligent at times, but then have no sense of logic and reason... absurd I say!

Somewhere there's a cartoon about this. An irate customer goes to return a product claiming that it doesn't work. The salesman offers the customer a job to sell the product at a hefty increase over his current current salary. Without hesitating the customer says "When do I start?"

Of course Stein will try to weasel out of it by claiming that he had "Darwinism," not ID, in mind as the "mysticism," "fundamentalism" etc.

And his co-author on Expelled doesn't seem to care much about science either.

From Kevin Miller's blog earlier today:

"I have no reason to doubt that humans and chimps share 98.5% of their DNA or whatever the number is. Most biologists assume that means humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor. And I have no philosophical objections to that. But I have always wondered: Could that same information be used to argue for a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor? Perhaps he/she/it used slightly different versions of the same code for humans and chimps. Or is there an accumulation of junk DNA at the same points in the human and chimp genomes, which would point toward them sharing the same DNA at some point in history? I haven't had time to look into it."

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/04/expelled-isnt-a.html

(Kevin's comments are a ways down the page.)

Amazing. I'm beginning to think Ben Stein has some sort of brain disease...

But I have always wondered: Could that same information be used to argue for a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor?

— Kevin Miller

My list need not end here. But I stopped at a dozen because I realized that this is already, in large measure, the program of so many of our elected representatives. The debauchery of our tort system is already in place, and the rest of the agenda is under way.

I have watched this carefully and now conclude that Speechwriter, Economist, Lawyer, Actor, Opportunist Mr Ben Stein is little more than an opportunistic infection working its way through the bowels of American culture.

This, too, shall pass.

And just how in the plantoons did them IDer fellers let a Jew become a Spokesman for a Christian Scientific Institute??!! You could just about predict this wasn't going to turn out good.

-RPTH
Award Winning Interblogger
(multiple categories and sanctions)

What else has Stein written? Has he praised laissez-faire social Darwinism for instance?

Great find. Not that I don't think it's a good thing, but maybe when we get done searching for deeper meaning in shallow water (id is still weak as water), and we've had our fill of rummaging through old Ben Stein columns, we might find the time to examine why and how our press has been subverted by the warmongers and Christocrats. The distance between truth and lie shrinks daily. Soon it won't matter what any of us godless scientists think anyway. These are people who will pray their own children to DEATH before thinking of going to a 'real' doctor. You think we're not up against some seriously dedicated nutjobs? Think again.

Stein is greedy, foolish, seriously deluded or a withes combo of the three.

Enjoy.

Pete,
sure Stein has praised Milton Friedman and his emphasis of laissez-faire in
Time Magazine.

Of course the youtube video shows absolutely no context of Stein's remark about "science killing people." (Abortion may be called a science, to dismiss this statement outright is too simple) He may have been facetious for all we know, as he obviously is in the Forbes article. Taking a man's rhetorical remarks, of which remarks are meant to be taken as the exact opposite of how Ben really feels, and presenting them as being how he literally meant them, is disingenuous. And secondly, Ben does not advocate shamanism or tribalism or fundamentalsim to be equal with technology, or for voodoo to be equal to science. Is the implication being made here that Intelligent Design is voodoo? and that all matters of faith or religious conviction are the same by virtue of not being a material process? If so, then why relegate the Creator as being nothing more a shaman? why not relegate the shaman as not existing in light of the real Creator? Where does the discernment between these entities come from, for the materialist? Nowhere. Therefore, I can see no way for any legitimate comparison to be made between religious systems, and therefore a false analogy.

Jake said: Of course the youtube video shows absolutely no context of Stein's remark about "science killing people." (Abortion may be called a science, to dismiss this statement outright is too simple) He may have been facetious for all we know, as he obviously is in the Forbes article. Taking a man's rhetorical remarks, of which remarks are meant to be taken as the exact opposite of how Ben really feels, and presenting them as being how he literally meant them, is disingenuous.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed that was horrifying beyond words, and thats where science - in my opinion, this is just an opinion - thats where science leads you. Crouch: Thats right. Stein: Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Crouch: Good word, good word.

absolutely no context of Stein’s remark

Why do you assume that nobody else has seen the context just because you haven't? The entire interview is available online. Posting more than a snippet on YouTube would have been a copyright infringement.

1) Allow schools to fall into useless decay. Do not teach civics or history except to describe America as a hopelessly fascistic, reactionary pit. Do not expect students to know the basics of mathematics, chemistry and physics. Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors. Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many. Watch America lose its scientific and competitive edge to other nations that make a comprehensive knowledge base a rule of the society.

How about this quote:

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
C.S. Lewis

There is no question as to whether the men of Germany that Ben is refering to were educated or not. Their education may have been scientific, or it may have been general. But the point of view that secular education, as an end in itself, without moral guidance and instruction, will operate morally, is just wrong. And there would exist no reason to begrudge anyone acting in any way, unless we bring in a standard of morality from which to judge their behavior. But if "our standard" is also ruled out, we can do no judging on moral issues. There will never be a scientific imperative for morality, because "is" can never lead to "ought." When we practice what we call "good science" it means science that is sound in itself, but also not offensive. Organ Harvesting of the infirm or mentally challenged may be sound, as far as it's methodology and effectiveness, but no one would call that "good science" who has moral understandings.

Jake said: Of course the youtube video shows absolutely no context of Stein's remark about "science killing people."

Jake threw in a right-wing kneejerk: (Abortion may be called a science, to dismiss this statement outright is too simple)

Jake babbled further: He may have been facetious for all we know, as he obviously is in the Forbes article. Taking a man's rhetorical remarks, of which remarks are meant to be taken as the exact opposite of how Ben really feels, and presenting them as being how he literally meant them, is disingenuous.

Jake almost gets the point, only to fumble: And secondly, Ben does not advocate shamanism or tribalism or fundamentalsim to be equal with technology, or for voodoo to be equal to science.

Jake flails about helplessly: Is the implication being made here that Intelligent Design is voodoo? and that all matters of faith or religious conviction are the same by virtue of not being a material process? If so, then why relegate the Creator as being nothing more a shaman? why not relegate the shaman as not existing in light of the real Creator? Where does the discernment between these entities come from, for the materialist? Nowhere. Therefore, I can see no way for any legitimate comparison to be made between religious systems, and therefore a false analogy.

There will never be a scientific imperative for morality

Morality comes from socialization. Science may be able to explain how that socialization comes about, but science isn't really meant to be a guide to morality by itself. Science helps us explain how the world works, not why it works or how we think it ought to work. This isn't a novel or controversial subject.

Jake said: How about this quote: “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” C.S. Lewis There is no question as to whether the men of Germany that Ben is refering to were educated or not. Their education may have been scientific, or it may have been general. But the point of view that secular education, as an end in itself, without moral guidance and instruction, will operate morally, is just wrong. And there would exist no reason to begrudge anyone acting in any way, unless we bring in a standard of morality from which to judge their behavior. But if "our standard" is also ruled out, we can do no judging on moral issues. There will never be a scientific imperative for morality, because "is" can never lead to "ought." When we practice what we call "good science" it means science that is sound in itself, but also not offensive. Organ Harvesting of the infirm or mentally challenged may be sound, as far as it's methodology and effectiveness, but no one would call that "good science" who has moral understandings.

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. I do think a copy of his article should be used any time you actually confront Ben Stein.

daoud said: Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. I do think a copy of his article should be used any time you actually confront Ben Stein.

PD: What else has Stein written? Has he praised laissez-faire social Darwinism for instance?

he was completely wrong about the stock market and the housing/bank crisis

Yes, and then wrote at least one column a few weeks back (linked from PT I believe) blaming the stock market collapse on a conspiracy of brokers to manipulate prices. So I guess it doesn't matter if it's science or economics, Stein smells conspiracy everywhere. No wonder he still defends Nixon, another famous paranoiac.

"Looking for God -- or Heaven -- by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth, nor is he diffused through the play like a gas.
If there were an idiot who thought plays exist on their own, without an author..., our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them....."

C.S. Lewis, The Seeing Eye

Naked Bunny with a Whip said: he was completely wrong about the stock market and the housing/bank crisis Yes, and then wrote at least one column a few weeks back (linked from PT I believe) blaming the stock market collapse on a conspiracy of brokers to manipulate prices. So I guess it doesn't matter if it's science or economics, Stein smells conspiracy everywhere. No wonder he still defends Nixon, another famous paranoiac.

And likewise, what it means to be "you" can never be discerned by hair or skin analyses. The person who claimed that they have studied "you" and found that you have type O negative blood and brown hair and a dark complection, and that the analyses was complete, would in no way affect the opinion of your friends as what it means to be "you". The material portions are the facade, there is a mysterious unknown sea behind it. Intelligent Design is within you, and I see that it is in nature. To study nature herself, misses what it means to be "her". When you remove "her" because of materialist commitments, you remove "you" by the flip side of the coin. But surely this is a contradiction, how could "you" discover anything either way about "her"? If there is no her, there is no you, for at the bottom you would both be the same, a metrialistic entity. Are you willing to say that the whole of "you" is discoverable in a lab?

Is it possible that Stein could be suffering from some form of dementia? It may be that he's developing Alzheimer's or something similar and is being exploited by the Discovery Institute and allied parasites. I'll have to dig it up, but a critique of one of his recent economics columns I read last week noted that he seems to have forgotten the definitions of assets and equity, too.

Maybe there's something genuinely wrong with him?

Jake said: "Looking for God -- or Heaven -- by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth, nor is he diffused through the play like a gas. If there were an idiot who thought plays exist on their own, without an author..., our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them....." C.S. Lewis, The Seeing Eye

Were you trying to make a point by quoting Lewis, Jake?

Is that what you think evolutionary scientists are doing? Looking for god? Why would they be looking in space?

Man, you really do not have a clue, do you.

Science gathers information. Information is a tool. The proper use of that tool is for societies to decide. As you say, "is" != "ought".

Don't try to jam your particular morality / creation myth into high school biology classes, and we won't try to force your pastor to teach the facts of evolution. Deal?

The material portions are the facade, there is a mysterious unknown sea behind it.

Jake retreats into solipsism: The material portions are the facade, there is a mysterious unknown sea behind it.

I only mean to point out that, science is not the end all for knowledge, that is depends on inference itself, and therefore that inference is valid. And since inference is valid, we can discuss the inferences that materialists make, and the inferences that nonmaterialists make.

As an aside, "inference" itself is not a material phenomenon, but is metaphysical. Therefore, the materialist has to recognize the validity of metaphysical constructions. And with that in mind, one should be careful of setting up "materialism" as being the only way to know things, for this is itself not a material entity, and would lead to self contradiction.

So, since we are talking about inferences from both sides, I see no reason to dismiss ID and accept a materialistic explanation. Because this conclusion of dogmatic materialism, like I said, is itself not a materialistic foundation but is rather an inference. It would seem, then, that to be consistent with one's own methodology, the materialist has a contradiction, and the ID advocate does not. And on those grounds, ID inference seems more appropriate.

When we explain ID away, we explain ourselves away.

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." (Of Pandas and People, pages 99-100). And, according to Ben Stein, intelligent design is the "hypothesis" that an "all-powerful designer" created the ancestors of the forms of life that exist today, and that those ancestors were not significantly different from their living descendants. (See "a discussion between R.C. Sproul & Ben Stein about evolution, and the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=Expelled%3A+No+Intelligence&ei=-csSSNigCZDCqAP65aDFBA )

Mr. Stein believes that the all-powerful designer is the god of The Holy Bible. By this belief, he has transformed his god into an untestable hypothesis. God is no longer something to have faith in; God is now a hypothesis that cannot be proven to be true.

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute asserts that intelligent design is a "scientific theory." Mr. Luskin is wrong. The intelligent design hypothesis cannot be tested, cannot be proved to be true, and cannot become a scientific theory.

Ben and Casey should take note of the fact that, under the rules of science, a miracle cannot be included a scientific theory. They should also note that putting a miracle into a hypothesis renders that hypothesis untestable.

I am saying that there is no hope in discovering anything "out there" (nature), to advocate ID or not, unless there really is something "in here" (human) to discover it. If there isn't anything more to us as humans, if we are no more than our hair color and skin pigmentation and blood type, then "we" have no chance of discovering anything out there thinking that we are putting reality "inside of us". Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us? Make up the whole of what it means to be "you"? Are we really? Well, no, we aren't. But we want to have it both ways. But we can't. It's a contradiction.

Jake said: And likewise, what it means to be "you" can never be discerned by hair or skin analyses. The person who claimed that they have studied "you" and found that you have type O negative blood and brown hair and a dark complection, and that the analyses was complete, would in no way affect the opinion of your friends as what it means to be "you". The material portions are the facade, there is a mysterious unknown sea behind it. Intelligent Design is within you, and I see that it is in nature. To study nature herself, misses what it means to be "her". When you remove "her" because of materialist commitments, you remove "you" by the flip side of the coin. But surely this is a contradiction, how could "you" discover anything either way about "her"? If there is no her, there is no you, for at the bottom you would both be the same, a metrialistic entity. Are you willing to say that the whole of "you" is discoverable in a lab?

Jake babbled: I only mean to point out that, science is not the end all for knowledge, that is depends on inference itself, and therefore that inference is valid. And since inference is valid, we can discuss the inferences that materialists make, and the inferences that nonmaterialists make. As an aside, "inference" itself is not a material phenomenon, but is metaphysical. Therefore, the materialist has to recognize the validity of metaphysical constructions. And with that in mind, one should be careful of setting up "materialism" as being the only way to know things, for this is itself not a material entity, and would lead to self contradiction. So, since we are talking about inferences from both sides, I see no reason to dismiss ID and accept a materialistic explanation. Because this conclusion of dogmatic materialism, like I said, is itself not a materialistic foundation but is rather an inference. It would seem, then, that to be consistent with one's own methodology, the materialist has a contradiction, and the ID advocate does not. And on those grounds, ID inference seems more appropriate. When we explain ID away, we explain ourselves away.

Jake said: I am saying that there is no hope in discovering anything "out there" (nature), to advocate ID or not, unless there really is something "in here" (human) to discover it. If there isn't anything more to us as humans, if we are no more than our hair color and skin pigmentation and blood type, then "we" have no chance of discovering anything out there thinking that we are putting reality "inside of us". Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us? Make up the whole of what it means to be "you"? Are we really? Well, no, we aren't. But we want to have it both ways. But we can't. It's a contradiction.

Jake said: I only mean to point out that, science is not the end all for knowledge, that is depends on inference itself, and therefore that inference is valid. And since inference is valid, we can discuss the inferences that materialists make, and the inferences that nonmaterialists make. As an aside, "inference" itself is not a material phenomenon, but is metaphysical. Therefore, the materialist has to recognize the validity of metaphysical constructions. And with that in mind, one should be careful of setting up "materialism" as being the only way to know things, for this is itself not a material entity, and would lead to self contradiction. So, since we are talking about inferences from both sides, I see no reason to dismiss ID and accept a materialistic explanation. Because this conclusion of dogmatic materialism, like I said, is itself not a materialistic foundation but is rather an inference. It would seem, then, that to be consistent with one's own methodology, the materialist has a contradiction, and the ID advocate does not. And on those grounds, ID inference seems more appropriate. When we explain ID away, we explain ourselves away.

Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us?

Given the evidence available to us, I have to conclude that yes, we are the matter that makes us and the way that matter is interwoven is what make "me". I don't particularly like it, but inventing comforting illusions doesn't work for me since I can't make myself believe them, knowing they have no basis in reality.

As an aside, “inference” itself is not a material phenomenon, but is metaphysical.

"Metaphysics" isn't the same as "supernatural". Information is stored in the weave of the matter and energy that makes up the universe, and emergent phenomena like your consciousness are the results of physical interactions. There just doesn't seem to be anything else, nor is there a need for anything else to be there.

Jake,

So all inferences are equally valid because all inferences are metaphysical? Don't think so.

In science we can test inferences against reality in the material world. If your inference cannot be tested then you really have no way of knowing whether it is correct or not. With science, at least you can tell if your inference is consistent with reality or not.

Jake asked: Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us?

Well, let's consider the options. Ben Stein has had an epiphany to rival that of Saint Paul's, or he is an opportunistic whore.

We have a WINNER!

Ben Stein is an opportunistic whore!

I must say that some of you seem to be getting more out of Jake's comments than I can. As far as I am concerned, phantomreader42's description ('babble') is exactly the word that came to mind.

Jake: What do you think happened and when? How many life forms were present at the start and was that a few thousand or a few billion years ago? Has there been continual or sporadic tweaking since then? If the Designer designed, how did the implementation take place? Thank you in anticipation of your answer.

Jake your attempts at a classical education need some work. You start by assuming that because we say science is good that therefore science must tell us everything? You could load up a freighter with the logical fallacies in that statement. Another way of putting it is you claim science cannot make ought claims. My question is who has disagreed with that. Not some imagined bogeyman, but who is actively promoting an agenda for moral claims that derives completely from scientific experimentation?

I think the confusion here seems to stem from a Biblical worldview. Bible-believers use the Bible as the basis of all knowledge and morality, and it seems like they can't comprehend that people who do not rely on the Bible do not get all their life's necessities from a single ultimate source. They see all competing worldviews as functioning exactly the same as their own, but simply citing a different source.

It's the same as how creationists often conflate evolution with abiogenesis, planetary formation, and the Big Bang. They see evolution as a threat to their Genesis account, and therefore assume evolution must also cover all the same bases as Genesis does.

Just like Stein's canard of "Darwinism can't explain why planets stay in their orbits", science being a bad source of morality is no fault to science as it was never intended to be one in the first place. Science is merely the pursuit of what can be objectively known. Because morality by definition is subjective, it is a separate entity from science, and those who trust science for knowledge therefore pursue it by individual means.

Back in 1999, I was in London and there was this flap about Prince Charles calling his Chinese guests "slitty-eyed."

He tried his hardest to tell people he was being quoted out of context. So some chap put together a claymation of him and Queen Elizabeth:

"Charles how could you? You've embarrassed us all!"
"Oh, but how?"
"You called our guests slitty-eyed!"
"Oh, but mother, I tried to tell you, I was being quoted out of context! What I said was, that they're a bunch of yellow-bellied, commie, lilly-livered, slitty-eyed bastards!"

I'm also starting to suspect that Jake is Mark Hausam or one of his droids.

Calling all historians. Repeat. Calling all historians. Respond to a gross misrepresentation of actual events. Be prepared to give citations to all claims. Don't exaggerate or make promises you can't keep. Just present the facts that best show the every degenerating claims of the ID crowd to be what they are; horsefeathers or something similar.

There is possibly a similarity between the old dodge of "telling a lie often enough and you are a shoe in" and the similarly old dodge of "telling the truth and showing satisfactorily that your position has some credibility, some weight, will get you respect from the people."

I endorse the notion of meeting foolishness with reason and making no apologies in doing so. I also endorse the notion of having respect for the sensibilities of others (whatever the hell they mean by that!). Mostly I endorse the notion of something from an old Boz Scaggs song, a line that said, "Leave 'em slow but leave 'em laughing. It's my time."

Truth will out. Sound knowledge will, ultimately prevail. All it will take a few more disasters, another frantic drilling for a child or pet down a well, a couple of endangered species teetering on the brink and all of these set right by the steadfast application of knowledge, not faith. I do not believe this. I do think that it is likely. I make an attempt to speak rationally to at least one person a day. So far, so good.

The facts of evolution wouldn't have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon... you must mean the BS of evolution.

Meanwhile the Florida and Michigan science curriculum statutes are blooming like wild flowers, Stanford law school will defend the Premise people, Expelled is doing quite well, and there's a rumor Pee Wee Meyers has a deadly form of syphilis you get from camels.

Goodnight Sewer Pigs

I sincerely thank Jake for pointing out, accidentally, why I loathe C.S. Lewis. His weird fundamentalist evangelical version of Anglicanism was cloying, deeply dishonest, insanely parochial, and frankly, brain-dead. He never deserved a good reputation outside his actual field - the study of medieval literature. At that, for instance in the Allegory of Love q.v., he was quite decent.

And I am not, for the Jakes, an atheist or agnostic, but I try to not be a dittohead or their early 20th century equivalent.

I have yet to read a Lewis work outside his field and outside some of the Narnia books without thinking, rather quickly, "Look, dim-bulb - being arch and dismissive, it turns out, is still not an argument."

So, since we are talking about inferences from both sides, I see no reason to dismiss ID and accept a materialistic explanation.

Are C.S. Lewis' books now part of the biblical canon? Are his writings authoritative in all matters of faith and practice?

The material portions are the facade, ...

Woo-hoo!!! Vitalism lives!!!

... there is a mysterious unknown sea behind it.

You mean like quantum foam?

As a lurker with an engineering background, I don't generally feel compelled to comment, however, with recent troll activity I feel I have something to contribute. I realize this is off-topic, so do with it what you will. So:

First, I'd like to point out that top engineering schools don't usually offer EP degrees. It's generally the main state schools (with a plethora of degree options and lower admissions standards) and smaller, more liberal arts focused schools. Also many small religious schools offer them (Bob Jones and Oral Roberts being two, see edref.com) From Newsweek rankings of undergraduate programs: "The top five among doctorate schools were: MIT; Stanford; University of California-Berkeley; Cal Tech; and Georgia Tech. The top five among bachelor’s- and master’s-level schools were: Harvey Mudd; Rose-Hulman; Cooper Union; Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo; and the United States Military Academy." Of the ten schools listed, only Berkeley (large state school) offers an EP. This is not to say that an EP is necessarily a bad degree, just that an EP doesn't stand on it's own quite as well as some other engineering degrees do.

Second, as an engineer working for a 'Fortune 500' company, I'd like to point out that if you work for a large technical corp., M.S. Systems Engineering degrees are only slightly harder to obtain than party favors at a sweet 16 fete. Show up and go through the motions and you're good. These companies partner with schools, and the schools are usually more lax on admissions. I was asked if I wanted to get an MSSE within the first month that i joined my company. So again, without context, I'd say having the degree isn't especially meaningful. Just thought I'd share.

Richard Simons said: I must say that some of you seem to be getting more out of Jake's comments than I can. As far as I am concerned, phantomreader42's description ('babble') is exactly the word that came to mind.

Gary Hurd said: Well, let's consider the options. Ben Stein has had an epiphany to rival that of Saint Paul's, or he is an opportunistic whore. We have a WINNER! Ben Stein is an opportunistic whore!

Dave Cerutti said: Back in 1999, I was in London and there was this flap about Prince Charles calling his Chinese guests "slitty-eyed." He tried his hardest to tell people he was being quoted out of context. So some chap put together a claymation of him and Queen Elizabeth: "Charles how could you? You've embarrassed us all!" "Oh, but how?" "You called our guests slitty-eyed!" "Oh, but mother, I tried to tell you, I was being quoted out of context! What I said was, that they're a bunch of yellow-bellied, commie, lilly-livered, slitty-eyed bastards!"

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.” (Of Pandas and People, pages 99-100).

— Scott Beach

Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism–and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women–to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.

Jake said: Of course the youtube video shows absolutely no context of Stein's remark about "science killing people." (Abortion may be called a science, to dismiss this statement outright is too simple)

Jake said: And secondly, Ben does not advocate shamanism or tribalism or fundamentalsim to be equal with technology, or for voodoo to be equal to science. Is the implication being made here that Intelligent Design is voodoo?

Jake said: Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us?

keith said: The facts of evolution wouldn’t have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon… you must mean the BS of evolution.

keith said: The facts of evolution wouldn't have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon... you must mean the BS of evolution. Meanwhile the Florida and Michigan science curriculum statutes are blooming like wild flowers, Stanford law school will defend the Premise people, Expelled is doing quite well, and there's a rumor Pee Wee Meyers has a deadly form of syphilis you get from camels. Goodnight Sewer Pigs

My prediction: Eventually, Stein will come clean that the movie is a satire, and that he scammed the DI for megabucks to play it straight. (Poe’s Law!) Explains all his over-the-topness!

— djlactin

While you're at it, discourage respect for law in every possible way.

what courts say doesn't dictate anything to me about what's right or wrong

J. Biggs said:

keith said: The facts of evolution wouldn't have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon... you must mean the BS of evolution. Meanwhile the Florida and Michigan science curriculum statutes are blooming like wild flowers, Stanford law school will defend the Premise people, Expelled is doing quite well, and there's a rumor Pee Wee Meyers has a deadly form of syphilis you get from camels. Goodnight Sewer Pigs

Is every day opposite day in your world Keith?

Marion Delgado said: I sincerely thank Jake for pointing out, accidentally, why I loathe C.S. Lewis. His weird fundamentalist evangelical version of Anglicanism was cloying, deeply dishonest, insanely parochial, and frankly, brain-dead. He never deserved a good reputation outside his actual field - the study of medieval literature. At that, for instance in the Allegory of Love q.v., he was quite decent. And I am not, for the Jakes, an atheist or agnostic, but I try to not be a dittohead or their early 20th century equivalent. I have yet to read a Lewis work outside his field and outside some of the Narnia books without thinking, rather quickly, "Look, dim-bulb - being arch and dismissive, it turns out, is still not an argument."

Marion Delgado said: Yep, when I was a budding young skeptic in high school, several people, including my parents and minister, suggested I read C. S. Lewis. They clearly thought that reading his books would make me instantly see the error of my ways and come back to the fold. Instead, I remember thinking, "Jeez, is this really the best they got? If so, the whole religion thing is even lamer than I thought." I did kind of enjoy the snark of The Screwtape Letters, but Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain are just flat awful. There isn't a single argument he makes that can't be demolished by a reasonably bright adolescent. I doubt very many non-believers have ever been persuaded by them. Indeed, like most apologetics, I suspect they are actually written to give those who already believe some comforting intellectual support for what they really know are irrational beliefs.

MTS said:

Marion Delgado said: I sincerely thank Jake for pointing out, accidentally, why I loathe C.S. Lewis. His weird fundamentalist evangelical version of Anglicanism was cloying, deeply dishonest, insanely parochial, and frankly, brain-dead. He never deserved a good reputation outside his actual field - the study of medieval literature. At that, for instance in the Allegory of Love q.v., he was quite decent. And I am not, for the Jakes, an atheist or agnostic, but I try to not be a dittohead or their early 20th century equivalent. I have yet to read a Lewis work outside his field and outside some of the Narnia books without thinking, rather quickly, "Look, dim-bulb - being arch and dismissive, it turns out, is still not an argument."

Yep, when I was a budding young skeptic in high school, several people, including my parents and minister, suggested I read C. S. Lewis. They clearly thought that reading his books would make me instantly see the error of my ways and come back to the fold. Instead, I remember thinking, "Jeez, is this really the best they got? If so, the whole religion thing is even lamer than I thought." I did kind of enjoy the snark of The Screwtape Letters, but Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain are just flat awful. There isn't a single argument he makes that can't be demolished by a reasonably bright adolescent. I doubt very many non-believers have ever been persuaded by them. Indeed, like most apologetics, I suspect they are actually written to give those who already believe some comforting intellectual support for what they really know are irrational beliefs.

"Looking for God – or Heaven – by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare’s plays in the hope you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places..." C.S. Lewis

Jake said: "Looking for God -- or Heaven -- by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth, nor is he diffused through the play like a gas. If there were an idiot who thought plays exist on their own, without an author..., our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them....." C.S. Lewis, The Seeing Eye

So Jake, when you need a doctor to save your life with modern medical technology, are you going to protest that he doesn't understand the real you, or are you going to let her use her limited knowledge of the material world to save your metaphysical existence?

I know Pete D. is going to post something soon but I am bursting at the seems!!

Those of you that know me will understand!! YAYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! :-) It's over!!! Yayyy!! and it's good news!!

Pretty esoteric joke, eric. Funny as hell, though.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Jake said: Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us?

That is a funny way of putting it, seeing that such "chemical compositions" are highly emergent on particle physics, in turn emergent as low energy effective field theories. The possibility of reduction to more fundamental parts doesn't mean that such a reduction is algorithmically feasible and so predictive. So while "chemical compositions make up the totality of us" they don't describe how we act or how we come to be. For a more practical and everyday useful theory as description, it is evolution that makes us up. At least it explains how we come to be and some aspects of our behavior, such as altruism.

keith said: The facts of evolution wouldn’t have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon… you must mean the BS of evolution.

That evolution is a fact has been known longer than the modern theory has had massive evidence. (And I'll bet it takes you more than a half hour to read such an article of the basics aloud.) Do keep up; this is but a 200 year old historical fact. The creationist script is to deny that the evidence is in fact evidence, not that it exist - I assume you have lost your copy of it.

David Stanton said: So Jake, when you need a doctor to save your life with modern medical technology, are you going to protest that he doesn't understand the real you, or are you going to let her use her limited knowledge of the material world to save your metaphysical existence?

bobby said: Tell us the strongest evidence for Darwinism.

bobby said:

David Stanton said: So Jake, when you need a doctor to save your life with modern medical technology, are you going to protest that he doesn't understand the real you, or are you going to let her use her limited knowledge of the material world to save your metaphysical existence?

Tell me a 'modern medical technology' based on Darwinism.

bobby said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Jake said: Are we willing to say that our chemical compositions make up the totality of us?

That is a funny way of putting it, seeing that such "chemical compositions" are highly emergent on particle physics, in turn emergent as low energy effective field theories. The possibility of reduction to more fundamental parts doesn't mean that such a reduction is algorithmically feasible and so predictive. So while "chemical compositions make up the totality of us" they don't describe how we act or how we come to be. For a more practical and everyday useful theory as description, it is evolution that makes us up. At least it explains how we come to be and some aspects of our behavior, such as altruism.

keith said: The facts of evolution wouldn’t have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon… you must mean the BS of evolution.

That evolution is a fact has been known longer than the modern theory has had massive evidence. (And I'll bet it takes you more than a half hour to read such an article of the basics aloud.) Do keep up; this is but a 200 year old historical fact. The creationist script is to deny that the evidence is in fact evidence, not that it exist - I assume you have lost your copy of it.

Tell us the strongest evidence for Darwinism.

bobby said: Tell me a 'modern medical technology' based on Darwinism.

jcmacc said:

bobby said: Tell me a 'modern medical technology' based on Darwinism.

Bobby, pretty much all medical research depends on animal tests at some point, either as a source of original observation or in applied research. Human developmental biology has been worked out in large part via experiments on fruit flies. Human cancer therapies have been aimed at cellular pathways called "wnt" pathways - this name derives from a "wingless" gene defect in flies that also occurs in human cancer cells. The reason that animal tests can be valid as far as human application is concerned is that many biological processes in animals are identical to those in man. Evolution (there's no such thing as "Darwinism" outside creationist thought) shows why animals just happen to have many examples of identical biology to man i.e. due to common ancestry. So the fact that medical research depends on an understanding of common ancestry to understand the validity of applying non-human findings to humans, means almost ALL medical progress has evolution as a core principle.

bobby said: These are all small scale examples of evolution which of course exists. But there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

Bobby, there is ZERO evidence that there was any intervention.

"This looks designed," and "That's a really big number!" and "The Bible says so" are not evidence, neither in law, nor logic, nor science. Get a clue, please. Thank you.

bobby said: These are all small scale examples of evolution which of course exists.

bobby said: But there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

Many of us have already responded to Bobby's ignorant nonsense on another thread. All he does is demand evidence without providing any himself. He ignores all evidence that is provided and refuses to answer direct questions while still demanding answers from others. The treatment that such fools deserve is to be ignored until they answer questions. Just keep asking the same questions over and over until he either answers or goes away. And don't let him get away with changing the subject when he has been proven wrong.

So now Bobby, what is your explanation for the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between all vertebrates? What is your evidence for "intelligent intervention"? Come on man, we answered your questions, now you answer some. Or you could always just run away.

Many of us have already responded to Bobby’s ignorant nonsense on another thread. All he does is demand evidence without providing any himself. He ignores all evidence that is provided and refuses to answer direct questions while still demanding answers from others.

bobby said: Tell us the strongest evidence for Darwinism.

bobby said:

jmacc said: [...] Bobby, pretty much all medical research depends on animal tests at some point, either as a source of original observation or in applied research. [...]

These are all small scale examples of evolution which of course exists. [...]

The new journal, titled Evolutionary Applications publishes articles that use evolution to address pressing issues such as climate change, endangered species, food safety, infectious diseases, and invasive species. The first issue, freely available via Journal's website (http://www.evolutionaryapplications.org/), drives home that fact that evolution is not just for monkeys. Articles discuss topics ranging from how organisms may respond to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, to why evolutionary biology should be added to medical school curricula. "Evolution is not just about understanding where humans came from," says Evolutionary Applications Editor-in-Chief Louis Bernatchez. "As one example, Professor Graham Bell from McGill University in Montreal and Dr. Sinéad Collins from University of Edinburgh, co-authored the journal's inaugural article "Adaptation, extinction and global change", in which they used evolutionary biology to predict that certain populations will go extinct in response to increased pollution and acidification because organisms cannot evolve fast enough to adapt to these human-mediated stresses. The first issue also features other articles that use evolutionary tools to address HIV transmission, to assess population boundaries of threatened species such as spotted owl, and to predict how Atlantic cod will evolve in response to increased fishing intensity. The second issue will entirely focus on highlighting the usefulness and benefits of an evolutionary perspective for conservation and management of salmon. Evolution really is everywhere and this journal showcases its multiple uses." The second issue, a Special Issue entitled "Evolutionary perspectives on salmonid conservation and management", has just been published online. The journal editorial board is certainly a star-studded cast. When asked why he thought the launch of this journal was particularly significant, journal editor Loren Rieseberg, who is also a MacArthur Fellow and University of British Columbia Canada Research Chair, replied that "evolutionary biology is the glue that holds the life sciences together, and evolutionary principles are key to understanding and solving many of society's most serious problems. There's a huge growth of studies using evolution to solve real-world problems. What we really needed was a place to publish all of these important papers". [My bold.]

Same old story: not answering the question: where is the evidence that humans came from fish? Of course evolution happens and natural selection and common descent happens. These are all moot points.

But whether your world view is that there is a designer or not will not affect an individuals ability to research antibiotics etc. This is a phony statement. Everyone is entitled to their origins beliefs but to falsely state that if one believes a God or an alien intervened in the development of life will make a difference in their ability to research is simply bias and bigotry.

Stanton said:

bobby said: These are all small scale examples of evolution which of course exists. But there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

Listen, Bobby troll, you were asking about "modern medical technology" that was based off of Darwinism Modern Evolutionary Theory, which is all of them, not whether or not 390 + million years of tetrapod evolution was guided by intelligent intervention. Trying to change the subject in order to make it look like you're winning the argument makes you look like a maliciously petty idiot. That you have not bothered to look at any of the evidence we have already provided you, as well as the fact that you have not deigned to provide any evidence of your claim that "fish to human evolution" was guided by intelligent intervention also makes you look like a maliciously petty idiot.

there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

jcmacc said:

bobby said: These are all small scale examples of evolution which of course exists.

If ALL medical research is a "small scale" example of the utility of evolutionary biology, I'd love to be aware of the really big stuff.

bobby said: But there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

Way to change the subject, bobby. Oh, and there is plenty of evidence that fish and humans have a common ancestor. Oh, and there's bugger all evidence that anything "intelligent" was involved. Anyway back to evolution and your claim that "no medical technology depends on it". Do you now admit that you are totally wrong, or do you want to keep going with the fish thing? PS: if you do keep going with fish - save yourself the next rebuttal by looking up the increasing role of zebra fish studies in human medical research.

ben said:

there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

There is no evidence that hurricanes form in the Atlantic ocean without invisible unicorns flying by in invisible '68 Volkswagen Beetles and sprinkling magic pixie dust on storm clouds. Your move.

David Stanton said: Many of us have already responded to Bobby's ignorant nonsense on another thread. All he does is demand evidence without providing any himself. He ignores all evidence that is provided and refuses to answer direct questions while still demanding answers from others. The treatment that such fools deserve is to be ignored until they answer questions. Just keep asking the same questions over and over until he either answers or goes away. And don't let him get away with changing the subject when he has been proven wrong. So now Bobby, what is your explanation for the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between all vertebrates? What is your evidence for "intelligent intervention"? Come on man, we answered your questions, now you answer some. Or you could always just run away.

Stanton said:

bobby said:

David Stanton said: So Jake, when you need a doctor to save your life with modern medical technology, are you going to protest that he doesn't understand the real you, or are you going to let her use her limited knowledge of the material world to save your metaphysical existence?

Tell me a 'modern medical technology' based on Darwinism.

Among other things, Bobby, you do realize that the use of antibiotics, and how antibiotic-resistant bacteria arise from the misuse of antibiotics is an example of medicinal Evolution. The use of animal models to test new treatments and surgeries also requires an intimate grasp of Evolutionary Biology. Understanding how a pathogen arises is a vital, if not the most important medicinal aspect of Evolutionary Biology, but, you would have known this already had you taken the time to take an introductory course in Evolutionary Biology.

bobby said: DUH!!! Darwinism =/ evolution. Take a course.

Richard Simons said:

bobby said: DUH!!! Darwinism =/ evolution. Take a course.

What, to you, is the difference? (Just trying to get your views clear in my mind)

Bobby said: Same old story: not answering the question: where is the evidence that humans came from fish?

Of course evolution happens and natural selection and common descent happens. These are all moot points.

But whether your world view is that there is a designer or not will not affect an individuals ability to research antibiotics etc.

Everyone is entitled to their origins beliefs

Listen ignorant one: YOU are changing the subject.

Childish nonsense answer.

Bobby,

I have answered your questions several times, you have failed to respond. By demanding answers to the same questions over and over again regarless of the responses you are demonstrating that you have no intention of ever learning anything.

Now, one last time just to be fair, what is your explanation for the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities among vertebrates? It you can answer that then you have answered your own questiona as to whether humans evolved from fish or not. If you can't answer, then please go away until you can. There definately needs to be some "intelligent intervention" on your part.

"Humans did not come from modern fish."

when did I say the did? do you have trouble reading.

Are you really saying that Placodermi are a common ancestor of humans?

You do not seem to have reading ability or background knowledge to talk about this subject. Troll elsewhere.

""" magic (which you call ”intelligent intervention”) """

Richard Dawkins said that such 'magic' is a possibility. You should read about him and what he says.

But it seems you might not be able to understand the concepts.

Bobby wrote:

"Where is the evidencee that humans came from fish?"

"when did I say the did? do you have trouble reading."

"Are you really saying that Placodermi are a common ancestor of humans?"

No Bobby we don't have trouble reading, but apparently you do. We gave you the evidence, you had no answer for it. And no, as was already explained to you multiple times, fish and humans shared common ancestors and humans descended from other organisms that descended from fish. If you can't understand the evidence or if you can't deal with the evidence, go away. Playing words games with definitions is only going to get you ignored here. You have no answers and you have no evidence, who do you think you are fooling?

bobby said: "Humans did not come from modern fish." when did I say the did? do you have trouble reading.

Are you really saying that Placodermi are a common ancestor of humans?

You do not seem to have reading ability or background knowledge to talk about this subject. Troll elsewhere.

bobby said: Really I do not know whether to take you seriously. Well basically Darwinism is an origins theory and evolution is a process: change in alleles over time. Do you agree? Tell me if you think there is a difference.

Of course evolution happens and natural selection and common descent happens. These are all moot points.

where is the evidence that humans came from fish?

These are all small scale examples of evolution which of course exists. But there is no evidence that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

There simply is none. Minor changes can happen but not large scale ones. Case closed.

For those who haven't noticed (i.e. moderators?) "bobby" is just "jacob" with a new coat of paint. Same m.o., same choice of words, same objective.

Action, please.

Bobby said: Richard Dawkins said that such ’magic’ is a possibility. You should read about him and what he says.

But it seems you might not be able to understand the concepts.

<BIG><BIGGER><ENORMOUS_HUGE><BLINK>

HE'S NOT LISTENING. HE'S NOT HERE TO DISCUSS. HE'S HERE TO DISRUPT, POLLUTE AND DISTRACT.

thanks.

MCP,

Your stupidity is equal in weight to your arrogance and ego.

http://www.aep.cornell.edu/ I am sure Cornell will be dismayed at your ignorant assessment of their committment to Engr. Physics. as from a lower level technical, religious institution.

Like wise Case Western Reserve and their "weak " curriculum compared to other engr. degrees. LOL!!

And Princeton, what are they doing offering EP..my oh my.

And Berkley, that silly CA diploma mill.. should of known they'd offer such a degree.

Not Dartmouth another one of those pushover eastern schools..hmmmm!

Tulsa University and Oklahoma University.........quite a few successful engineers from each I understand.

University of Kansas, Colorado School of Mines...roiughly 50 schools in total.

Graduate Degree Programs include most of the above and also:

Harvard ever hear of it?

Georgetown

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Systems Engineering is offered at the Naval Academy because those people are the dummies of all high school grads.

Same at MIT the easy road to a masters degree.

Arizona, USC... those losers are gaming the system.

Pull you head out of you butt and go away.

So Keith- you ever going to get around to giving us an actual ID hypothesis and explaining how it can be tested?

Untold fame and fortune awaits you.

Hi Keith!

I've no idea what you were rattling on about in the last post, but do you think you could answer my questions? What is your theory to explain the vast array of life we see on Earth and what evidence do you have to support it? Surely you have not been posting all this time without at least some vague notion wandering around in your mind? Come on, Man! Get it organised and let it out for us to see.

BTW It's 'should have known', not 'should of known'.

bobby said: ""Anyway back to evolution and your claim that "no medical technology depends on it"."" Reading problems??? I never said that. This is useless if people cannot even read well.

bobby said: Tell me a ’modern medical technology’ based on Darwinism.

Guys, please, stop feeding the trolls. There is really nothing to be gained from all this, other than giving a few people more attention than they normally get, or deserve. It's not like the topic of the evidence for evolution has never been discussed before, here and in dozens of easily accessible places on the web.

Andrea Bottaro said: Guys, please, stop feeding the trolls. There is really nothing to be gained from all this, other than giving a few people more attention than they normally get, or deserve. It's not like the topic of the evidence for evolution has never been discussed before, here and in dozens of easily accessible places on the web.

I’ve been watching your repeated dodges as well. They are not very impressive.

... no dodges I think others have been dodging

As long as you are apparently unwilling to go with the scientific evidence, why not try answering a few tough questions about your own alternative “theory of intelligent intervention”? Why is your “theory” so convincingly superior?

What is “intelligent intervention”? How does it take place? By what mechanisms?

... unknown. just as much of cosmology and biology is unknown

Is the “intelligent intervener” natural or supernatural?

... supernatural is not really definable so it should not be used in a scientific context

If it is natural, how does it design the universe and itself along with it? Who or what designed the intelligent intervener?

... unknown. beyond the scope of the theory

If it is supernatural, how does one gain access to it? Who or what created it?

... answered already

How do you link phenomena in the natural world to the supernatural realm, and then further, to a particular intelligent intervener within that realm?

...answered already

Can you define a bridge to the supernatural realm? Is that bridge natural or supernatural? If it is natural, how does it access the supernatural realm, and then access particular intelligent interveners within that realm? How do you sort out intelligent interveners?

... answered already

If it is a supernatural bridge, how does one gain access to it?

... answered already

What kind of natural evidence can you link to a particular intelligent intervener? How does one who doesn’t hold a particular sectarian view verify the existence of a particular sectarian intelligent intervener?

... beyond the scope

You can’t get out of these issues by simply refusing to characterize the “intelligent intervener”. What possible evidence can you come up with that doesn’t depend on a preconception of the nature of an “intervener”? Is it natural evidence or supernatural evidence? If natural, how do you connect it to the intervener? If it is supernatural, how do you gain access to that evidence?

... beyond the scope

I would guess that you cannot find satisfactory answers to any of these questions and still have what would be called science. It won’t do to change the definition of science to encompass any sectarian religion.

Even more to the point, you can’t imagine how to put together any type of research program that will uncover an “intelligent intervener”.

... search DNA for signatures

Nor can you argue convincingly that such an intervener is “natural” and is not in some way connected to the supernatural deity of a sectarian religion, specifically, Christian fundamentalist religion (and there is no way ID/Creationists will accept any other deity).

... we now have formulaized many natural laws such as the inverse proportionality of gravity. whether a person wants to believe those laws were created by a god is their right but of course that is not science but faith.

bobby said: It is useless to try to be logical with many of these posters. They seem to not understand the difference between Darwinism and evolution when these terms are discussed at wiki and hundreds of other places.

Richard and fellow evolander sycophants,

If you can't understand my 188th consecutive stuffing it up your nose post on something as straight forward as the value of prestige of two engineering disciplines, how could you possibly ask for more complex issues?

Thousands of people and their schools with those two degrees are waiting on an apology...fat chance.

One major responsibility of science is to maintain a constant effort to disprove a hypothesis such as evolution, can you illustrate where and when this responsibility is being carried out with citations, etc.

When do you suppose I will get an answer to the request for a description of the common ancestor and first replicator that is an inherent and critical assumption of your beloved theory?

bobby said: Same old story: not answering the question: where is the evidence that humans came from fish?

bobby said: Darwinism =/ evolution.

Keith said: When do you suppose I will get an answer to the request for a description of the common ancestor and first replicator that is an inherent and critical assumption of your beloved theory?

Bobby and Keith have been answered many times, they just don't like the answers. Bobby refuses to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that demonstrates conslusively that all vertebrates, including humans, shared a common ancestor. Keith whines that no one can give a detailed molecular descrioption of a replicator that existed more that three billion years ago. He has been told repeatedly that it was most likely an RNA molecule, perhaps enclosed in a phospholipid bilayer, but he refuses to accept this possibility.

Neither one of these guys presents any alternative or any evidence of any kind. They both employ the same futile argument - unless you can answer every question to my satisfaction, I don't have to believe anything you say. Well that isn't how science works. You have to explain all of available evidence and then find more evidence.

Any time any of these guys shows up here with this argument, just tell them that their questions have provisional answers and if they are not satisfied that they should look for their own answers. After all, by their own reasoning, no one believe anything they have to say either.

Oh yea, and they always make the same exact argument whatever the topic of the thread. Why not just remove their nonsense to the bathroom wall?

They both employ the same futile argument - unless you can answer every question to my satisfaction, I don’t have to believe anything you say.

I just tried to view the link to tbn that you provided video of the comlete context but they've apparently taken it down.

Oop! Sorry David, I didn't mean that as a response to what you wrote. It's been a while since I wrote anything here and the system has changed a bit.

Stanton is the sort of 3rd rate backbencher who expects people to accept what amounts to mere speculation about how the super-critical assumptions of his theory is true despite the absence of any experimental evidence or any forensic evidence and cannot supply a physicochemical description of the replicator with citations in a peer reviewed journal that can stand scrutiny.

That is not science in the classical sense, it's metaphysics.

keith said: the super-critical assumptions of his theory

Longer excerpts of Stein's interview on TBN are now on YouTube and are linked on my blog.

Stein = stupid.

mlrogers said: I just tried to view the link to tbn that you provided video of the comlete context but they've apparently taken it down.

You can also go to this TBN page and do a search for "ben stein". It's the April 21 show.

OK, that link's weird, let's try again. Go here: www.tbn.org/video_portal/ and search for Ben Stein.

Is there some sort of inside joke I don't get? I see quotes in the context about Stein having some sort of brain disease...alzheimers, etc.....but the original post this response came from doesn't really have anything that is really all that provoking. I also see some piling on via silly and shallow attacks on his financial columns also....from whence does this come?

JJ, the point of the 2002 Forbes quote by Stein is that it seems to completely contradict his recent behavior with the Intelligent Design crew, where he seems to want us to treat that particular bit of fundamentalism as an equal with science, and those religious fables as the same as history. There is a lot of context to this story.

Honestly, I don't see what he has done recently that really is worthy of this much invective. I saw Expelled last night. It didn't really seem to be that egregious to me. It was more factual than any Michael Moore movie or Al Gore's (not to dispute global warming, but just Gore's looseness with the facts), and while both got some criticism it was nothing like this.

I think, clearly, Intelligent Design does not make sense as a scientific discipline, because science is intended to be explanatory. To have a discipline that says essentially "we can't explain" makes no sense, to me at least. But, does that mean automatically that they are all evil idiots and none of their criticisms are valid or meaningful? That would only be the case if all of evolutions t's were crossed and i's were dotted. To be clear, my intention is not say that evolution is ultimately wrong or "just a theory"....but is it really (or any scientific discipline) without need for criticism?

Looking at both sides, I see mendacity. Does the fact of holding a belief that evolution cannot be ultimately explanatory really make someone unfit for scientific debate? While this belief is not helpful...is it any worse than the biasing naive metaphysics of Richard Dawkins?

JJ said: Honestly, I don't see what he has done recently that really is worthy of this much invective. I saw Expelled last night. It didn't really seem to be that egregious to me. It was more factual than any Michael Moore movie or Al Gore's (not to dispute global warming, but just Gore's looseness with the facts), and while both got some criticism it was nothing like this.

To have a discipline that says essentially "we can't explain" makes no sense, to me at least. But, does that mean automatically that they are all evil idiots and none of their criticisms are valid or meaningful?

is [evolution] really (or any scientific discipline) without need for criticism?

Does the fact of holding a belief that evolution cannot be ultimately explanatory really make someone unfit for scientific debate?

While this belief is not helpful...is it any worse than the biasing naive metaphysics of Richard Dawkins?

JJ said: Honestly, I don't see what he has done recently that really is worthy of this much invective. I saw Expelled last night. It didn't really seem to be that egregious to me. It was more factual than any Michael Moore movie or Al Gore's (not to dispute global warming, but just Gore's looseness with the facts), and while both got some criticism it was nothing like this.

Does the fact of holding a belief that evolution cannot be ultimately explanatory really make someone unfit for scientific debate?

Richard Simons said: I have not seen the film so I am interested to hear what parts of it you consider to be factual. My understanding is that not one of the people presented as being expelled has actually been expelled and that the film also contains a ludicrous attempt to tie the theory of evolution to Hitler and Stalin (the one banning books on the subject, the other sending people to die in labour camps if they accepted the TOE).

Science Avenger,

I am politically biased. No doubt. But, I am aware and try to combat it. If Stein lied, that is not acceptable to me. I am trying to check out the stories of those that were "Expelled", but it is very difficult. There is so much emotion and bias on both sides of the debate that it is hard to discern.

My use of comparisons is valid. It is valid because you are allowed to hold equally absurd biases if they are on the "accepted" side of the fence (to borrow Steins analogy). Richard Dawkins was painful to watch. He came across as so narrow-minded and unsophisticated. He did not come across as a believer in aliens. He came across as someone that if pushed would say.....well, at some less-then-nano-probability (less likely than monkeys typing Shakespeare) it might have to do with aliens, but no way does it have to do with God. This was an exhibition of his bias, not his belief in aliens.

JJ said: His main point was that evolution is a sacred cow. You cannot have a reasoned debate on it. If you dissent you will be branded an idiot and a lunatic and not be listened to. Scientists and media types put on a false front that will not admit problems in evolution, because they are afraid that people will take that to mean that evolution may not be reality - the reality is, of course, that there are wrinkles (at least) in all fields. All, or the vast majority, of the heat around the debate on evolution is fueled by politics, and biases that are taken into the debate.

His points relating to Hitler and Stalin were that the secular humanist metaphysic (as good a name as any?) devalues life. A culture that devalues life can be dangerous and the effects are not immediate, nor obvious.

He could have parsed this out better.

It is clear that is not conflating science with secularism.....but the militant secularists do and that is a why it is such a battle field.

Regardless of whether or not you believe all of that...is any of it really crazy, fringe or unthinkable?

In other words, JJ, in the scientific arena, if you feel motivated to criticize Evolutionary Theory, no one is stopping you, but, remember these incredibly important points:

1) If you insist on criticizing Evolutionary Theory, or any other science, you must explain and demonstrate how to improve it, or you must present a superior explanation to replace it. Otherwise, your criticism is and forever will be invalid.

2) If you do not understand how Evolutionary Theory works, or even how science works, no one in the scientific world is going to bother to take you seriously, if anyone bothers to take notice of your protests at all.

3) If you have to use politics to make your opinions the science of the land, like legislating Creationism, Intelligent Design "theory," or "criticisms of Darwinism" into school science curricula, you are not doing any science at all.

Stanton said: 1) If you insist on criticizing Evolutionary Theory, or any other science, you must explain and demonstrate how to improve it, or you must present a superior explanation to replace it. Otherwise, your criticism is and forever will be invalid.

Stanton,

You are proving my point. Intelligent Design folks "are not interested in doing any science to begin with". Ben Stein is either a "filthy liar" or a "colossal moron".

On the "science leads you to killing people", he is clearly referring to "science as metaphysic" or secularism. It is, and rather obviously so, not a reference to the scientific method. The context of the "Expelled" makes that clear. I understand that you have quite a bit of emotion invested in this - much of it may even be justified, hearing people attempt to use the bible as science textbook is silly, regardless of its veracity it is not intended to answer the scientific questions - but please stick to attacking his points.

JJ said: His main point was that evolution is a sacred cow. You cannot have a reasoned debate on it. If you dissent you will be branded an idiot and a lunatic and not be listened to. Scientists and media types put on a false front that will not admit problems in evolution, because they are afraid that people will take that to mean that evolution may not be reality - the reality is, of course, that there are wrinkles (at least) in all fields.

His points relating to Hitler and Stalin were that the secular humanist metaphysic (as good a name as any?) devalues life. A culture that devalues life can be dangerous and the effects are not immediate, nor obvious.

Regardless of whether or not you believe all of that...is any of it really crazy, fringe or unthinkable?

Stanton said: 3) If you have to use politics to make your opinions the science of the land, like legislating Creationism, Intelligent Design "theory," or "criticisms of Darwinism" into school science curricula, you are not doing any science at all.

JJ,

Tell us why you think that Ben Stein is doing science, even though he is not doing any research, he did not show any Intelligent Design proponent doing any research, either, and that everything he has been paid to say has been proven to be a lie.

Stanton said: JJ, Tell us why you think that Ben Stein is doing science, even though he is not doing any research, he did not show any Intelligent Design proponent doing any research, either, and that everything he has been paid to say has been proven to be a lie.

JJ said:

Stanton said: 1) If you insist on criticizing Evolutionary Theory, or any other science, you must explain and demonstrate how to improve it, or you must present a superior explanation to replace it. Otherwise, your criticism is and forever will be invalid.

Uhhh.....no. You're kidding right? Theories can be proved wrong without having an immediate replacement.

JJ said: Actually this point is not true either. Use of the court system has no bearing on the scientific validity of the ideas in question. Current popularity also is not a criterion for being scientific.

JJ said: "Doing science" does not mean "doing original research". Everything that he said has not proven to be a lie. I have read over some of th Expelledexposed sight. It is incredibly biased.

JJ said: This site does NOT offer proof that Caroline Crocker was not let go and then later not hired because of her mention of intelligent design.

JJ said: The Sternberg case looks worse for Stein. But still it looks like the paper was sent out for peer review before being published. It also appears to confirm a visceral hatred of ID by the scientific establishment.

JJ said: I do think, though, that intelligent design has value. I can think of nothing better for classroom teaching of evolution than intelligent design. It is perfect for debate, making learning more interesting, meaningful and likely to stick with the student. The devils advocate is very valuable, even if his side is not the one on which we want to end up. :)

JJ said: In the majority of academia it is acceptable, encouraged even, to debate and argue sides with which you are certain you will never hold. No ideas are sacred...all may be dismantled and looked at from this way and that - except in the evolution debate.

Intelligent Design has never been demonstrated to be science, and its proponents have never demonstrated even a rudimentary desire to do or improve science.

Furthermore, JJ, you don't appear to understand that, in order for a person to debate a subject, that person must demonstrate a competent understanding of that subject. Intelligent Design proponents, and, in fact, all of the people who have tried to debunk Evolutionary Theory have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts.

Secondly, in scientific debate, you refuse to understand that the point is to improve science, not to play devil's advocate. Intelligent Design proponents have no interest in improving science, they, as according to the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, want to "bring Jesus back into society." In "Expelled," Ben Stein does not explain what Intelligent Design "theory" is about, nor does he talk about what positive contributions it and its proponents would make if left unmolested. Unless, of course, you care to explain how making the claim that Charles Darwin inspired all of the atrocities of the 20th century, from Nazi Germany and institutionalized racism in the US to Stalinism and Family Planning is a legitimate form of playing the devil's advocate.

One more thing, you do not go about debunking a scientific theory through debate: you go about debunking it through experimentation and observing whether or not the theory accurately describes the reality of the natural phenomena in question.

What I'm trying to say, JJ, and what you appear to be totally disregarding is that Intelligent Design proponents are not qualified to debate about Evolution, and the reason why they are excluded from mainstream science, aka "Big Science," is because of quality control concerns, not a malevolent conspiracy.

I say, "Theories can be proved wrong without having an immediate replacement."

You (Torbjörn Larsson) say, "Unless you don’t have a better theory (predicting more data) you can only point out where it fails."

They sound pretty similar to me.....yes, of course I understand that to turn over a theory with a large body of work is one hell of a big job - in fact that is understatement. I also understand that to point out "hey there is a problem over here in this theory" does not mean that the whole theory necessarily needs to be scrapped.

However, there are two important points here:

1) Doing reviews of the literature and critical commentary IS "doing science". It is valid and useful. To say "where is his lab" or "show me some research" he/she has done is bogus and has no bearing on the validity of the argument.

2) You looked at his statement and thought about what he probably meant and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Nobody does that to the ID folks, in fact, very often it seems to me that people intentionally misinterpret their statements....but it is really probably just their personal bias.

An example of this is Ben Stein and "science kills people" clearly this is aimed a secular philosophy and not at the scientific method. There are many posts (comments, actually the posts poke fun..but I think they get this) on this blog that mis-represent that obvious fact.

There is so much vitriol and visceral hatred by many of these people - they have forfeited there ability to think critically. This is a big deal to me. Clearly some on the other side have done this as well (6 day creation for an example).

Stanton said: Intelligent Design has never been demonstrated to be science, and its proponents have never demonstrated even a rudimentary desire to do or improve science.

Furthermore, JJ, you don't appear to understand that, in order for a person to debate a subject, that person must demonstrate a competent understanding of that subject. Intelligent Design proponents, and, in fact, all of the people who have tried to debunk Evolutionary Theory have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts.

Secondly, in scientific debate, you refuse to understand that the point is to improve science, not to play devil's advocate.

Intelligent Design proponents have no interest in improving science, they, as according to the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, want to "bring Jesus back into society."

JJ, if it is true that Intelligent Design proponents are interested in doing science, then please tell me why none of them have ever bothered to put out any peer-reviewed research papers concerning Intelligent Design? Why is it that the Discovery Institute has never bothered to do any research since Philip Johnson founded it?

JJ said: All of them have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts? Again this is simply off the cuff hyperbole on your part.

JJ said: The point of debate in a science classroom is to increase the knowledge of the students and also to work on their critical thinking skills. I learned quite a lot from debating all sorts of issues in school. It forces you to learn the issues.

Science Avenger said: Bullshit. Just how gullible do you think people are? If you really believed what you said was true, you'd be calling for it in all subjects, even math. You pick on evolution because you want it to be in debates and lose, give me a break. The new Academic Freedom crowd has NEVER been about criticial thinking. They simply parrot the line because it suits their political agenda.

Show me one shred of evidence that kids learn more from debates with each other than straightforward instruction. Don't have any? Fine, let's do an experiment. We'll take two kids from the class, give them some raw materials, and have them build a weapon. One kid gets an expert weapons maker to advise him. The other kid gets his strategy from debates among the other students on how best to build a weapon. Then they do battle. Wanna bet on who wins? And science is WAY WAY more complicated than building a weapon.

Debates belong, at most, in government and English class, where there often is no right or wrong answer to a question. There is no place for debate on subjects like science and math where there are right and wrong answers, especially on subjects like biology where the students you expect to teach each other don't know the first think about the subject. You might as well have them debate ancient battle techniques with spear and horse for all they know about it.

Science Avenger said: And sorry, if you don't understand the basic concepts your criticisms aren't going to be worth spit. This idea that ignoramuses are going to clue specialists in on some obvious flaw in their work is preposterous on its face. Can anyone name even one time such a thing has ever happened?

I am not talking about some casual discussion over the chocolate milk and stale french fries. A real debate entails serious preparation on BOTH sides of the issue and you have to be able to defend both sides.

Richard Simons said:

I am not talking about some casual discussion over the chocolate milk and stale french fries. A real debate entails serious preparation on BOTH sides of the issue and you have to be able to defend both sides.

Even after getting a PhD in the subject, Jonathan Wells has proved to be unable to mount either a credible defence of ID or a non-trivial attack on the theory of evolution. Do you really expect high school kids to do much better even if they have a couple of weeks to prepare? I agree with the previous commentators: I have yet to see any reasonable criticism of the core of the TOE, although there is plenty of discussion of more peripheral concepts such as the relative importance of selection and drift.

JJ said: They sound pretty similar to me.....

JJ said: Doing reviews of the literature and critical commentary IS "doing science".

JJ said: To say "where is his lab" or "show me some research" he/she has done is bogus and has no bearing on the validity of the argument.

JJ said: You looked at his statement and thought about what he probably meant and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Nobody does that to the ID folks,

JJ said: I am not sure about this first point. The philosophy of science is not trivial nor "figured out". Most people tend to think that they "know it when they see it". But this is really not satisfactory. I am not sure that your point can be proved satisfactorily.

JJ said: Do you think debates involving intelligent design should be banned in public schools?

JJ said: In a context in which Intelligent Design ideas are discussed, they should be taught that most...actually the vast majority of scientists reject intelligent design and why they reject it. With the above stipulations, do you still have a problem with this?

Richard Simons said: A problem as I see it is that there is nothing in ID to discuss that would take more than about 30 seconds..............

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Nice try. But if that were true, science would be impossible - obviously it is not. Scientists can agree on what is science, practically under peer review.

JJ said:

Richard Simons said: A problem as I see it is that there is nothing in ID to discuss that would take more than about 30 seconds..............

My main point, and I have stressed this throughout by asking "should it be banned", should a teacher be fired or harassed for discussing ID in class?

I can see why these interweb discussions turn sour so often. I must confess more than a measure of frustration.

What gets me is all of this self-righteousness and merciless vituperation over any perceived misstep by "those people". Then you make logical errors and at least one blatantly false statement(with which you beat your opponents).

Now "they" are....you know the typical vitriol....and you are....what?

1. Stanton stated earlier that the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document said they wanted to “bring Jesus back into society.” The quote marks are his. I provided evidence that this is false. Now please call Stanton a filthy liar or a colossal moron or something. Or can I get a retraction from Stanton? Or admit that you berate the ID people for making mistakes that you and people on your side make yourselves.

2. It is absurd to dismiss an idea because the author did not do any original research. This whole business about "where is his lab" is foolishness. Yes, someone needs to do original research. Yes, that is vital. But I have seen many times on these boards people dismiss ID ideas because so and so doesn't have a white lab coat or his teeth are too good to be a scientist or something (not these exactly, but attacks speaking to things that are not relevant to the argument).

It is fair to attack ideas as unscientific, but this persistent ad hominem attack on the individual as "not a scientist" because they don't hold some post or have a lab is completely diversionary.

It is perfectly appropriate to dismantle, with gusto and wit, the arguments. But, this combination of ad hominem attacks with logical errors and self-righteousness is unbecoming. In fact, I would call it fellatious.

Wedge Document says: Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Phillip E. Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design Movement says: The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

Stanton said:

Wedge Document says: Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Phillip E. Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design Movement says: The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

JJ said: So by the conventions of this board I must continue to call you a liar - I am technically correct, no?

JJ said: It is absurd to dismiss an idea because the author did not do any original research.

Stanton said:

JJ said: So by the conventions of this board I must continue to call you a liar - I am technically correct, no?

Technically, you're nothing but a loquacious troll who never wanted to debate anything to begin with.

Science Avenger said: This is a case of many, many individuals arguing an idea over many many years while studiously avoiding doing any original research, or for that matter, defining clearly what it is they are arguing, and further, going out of their way not to argue with each other over sometimes dramatic differences of opinion. And dismissing THAT idea is not absurd at all.

JJ said:

Stanton said:

JJ said: So by the conventions of this board I must continue to call you a liar - I am technically correct, no?

Technically, you're nothing but a loquacious troll who never wanted to debate anything to begin with.

I tried to post this a minute ago, but it seems to have vanished. Sorry if this ends up as a duplicate. Stanton, do you not see that my verbal abuse is tongue-in-cheek and intended to illustrate what I see as a problem on this board? I am trying to say that attacks should be at the theory and not all of these side issues, including personal demonization.

JJ said: ...studiously avoiding doing any original research - that does not change the validity of their work.

It does to me look like they are simply looking for any argument against any aspect of evolutionary theory as opposed to putting together a cohesive argument or body of work.

Stanton said: It's been my personal experience that all of the Intelligent Design proponents who visit this site are inevitably verbally abusive, and have no desire to discuss science to begin with. If you don't want me or anyone else to assume and dismiss you as being yet another pro-ID troll, then don't act like one in the first place. So, then, please explain to me how pretending to demonize me will change my mind about stating that Intelligent Design proponents are anti-science liars when they have been demonstrated to have no interest in doing or promoting science, and that they have been shown to have made false statements on thousands of occasions, including the books they publish?

Science Avenger said:

JJ said: ...studiously avoiding doing any original research - that does not change the validity of their work.

The fuck it doesn't. It's a screaming red flag that says "BULLSHIT ARTIST" on it. It puts them in the same camp as the kid who says he can do anything, but only if no one watches him.

You aren't following my logic, you are making shit up. Let me repeat:

====

This is not a case of an idea argued by ONE author who has not yet done any original research. This is a case of many, many individuals arguing an idea over many many years while studiously avoiding doing any original research, or for that matter, defining clearly what it is they are arguing, and further, going out of their way not to argue with each other over sometimes dramatic differences of opinion. And dismissing THAT idea is not absurd at all.

====

Now, unless whatever scenario you want to dream up involves multiple people over multiple years, it isn't a valid comparison. Of course, why you don't deal directly with what I said instead of inventing convoluted scenarios remains to be explained.

Science Avenger said: You aren't following my logic, you are making shit up.

Now, unless whatever scenario you want to dream up involves multiple people over multiple years, it isn't a valid comparison. Of course, why you don't deal directly with what I said instead of inventing convoluted scenarios remains to be explained.

JJ said: I also said that you seemed to disagree with this and thought we needed to know the author and his background in order to assess the work.

Science Avenger said:

JJ said: I also said that you seemed to disagree with this and thought we needed to know the author and his background in order to assess the work.

Once again, you are making shit up. I said nothing of the kind. What sort of bizarro dishonesty is this of yours that you insist on inaccurately restating what I already clearly stated? And you wonder why you get called a troll?

I said: "I have no argument with that statement, except the studiously avoiding doing any original research - that does not change the validity of their work."

You responded with: "The fuck it doesn't".

JJ said: My point being that the work should stand or fall on its own merits and it is illogical to judge their work as being unscientific on any grounds other than the content of the work in question.

Science Avenger said:

JJ said: My point being that the work should stand or fall on its own merits and it is illogical to judge their work as being unscientific on any grounds other than the content of the work in question.

In a world where we had infinite resources, and time, I'd agree with you. But since we don't live in that world, we have to be selective about how we spend our energies, and taking the claims of known liars seriously doesn't make the cut for a lot of us. Charlie Brown shouldn't be expected to give Lucy a fair hearing about why THIS time she's really going to let him kick the football after she's yanked it away 50 times in a row.

But by all means, if you have nothing better to do with your time, have at it. It's a personal judgement call. I'm sure there are a bunch of cool designs of perpetual motion machines out there just waiting for someone to give them a fair hearing.

JJ said: That is fair enough. I don't expect you to keep up with all of the ID publications and fastidiously critique each one.

JJ said: But, could I convince you to change your tune and attack only their ideas and writings. You could say that they have never published any work or expressed any ideas that are/were scientific or compelling. There is still plenty of room there to add some flourish, invective and hyperbole (all of which can make discussions fun and have there place in a lively debate).

Science Avenger said: Change my tune? I attack their ideas and writings plenty. I just see the fact that they don't even attempt to play the game they are claiming so loudly that they can win as a very relevant fact in the debat.e

Stanton said: What Intelligent Design publications are out there to begin with? If you mean........

JJ said:

Stanton said: What Intelligent Design publications are out there to begin with? If you mean........

I have not, nor do I have any intention to, defend their ideas and/or publications only their right to be judged on their own merit. I am simply arguing that the intellectual destruction should be unleashed against ideas, not people. I believe they have bias. They may be wrong about everything. However, they are not liars or idiots.

JJ said:

Science Avenger said: Change my tune? I attack their ideas and writings plenty. I just see the fact that they don't even attempt to play the game they are claiming so loudly that they can win as a very relevant fact in the debat.e

Not necessarily changing the entire tune....how about an ever so slight adjustment in....pitch? I did not intend to suggest that you don't attack the meaty issues. I am just asking you to consider trying to attack less the man and more the argument - and by all means attack ideas with gusto. I think this will benefit the debate.

JJ said: However, they are not liars or idiots.

Stanton said: The onus is on you to prove that they are not idiots

Stanton said: The onus is on you to prove that they are not idiots

JJ said:

Stanton said: The onus is on you to prove that they are not idiots

In all seriousness, that is really quite easy. Dembski got a PhD in Mathematics from the University of Chicago. This is by its self is really enough to prove the point. But, he was also a postdoctoral fellow at MIT and Northwestern. He holds 3 masters degrees and 2 PhD's.

Behe holds a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania. (Just to make sure everyone knows the University of Pennsylvania is not some average state school. It is a well respected private institution like the University of Chicago.)

Wah-Lah! (yes, that is not the official spelling). Can we call this point satisfied and move on to the liar charge?

JJ said:

Stanton said: The onus is on you to prove that they are not idiots

Oh one more....Ben Stein graduated with honors from Columbia University and was the valedictorian of his class at Yale Law School.

In fact, the only people at the Discovery Institute who would potentially be qualified to make criticisms of Evolutionary Biology are Phillip E. Johnson and Michael Behe, but the thing is, all of the books Phillip Johnson wrote suggest that he hired other people to do his schoolwork for him, and that the only reason why he got a degree in a biological science in the first place was because Reverend Sun Moon commanded him to do so in order to destroy Evolution. As for Michael Behe: as I, and many many other posts on this blog have pointed out, Michael Behe's scholarly abilities are abysmal, and he purposely blinds himself to any contrary evidence presented to him.

As for Intelligent Design proponents being dishonest, please explain why the producers of "Expelled" saw fit to lie to Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, and The Killers about the intentions of "Crossroads," as well as hiring Ben Stein to pin the blame of every evil in the 20th Century on Charles Darwin, and please explain we are disallowed from saying that this is dishonest.

Stanton said: If Dembski's degrees are in Mathematics, then why does he feel qualified to criticize Evolutionary Biology? No, it is spelled Voilà, and this point has not been satisfied at all.

bump

JJ said: Wow, you have just rendered useless an entire scholarly field. I will get to work notifying all of the scholars who are still working on it. Try broadening your horizons:

JJ said: I can see why these interweb discussions turn sour so often. I must confess more than a measure of frustration.

JJ said: "those people"

JJ said: Stanton stated earlier

JJ said: It is absurd to dismiss an idea because the author did not do any original research.

JJ said: Then you make logical errors and at least one blatantly false statement(with which you beat your opponents).

JJ said: I am trying to say that attacks should be at the theory and not all of these side issues, including personal demonization.

JJ said: But, my point is not that their arguments are correct. My point is to refute your "idiot" claim. Can you (or anyone on this board) admit that these are very smart men?

JJ said: In all seriousness, that is really quite easy. Dembski got a PhD in Mathematics from the University of Chicago. This is by its self is really enough to prove the point.

JJ said: One of his other master’s degree is in statistics - which is at the heart of some of these arguments.

Stanton said:

JJ said: But, my point is not that their arguments are correct. My point is to refute your "idiot" claim. Can you (or anyone on this board) admit that these are very smart men?

So, tell us, why should we be forbidden from using the epitaph "idiot"

So, then, what do you recommend as an apt description of a person who claims that Charles Darwin was wrong because he did not take 20th Century American high school algebra, but refuses to explain exactly how high school algebra is necessary to debunk Charles Darwin's observations, or how to refer to someone who has been paid to claim that Charles Darwin is the root of all evil in the 20th Century?

Since no one would describe a nonhuman as an "idiot", I find the claim that using the term is dehumanizing, to be completely without merit.

The simplest way for the IDer/creationists to stop being called idiots is to stop acting like idiots.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I fail to see how possesing a degree has any relevance to the point of these IDiots being idiots about biology.

Science Avenger said: Since no one would describe a nonhuman as an "idiot", I find the claim that using the term is dehumanizing, to be completely without merit.

JJ said: It seems clear that I have profoundly offended the members of this board. I really truly am sorry. I may well have earned some of the scorn that I am now receiving.

Science Avenger said: Since no one would describe a nonhuman as an "idiot", I find the claim that using the term is dehumanizing, to be completely without merit.