IDC Advocates Like Co-Option... of Conferences

Posted 22 May 2008 by Wesley R. Elsberry

"Intelligent design" creationist Paul Nelson was bragging recently on "Uncommon Descent" about getting a presentation accepted at a conference in the UK, the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion at Oxford's "God, Nature and Design: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives". Apparently, the fix is in for IDC advocates, and several openly pro-IDC abstracts have been accepted. There seem to be about five that have been spotted so far, Paul Nelson's included. Nelson's presentation is titled, "The Logic of Dysteleology". Having attended the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference and heard Nelson's talk there, if I were attending the Ian Ramsey conference now I could go visit a snack bar during Nelson's talk and not miss much. It looks to be the same topic, just with a few more recent references tossed in. Now, as to the rigor of this conference, let's look at another abstract that was deemed worthy by the reviewers, submitted by one Don Booker of Pace University.

Symmetric Complex Specified Information is Conserved Don Booker Pace University In "No Free Lunch" Dembski bases a number of arguments critical to the intelligent design program on a 'law' of conservation of information. However, his various aspects of his argument have been severely criticized : by Shanks and Karsai from the perspective of self organizing systems: by Shallet [sic] and Elsberry who who assert his probability "justification is fatally flawed;" by Edis, and Perahk [sic], who both questions [sic] the applicability of his use of Wolpert and Macready's "no free lunch theorem". This paper reviews these criticisms and suggests several alternative arguments for the conservation of information from mathematics and physics based on symmetry considerations.
— Don Booker

I wonder what might have proved appealing about this abstract to the reviewers. Did they not know the cited work, and thus passed over the apparent unfamiliarity of Booker with even how to spell various authors' names? That doesn't excuse overlooking the grammar error contained in it. Then there is the complete lack of detail concerning what, if anything, there might be of substance to this presentation. Maybe the paper is as meritless as the short description, or it could be something cogent despite the uninformative abstract. (I have requested a preprint from Booker.) But since all that the reviewers had was the abstract, it seems that the conference organizers have set a very low bar for admission. How many IDC advocate abstracts can the readers find in the list of submitted abstracts? Add your finds to the comments.

72 Comments

Reed A. Cartwright · 22 May 2008

When I registered for Evolution 2008, they were accepting all abstracts. I'm surprised the DI hasn't tried to attend that one. It'd be a hoot.

Richard Eis · 23 May 2008

Stands up...

"Goddidit....symmetrically. And here is one symmetrical fossil to prove everything.

Thank you"

Wesley R. Elsberry · 23 May 2008

I have re-posted my 1997 response to Nelson.

I think what really galls IDC advocates about the "dysteleology" theological argument made by scientists is that it is so compelling. Nelson's argument boils down to "But you are talking out of your field." As the IDC advocates so often must talk out of their own fields, when they have such, this is a response that is rife with potential for hypocrisy.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 23 May 2008

I wonder whether the reviewers also noticed the equivocation in Booker's abstract. There may well be symmetry considerations, or at least arguments, in physics for conservation of information per se, but that has precisely nothing to do with Dembski's "fourth law", which asserts that his incoherent "complex specified information" represents something that is conserved.

Mac · 23 May 2008

From www.ratemyprofessors.com page for a Don Booker at Pace University:

"Test's are full of grammatical and spelling errors."

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=22176&page=1

Flint · 23 May 2008

Ye's, a lot of folk's seem to think that any word's ending in 's' need apostrophe's to indicate thi's is the last letter.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 May 2008

How many IDC advocate abstracts? Ok, I'll give one find for the time being: Christopher Beling on Dembski's '4th law of thermodynamics':

[...] Even though the thermodynamics of non-equilibrium open systems removes any fundamental breaking of the 2 nd law there continues to be much debate as to how energy flow can produce the order found in functionally complex systems causing some to believe that a deeper 4 th law of thermodynamics must be involved. [...] A recently proposed alternative formulation of the 4 th law as derived by mathematician William Dembski is discussed. This alternative version has all the hallmarks of being correct. [...]

Flint said: thi's is the last letter.

Nitpick: Methink's you mean "i's". 'T'i's a hard game for a Shakespear, it's.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 May 2008

Btw, shouldn't Beling's abstract be unacceptable on the formal point of claiming that Dembski is a 'mathematician'? The last time Dembski published peer reviewed math was 14 years ago, I believe.

randy · 23 May 2008

Hey, all your have to do is submit an abstract and $3000 and you can get selected for the conference at the Ian Ramsey Center. I have been invited the past several rounds. I ain't wastin' $3000. Essentially it is set up for cranks with money. (IMHO)

randy · 23 May 2008

oops, looks like I was thinking of wrong conference. I was thinking of the Oxford roundtables (which I thought also had a similar theme this year.)

John Kwok · 23 May 2008

Historically, Pace University has never been known for its academic excellence here in New York City. Am disappointed, but not surprised, that there's an IDiot teaching there by the name of Don Booker. Maybe he ought to change his last name to "Bookie" since he's probably on the Disco Tute payroll, acting as yet another shill for my "pal" Bill Dumbski.

Regards,

John

harold · 23 May 2008

Pace University is a fairly large, secular, mainstream university, mainly located in New York City, with campuses in suburban areas as well. It has a historical emphasis on business.

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

Don Booker is an associate professor of information systems.

I couldn't find out much about him on Google beyond "ratemyprofessors", which can be summarized as saying that students find him somewhat dull and absent minded, and some article on ADA, with multiple coauthors, which may have been about the computer language Ada, although the American Dental Association or Americans with Disabilities Act cannot be ruled out as subjects unless I can get more access to it.

Pace is not necessarily the most academically distinguished institution in the world, but it hardly a hotbed of fanaticism or pseudoscience, either. It is very unfortunate for Pace that an associate professor has chosen to draw negative attention by taking up with creationism.

Bobby · 23 May 2008

Wesley R. Elsberry said: I think what really galls IDC advocates about the "dysteleology" theological argument made by scientists is that it is so compelling. Nelson's argument boils down to "But you are talking out of your field."

So far as I'm concerned, one person's theological opinion has exactly as much support as the next. There's no such thing as "out of your field" when you're talking about arbitrary belief systems.

Flint · 23 May 2008

So far as I’m concerned, one person’s theological opinion has exactly as much support as the next.

And if one's "theological opinion" is that science has it wrong, should evidence matter?

Bobby · 23 May 2008

Flint said:
So far as I’m concerned, one person’s theological opinion has exactly as much support as the next.
And if one's "theological opinion" is that science has it wrong, should evidence matter?

Evidence matters if you're interested in the objective question of what science has right and wrong. But as a purely theological position, it's neither more nor less arbitrary than any other. It simply requires the ancilliary theological axiom that evidence isn't relevant. (Which, AFAICT, is already implicit in every theological position.)

Flint · 23 May 2008

But as a purely theological position, it’s neither more nor less arbitrary than any other. It simply requires the ancilliary theological axiom that evidence isn’t relevant.

While I agree with you that evidence is irrelevant to "purely theological" positions, I should also note that in actual practice, these opinions are NOT being positioned as "purely theological". They are instead being positioned as levers to manipulate school board voting, judicial appointments, and public school science curricula. And it is these very real-world practical effects that have inspired the Discovery Institute (and those who fund it). Nobody would mind a bit if they all were content to preach harmlessly at one another. But when their theology is deployed as a justification to do genuine harm, THEN a certain amount of rational evidence-grounded resistence can be expected. Perhaps we should say that while theological opinion may be irrelevant to anything, evangelical opinion is not. In this context, theologists are content with their own faith; evangelists aren't content with YOUR faith.

Mike Elzinga · 23 May 2008

Bobby said:
Flint said:
So far as I’m concerned, one person’s theological opinion has exactly as much support as the next.
And if one's "theological opinion" is that science has it wrong, should evidence matter?
Evidence matters if you're interested in the objective question of what science has right and wrong. But as a purely theological position, it's neither more nor less arbitrary than any other. It simply requires the ancilliary theological axiom that evidence isn't relevant. (Which, AFAICT, is already implicit in every theological position.)

Unfortunately, in the real world in which we exist, some theological positions conflict with reality. As long as people have to share information, that information has to be validated in the real world. As long as people have to compete for and/or share resources to survive as a working society, the knowledge they pass among each other has to have relevance in the real world. So-called “theological positions” that conflict with science also conflict with all other objective information people share among themselves. Such theological positions are not irrelevant; they impact people’s behaviors. If those behaviors become parasitic and disruptive to the free flow of objective information and knowledge, if it interferes with the learning paths of members of society, if it results in the propagation of misinformation and confusion, then such beliefs become a burden to society. When societies are wealthy enough and robust enough to tolerate such misinformation, demagogues flourish within subcultures in those societies, in effect enjoying a parasitic relationship with the larger society that protects and feeds them. In harder times, such dysfunctional beliefs get sorted out quickly and discarded, or else the larger society falls into chaos. So, only people who can nest comfortably within a larger, more robust society, and who can exist as though the real world has no relevance, are able to act as though their “theological positions” are just as valid as the objective information on which the larger society survives. Such people are actually parasites.

dhogaza · 23 May 2008

Booker's paper is in regard to the ADA programming language ...

Experiences in ADA: Perspective problems and prospects for a potential primary language of instruction

1984. 0 citations. In SIGCSE (ACM Special Interest Group, Computer Science Education). Not much indication of any knowledge relevant to evolutionary biology thus far ...

PO · 23 May 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Btw, shouldn't Beling's abstract be unacceptable on the formal point of claiming that Dembski is a 'mathematician'? The last time Dembski published peer reviewed math was 14 years ago, I believe.

Torbjörn, 18 years actually.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 May 2008

Bobby said: So far as I'm concerned, one person's theological opinion has exactly as much support as the next.

So add irony to hypocrisy: creationists admit that the necessary testing through such a descriptive teleological argument is impossible, that it isn't science, and that it is theology.

Mike Elzinga said: Such people are actually parasites.

Agreed. But it can now be strengthened, if one accept the review that claimed that Expelled is a blood libel on science, that creationists in particular are actually discriminating against scientists on one side and atheists on the other. The first is based on misconstruing the merit of science and the second on opinion of atheists (which, as I understand it, is the larger crime perpetrated here). Ironically, if one accept the fundamentalist conspiratorial view of Expelled fully, and reflect on your argument, one could probably start to use now familiar language such as creationist war on science and terrorism against society. So I'm glad that no one outside its propaganda targets takes the movie seriously.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 May 2008

PO said: Torbjörn, 18 years actually.

Thanks, I stand corrected.

PO · 23 May 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
PO said: Torbjörn, 18 years actually.
Thanks, I stand corrected.

:) I have MathSciNet at my fingertips. "Uniform probability" J. Theoret. Probab. 3 (1990).

An Observer · 23 May 2008

When you can do nothing more, perhaps you can disparage the person who allows a voice of dissent to be heard. It is this approach to "science" in our country and particularly in our media and left wing universities that recently brought this comment from a Chinese paleontologist:

"...In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 23 May 2008

An Observer said: When you can do nothing more, perhaps you can disparage the person who allows a voice of dissent to be heard. It is this approach to "science" in our country and particularly in our media and left wing universities that recently brought this comment from a Chinese paleontologist: "...In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

Actually, that's an urban myth - you've been reading too many creo-idiot web-sites.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 23 May 2008

An Observer said: When you can do nothing more, perhaps you can disparage the person who allows a voice of dissent to be heard. It is this approach to "science" in our country and particularly in our media and left wing universities that recently brought this comment from a Chinese paleontologist: "...In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

And no one is persecuted for criticizing Darwin. That's simply a lie that you've bought into. "Expelled" is that lie writ large, but it's a lie nonetheless. Besides, who cares about Darwin? His version of the theory was out-dated a century ago.

Larry Boy · 23 May 2008

Bobby said: So far as I'm concerned, one person's theological opinion has exactly as much support as the next. There's no such thing as "out of your field" when you're talking about arbitrary belief systems.

You think Dawkins a-theology is no more or less valid than Will Wimpskies? Clearly any arbitrary belief system should be rejected, since it is arbitrary, which is doubtlessly your point. However, I respect the theological opinions of many people a great deal more than I respect the theological opinions of others. A strong epistemology is one of my central requirements, because I get tired of just how many people make the "we can't know it's not wrong" argument about theology, astrology, faked moon landings and bush bombing the world trade center, just to name the arguments that my friends make. (I have decided to believe that the mob killed JFK arbitrarily just to fit in, and this doesn't seem to bother any of them. *sigh*.) Theology is essentially a specialized form of philosophy IMHO, and, as such, people can be either fairly reasonable or ludicrously delusional, just like w/ any other intellectual endeavor. While there might not be any established philosophical core of truths, carefully study can help you avoid ridiculous mistakes, and even professional scientist (my favorite group of people) make silly philosophy mistakes from time to time because they have not studied philosophy rigorously. Serious and thoughtful study in almost any field is likely to make you better informed than if you had not engaged in that study.

Stanton · 23 May 2008

An Observer said: We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

Being publicly ridiculed for revealing one's own gross stupidity, or being ridiculed for refusing to produce evidence supporting one's claim are not persecution. Being burned in effigy is persecution, as is having your own demise plotted.

fnxtr · 23 May 2008

Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

And of course, by "persecution", A Prevaricator means "knowledg(e)able criticism and demands for evidence". Grow up.

fnxtr · 23 May 2008

gmta, Stanton.

Larry Boy · 23 May 2008

An Observer said: Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie [sic] Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

Darwin was a rich namby-panmby with poor hygiene, a bad sense of balance, and no apresiation for the performing arts. When can I expect my persecution to begin? In all seriousness, if you make illogical arguments and demonstrate ignorance, it is likely to damage your career if you are expected to be logically rigorous and studious. This is not a bad thing.

Stanton · 23 May 2008

fnxtr said: gmta, Stanton.

What about the Greenfield Montague Transportation Area? Or do you mean "Guam Mass Transit Authority"?

Flint · 23 May 2008

I trust we all understand that to a creationists, a request for either logic or evidence IS persecution. Indeed, ANY criticism is defined as persecution. You are either a creationist, or you are persecuting creationists, and there is no neutral.

Larry Boy · 23 May 2008

Bobby said: Evidence matters if you're interested in the objective question of what science has right and wrong. But as a purely theological position, it's neither more nor less arbitrary than any other. It simply requires the ancilliary theological axiom that evidence isn't relevant. (Which, AFAICT, is already implicit in every theological position.)

Really? So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion? Isn't saying that evidence doesn't matter just the same as saying the truth doesn't matter? There are a whole lot of people who didn't get this little postmodernist memo, since I hear cdesign proponentsists talking all the live long day about stuff that is not only wrong, but actually doesn't mater. They are apparently even MORE misguided than I had thought. Awesome. Since logical consistency is a form of evidence, you are asserting that it is actually impossible for any one to have any theological knowledge of any sort. This means you are an agnostic who finds theology boring. Hey every one, Bobby says he's an agnostic! I always hope that people who make counter-factual claims will be able to recognize when they have done so.

raven · 23 May 2008

observer mindlessly repeating creo lies: Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

The truth is the fundies have been persecuting the scientists for years. Cases below and the link goes to the documentation. Seems like with cults and cultists like observer, the lies and violence are never far from the surface.

The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can. This is, of course, exactly the behavior of zealots who long ago forgot what the Christ in Christian stood for. These days, fundie is synonymous with liar, ignorant, stupid, and sometimes killer. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] As usual the truth is the exact opposite. The creos have been firing, beating up, attempting to fire, and killing scientists and science supporters for a while now. They are way ahead on body counts. Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. I've discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire. There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I'm keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 12 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 12 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

An Observer · 23 May 2008

For the record, I have not seen "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed", but would love to see it and will as soon as it comes out in rental stores.

As for your arguments here, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

I should be criticized for misspelling "criticize".

Stanton · 23 May 2008

An Observer said: As for your arguments here, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

What protests? We are stating that creationists are not persecuted for doubting Darwin. Hell, they are not persecuted for defaming Darwin. We are stating that creationists are ridiculed for doubting and defaming Darwin, and we are stating that there is a difference between ridicule and persecution, especially since we do not persecute creationists for doubting/defaming Darwin, AND we do not advocate persecuting creationists for doubting/defaming Darwin. Furthermore, there is a subtle, but strong difference between "protesting too much" and having to repeat one's statements over and over again to the willfully deaf. So, unless you actually plan on providing actual evidence of people actually persecuting other people for doubting and or defaming Darwin, please realize that your innuendo has been repeated before, and has never been entertaining.

Henry J · 23 May 2008

Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to criticize Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

Actually, the way that works is quite simple: one is free to criticize Darwin (or any other scientist), but the catch is that others are just as free to criticize the criticizer. Henry

Dan · 23 May 2008

An Observer said: comment from a Chinese paleontologist: "...In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

All right, let's see: Charles Darwin, your theory of pangenesis is utterly wrong! I'll report back as soon as the persecution sets in. Meanwhile, why don't you tell us the name of that Chinese paleontologist? And more importantly, the evidence that he or she has to support his or her statement.

The Observer · 23 May 2008

I can hardly wait to hear all the positive comments and those unbiased scientist who agree with me saying 'Thank You for responding'.

Long before this website, a great theologian understood the situation. Bavinck lived from 1854-1921. He was a contemporary of Abraham Kuyper and B.B. Warfield, both of whom he knew well. He graduated magna cum laude with a double major in Systematic Theology & OT. His doctoral dissertation was on the concept of the State in Zwingli's theology. Bavinck taught at the Theological Seminary in Kampen, Holland before accepting the position of professor at the Free University of Amsterdam. He is best known for his magnum opus, "The Reformed Dogmatics" (Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, in 4 volumes). Until recently, a translated version of his popular Dogmatics (Our Reasonable Faith) was available in paperback. Bavinck is one of the most balanced and solidly Reformed theologians Holland has ever produced.

Here is a statement that he made that pretty much explains why Evolutionist refuse to consider Intelligence and why (in the opinion of MANY) they are wrong to do so.

http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/02/macro-evolution-as-religious-doctrine.html

Now, to get to the information you requested. Here is ONE example.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/38440/

I will not bother to do more because I think the evidence is overwhelming. You want say that you only criticize, but those who have felt the 'effects' of the political winds say otherwise. Regardless of what is presented here, the same spin is always placed on it and the same rehearsed answers are used to squelch information from 'non-believers'. Truthfully, evolution raises as many questions as it answers, but looking outside the already decided hypothesis is not acceptable.

This site provides a list of "Real" scientist who believe creation. You insist that creation and ID are the same, so I am including this.

http://bassethound.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/real-scientists-who-believe-in-creationism-do-they-exist/

Make your hundreds of criticisms if it makes you feel better. Isn't that the true purpose of this web-site.

James F · 23 May 2008

Observer,

It's not a matter of bias; creationism and intelligent design don't qualify as science in the first place. Creationism isn't just faith-based rather than evidence-based, it is contradicted by all evidence from biology, geology, and physics. Intelligent design does not provide falsifiable, testable hypotheses: it can be boiled down to "this is so complex, it can't be explained by natural laws and processes, so there must be a designer (God) working in supernatural ways." This cannot be tested, and it predicts nothing. This is why, among all papers currently indexed at the National Library of Medicine (roughly 17 million citations), there are none that disprove evolution, and not a single one providing data in support of creationism or intelligent design.

Stanton · 23 May 2008

So, then, Observer, please tell us how many of these scientists who are also Creationists are also biologists, how many of these scientists have been literally persecuted for being creationists, how many of these scientists who are also creationists have been able to demonstrate how to perform experiments involving Creationism or Intelligent Design, and exactly how many of these scientists who are also creationists have been able to point actual, valid flaws in Evolutionary Theory, and not make arguments from their own personal incredulity?

Larry Boy · 23 May 2008

The Observer said: I can hardly wait to hear all the positive comments and those unbiased scientist who agree with me saying 'Thank You for responding'.

So unbiased means they agree with you? Or does it mean they feel you are under no obligation to attempt to understand something before rejecting it? As for me and my family, we serve the truth, and don't really care what ignorant obstructionist say. I find it utterly un-fathomable that creationist are arguing that scientist are committed to proving an atheistic world view. The entire reason to practice science is to find out the truth no mater what the truth may be. If we place a priori constraints on what can be true then the endeavor of science becomes futile. It isn't any fun if we cant find out what really happened. Trust me, making s&&t up is a lot less work than scientific investigation. It is not my fault that you are close minded and believe counter factual statements. It is not my fault that your epistemology has failed you. I would recommend that you take responsibility for your own education and stop whining.

raven · 23 May 2008

The observer repeating lies again: You want say that you only criticize, but those who have felt the ‘effects’ of the political winds say otherwise.

You ignored my well documented list of scientists and science supporters fired, beaten up, persecuted, harassed, and killed. While providing no documentation for any of your claims. Got a reference to that Chinese paleontologist story? Didn't think so, looks like another creo lie. So OK, you post mindless, routine creo lies, ignore points when people call you on them, and then repeat some more. Typical fundie cultist troll, so mundane as to be boring. "We lie a lot, so god exists." Never liked that logic.

Richard Simons · 23 May 2008

Once you have removed all the non-biologists (why should Samuel Morse be expected to know more about evolution than the cashier at the local store?) and the people who preceded the Theory of Evolution (Linnaeus, Pasteur, Ray, etc.) it's a pretty thin list. I suspect the list of biologists who think their neighbour is plotting to kill them would be more impressive. In the page The Observer linked to the 'great' theologian had only this to say (I wonder if this was evidence-based or just his personal opinion)

It is totally futile to ignore the reality of a scientist’s subjectivity. This is to deny to faith, to religious and moral convictions, to metaphysics and philosophy their influence on scientific study. One may attempt it but will never succeed because the scholar can never be separated from the human being.

I suspect 'The Observer' is confused as to what he said and what the blog owner (Andrew Rowell) said, which was basically that biologists have a 'religious' commitment to evolution.

Truthfully, evolution raises as many questions as it answers,

Creationists/IDers keep coming here and saying that there are problems with evolution, yet none are able to articulate the nature of these problems. Perhaps what you are intending is that a solution to one puzzle always raises another question in a scientist's mind and yes, that is how science works.

but looking outside the already decided hypothesis is not acceptable.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Shebardigan · 23 May 2008

The RANDOM usage of upper CASE LETTERS is genrally a RELIABLE SIGN of verifiable KOOKITUDE.

Bobby · 23 May 2008

Larry Boy said:
Bobby said: Evidence matters if you're interested in the objective question of what science has right and wrong. But as a purely theological position, it's neither more nor less arbitrary than any other. It simply requires the ancilliary theological axiom that evidence isn't relevant. (Which, AFAICT, is already implicit in every theological position.)
Really? So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion?

Are you unable to imagine alternative explanations for such a phenomenon? How would a god prove it were a god? Rather than, say, an alien with "sufficiently advanced technology".

Since logical consistency is a form of evidence, you are asserting that it is actually impossible for any one to have any theological knowledge of any sort.

Unless someone has come up with a way to test supernatural claims empirically, it is impossible for anyone to have any theological knowledge of any sort. Hence my original post. Your opinions about the supernatural are exactly as valuable as mine, or anyone else's.

This means you are an agnostic who finds theology boring. Hey every one, Bobby says he's an agnostic!

Boo, hoo. Someone called me a name.

I always hope that people who make counter-factual claims will be able to recognize when they have done so.

Me too. Ditto for unsupportable claims. On second thought, it would be foolish of me to hope for something that is obviously not going to happen.

Shebardigan · 23 May 2008

Zut alors. Now if we can just hook booby up with DavidMabus and somehow send them off to their own private universe...

Stanton · 23 May 2008

Bobby said: So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion?

Are you unable to imagine alternative explanations for such a phenomenon? How would a god prove it were a god? Rather than, say, an alien with "sufficiently advanced technology". So, tell us again imagining how to tell the difference between an actual god from a god-like alien is science?

Stanton · 23 May 2008

Bobby said:
So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion?
Are you unable to imagine alternative explanations for such a phenomenon? How would a god prove it were a god? Rather than, say, an alien with "sufficiently advanced technology".

So, tell us again imagining how to tell the difference between an actual god from a god-like alien is science?

Bobby · 23 May 2008

The Observer said: I can hardly wait to hear all the positive comments and those unbiased scientist who agree with me saying 'Thank You for responding'. Long before this website, a great theologian understood the situation. Bavinck lived from 1854-1921. He was a contemporary of Abraham Kuyper and B.B. Warfield, both of whom he knew well. He graduated magna cum laude with a double major in Systematic Theology & OT. His doctoral dissertation was on the concept of the State in Zwingli's theology. Bavinck taught at the Theological Seminary in Kampen, Holland before accepting the position of professor at the Free University of Amsterdam. He is best known for his magnum opus, "The Reformed Dogmatics" (Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, in 4 volumes). Until recently, a translated version of his popular Dogmatics (Our Reasonable Faith) was available in paperback. Bavinck is one of the most balanced and solidly Reformed theologians Holland has ever produced. Here is a statement that he made that pretty much explains why Evolutionist refuse to consider Intelligence and why (in the opinion of MANY) they are wrong to do so. http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/02/macro-evolution-as-religious-doctrine.html

OK, so a theologian I've never heard of thinks we should let our religious beliefs trump everything else. Remind me why I am supposed to find that a compelling argument for something?

Now, to get to the information you requested. Here is ONE example. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/38440/

One example of creationist misrepresentation of what actually happened.

I will not bother to do more because I think the evidence is overwhelming.

"Evidence" like your two links above, and the third below?

You want say that you only criticize, but those who have felt the 'effects' of the political winds say otherwise.

The only political wind that this country has felt for the last generation is a vast right-wing attempt to promote ideology over reality.

Regardless of what is presented here, the same spin is always placed on it and the same rehearsed answers are used to squelch information from 'non-believers'.

Are you mistaking scientists for atheists? And what is this 'information' you speak of? How come when we ask for evidence for creationism, or against scientific conclusions, all we get is the kind of propaganda you invoked in your post.

Truthfully, evolution raises as many questions as it answers,

Care to provide lists of both? Just so we'll know you have a clue what you're talking about?

This site provides a list of "Real" scientist who believe creation. You insist that creation and ID are the same, so I am including this. http://bassethound.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/real-scientists-who-believe-in-creationism-do-they-exist/

Charles Babbage was (reportedly) a creationist, therefore I should reject the fourteen decades of biology that has happened since he died?

Bobby · 23 May 2008

Stanton said:
Bobby said:
So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion?
Are you unable to imagine alternative explanations for such a phenomenon? How would a god prove it were a god? Rather than, say, an alien with "sufficiently advanced technology".
So, tell us again imagining how to tell the difference between an actual god from a god-like alien is science?

I'm curious why you posted that as a reply to my post, as if it were a response to something I actually said.

Larry Boy · 24 May 2008

Bobby said:
Larry Boy said: . . . . So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion?
Are you unable to imagine alternative explanations for such a phenomenon? How would a god prove it were a god? Rather than, say, an alien with "sufficiently advanced technology".

Ah yes, the good old "But you can't prove that it is not not not the case that this statement is true" statement. You see, in order to reject a whole cartload of totally bogus notions, we can never reject the null hypothesis without sufficent reason. So, if God comes out of the sky and says "sup" we should only suppose that something other than the obvious happend if there is independent evidence suggesting an alternative interpretation. I do not need to prove that aliens didn't do it unless there is some reason to suppose that they did. So, the burden of evidence is on those who claim that God didn't come out of the sky and say sup. Isn't a rational-empirical approach to epistemology darn satisfying? It lets you believe what you see so long as you have no reason not to believe it.

. . . . Your opinions about the supernatural are exactly as valuable as mine, or anyone else's.

My supernatural assertion: If you post again, God will immediately turn you into a hamster. Axiom 1: If no assertion is more valid than a particular assertion, then that assertion is an assertion which is a best explanation of reality. Axiom 2: The events predicted by the best explanation of reality are most likely to occur. Since all assertions about the supernatural are EXACTLY as valuable (by which I assume you mean true), it follows from axiom 1 that there is no assertion more valid than my assertion. Then, from axiom 2, the most likely result of your posting to this forum is your transformation into a hamster. Concrete examples: God exists. God does not exist. God is a hamster. God is not a hamster. Hamsters are gods. Hamsters are not gods. God invalidates logic. God does not invalidate logic. Surly at least one of those theological statements is slightly more ridiculous to believe than the others. In conclusion your philosophy leads you to make an utterly ridiculous and illogical assertion that cannot possibly be true if thinking is of any use at all. Take your post modernism and pander it elsewhere.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 24 May 2008

Bobby has already been shown to be a childish troll. You will not receive a meaningful response.

Larry Boy said:
Bobby said:
Larry Boy said: . . . . So for the theological position that god doesn't exist, it is necessarily implicit that that God descending from the sky and saying 'sup wouldn't change your opinion?
Are you unable to imagine alternative explanations for such a phenomenon? How would a god prove it were a god? Rather than, say, an alien with "sufficiently advanced technology".
Ah yes, the good old "But you can't prove that it is not not not the case that this statement is true" statement. You see, in order to reject a whole cartload of totally bogus notions, we can never reject the null hypothesis without sufficent reason. So, if God comes out of the sky and says "sup" we should only suppose that something other than the obvious happend if there is independent evidence suggesting an alternative interpretation. I do not need to prove that aliens didn't do it unless there is some reason to suppose that they did. So, the burden of evidence is on those who claim that God didn't come out of the sky and say sup. Isn't a rational-empirical approach to epistemology darn satisfying? It lets you believe what you see so long as you have no reason not to believe it.
. . . . Your opinions about the supernatural are exactly as valuable as mine, or anyone else's.
My supernatural assertion: If you post again, God will immediately turn you into a hamster. Axiom 1: If no assertion is more valid than a particular assertion, then that assertion is an assertion which is a best explanation of reality. Axiom 2: The events predicted by the best explanation of reality are most likely to occur. Since all assertions about the supernatural are EXACTLY as valuable (by which I assume you mean true), it follows from axiom 1 that there is no assertion more valid than my assertion. Then, from axiom 2, the most likely result of your posting to this forum is your transformation into a hamster. Concrete examples: God exists. God does not exist. God is a hamster. God is not a hamster. Hamsters are gods. Hamsters are not gods. God invalidates logic. God does not invalidate logic. Surly at least one of those theological statements is slightly more ridiculous to believe than the others. In conclusion your philosophy leads you to make an utterly ridiculous and illogical assertion that cannot possibly be true if thinking is of any use at all. Take your post modernism and pander it elsewhere.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 24 May 2008

I've already had to deal with email spam from "DavidMabus"... I guess it was a matter of time before he got around to spamming websites I'm at.

I apologize for the delay in cleaning up the thread. I'm currently traveling and internet access is spotty.

Larry Boy · 24 May 2008

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Bobby has already been shown to be a childish troll. You will not receive a meaningful response.

Oh I know, I post for my own amusement. If it is meaningful to Bobby all the better, if not . . . *shrug*

Dan · 24 May 2008

An Observer said: comment from a Chinese paleontologist: "...In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Actually, he is wrong. We still are permitted legally to critizie Darwin, but if one is in the field of science, he must be prepared to withstand persecution.

Gee, it's been 24 hours since I criticized Darwin about pangenesis, and still I haven't been persecuted. Let me try harder:

In Origin of Species first edition, Charles Darwin said: The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pair of young in this interval

Charles Darwin, you're wrong!! We now know that

The elephant's lifespan is up to 60 years. Elephants do not mate until they are about 15 years old, and usually give birth every 4 years. After 22 months of pregnancy, a single calf is born weighing about 250 pounds and standing almost 3 feet tall. While the calf will begin eating vegetation within a few months, it continues to nurse on its mother's milk until it is at least 2 years old.

That ought to get 'em stirred up ... I criticized and found an error in Darwin's most important work! I'll report back as soon as the persecution starts. Meanwhile, I'm still curious: Who was this Chinese paleontologist, and what evidence did he/she give to back up his/her claim?

RotundOne · 24 May 2008

That ought to get 'em stirred up ... I criticized and found an error in Darwin's most important work! I'll report back as soon as the persecution starts. Meanwhile, I'm still curious: Who was this Chinese paleontologist, and what evidence did he/she give to back up his/her claim?

I think what they are saying is that in China you can say that overall Darwinism is invalid but you cannot do that here.

James Downard · 24 May 2008

Judging from all the Oxford conference abstracts, Nelson probably didn't need to do any gate-crashing. I can see only about a quarter of them that aren't ID friendly, such as Pennock or Blancke. The rest are theology/teleology apologetics/design oriented, which may be a measure of current academic thinking in teh UK (which does after all have an established church and religion courses in the state run schools). Academic philosophers in that environment would be fairly open to "thoughtful" ID papers, in that vague wink-wink-nudge-nudge approach the DI set are prone to penning these days, since their output can't cut the mustard at a technical science conference. The interesting thing will be to read the original papers if they become available, and to find out what demographic mix and responses there will be at the presentations themselves. Will it be a Pennock-unfriendly crowd?

phantomreader42 · 27 May 2008

RotundOne said:
That ought to get 'em stirred up ... I criticized and found an error in Darwin's most important work! I'll report back as soon as the persecution starts. Meanwhile, I'm still curious: Who was this Chinese paleontologist, and what evidence did he/she give to back up his/her claim?
I think what they are saying is that in China you can say that overall Darwinism is invalid but you cannot do that here.

And that is a claim that is false. And that anyone with any understanding of reality would know is false. In short, it is a lie, and anyone making it is a liar. Also note the abject refusal of the creationist to provide the slightest shred of evidence in support of any of his idiotic assertions, or even to be clear about what the hell he's saying.

RotundOne · 27 May 2008

And that is a claim that is false.

No one said that you can 'criticize Darwin in China'? Someone just made that up? Is that what you are referring to?

phantomreader42 · 27 May 2008

The ~~Observer~~ Liar said: Now, to get to the information you requested. Here is ONE example. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/38440/

Sternberg is a known fraud. The vast dishonesty of his whining has been amply demonstrated. The martyr myth promoted in Expelled is a pack of lies, just like everything else in that worthless blood libel pseudodocumentary.

The ~~Observer~~ Liar said: I will not bother to do more because I think the evidence is overwhelming.

What evidence? You haven't offered any. None of your ilk ever does. You don't have any evidence, never have, never will. You're just a whining little fraud who can't stand the truth.

The ~~Observer~~ Liar said: You want say that you only criticize, but those who have felt the 'effects' of the political winds say otherwise. Regardless of what is presented here, the same spin is always placed on it and the same rehearsed answers are used to squelch information from 'non-believers'. Truthfully, evolution raises as many questions as it answers, but looking outside the already decided hypothesis is not acceptable.

More whining and lies, but still not the slightest shred of evidence. And of course you ignore raven's list of actual, documented instances of creationists persecuting real scientists, because the truth is your mortal enemy. You think evolution doesn't work? Explain how, and show some evidence. You won't, because you can't. You've got nothing. Your entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of delusional idiots huddling together in a frantic attempt to keep the lies alive. If you weren't so determined to force your delusions on other people, you'd just be a pathetic joke. But trying to destroy knowledge and freedom, while pathologically lying about it, makes you dangerous.

phantomreader42 · 27 May 2008

RotundOne said:
And that is a claim that is false.
No one said that you can 'criticize Darwin in China'? Someone just made that up? Is that what you are referring to?

Are you naturally this stupid, or do you have to work at it? The creationist myth that there is some vast "Darwinist" conspiracy in the US persecuting them is the lie I was referring to.

PvM · 27 May 2008

Sternberg is a known fraud.

A more accurate statement would be that the Sternberg case was overblown at best. Just compare the actual emails with how the republican majority committee decided to interpret them. A political whack job... Sternberg made some poor decisions when letting the, what many consider to be substandard, paper by Meyer to be published. The rest seems to be mostly a conspiracy argument that is taking on its own life such as being laid off by the Smithsonian...

phantomreader42 · 27 May 2008

PvM said:
Sternberg is a known fraud.
A more accurate statement would be that the Sternberg case was overblown at best. Just compare the actual emails with how the republican majority committee decided to interpret them. A political whack job... Sternberg made some poor decisions when letting the, what many consider to be substandard, paper by Meyer to be published. The rest seems to be mostly a conspiracy argument that is taking on its own life such as being laid off by the Smithsonian...

Sternberg was aware of the facts of the case, but knowingly misrepresented them in order to paint himself as a martyr. This is a fraudulent act. Given that, I don't see where the inaccuracy is in calling him a fraud.

RotundOne · 27 May 2008

phantomreader42 said:
RotundOne said:
And that is a claim that is false.
No one said that you can 'criticize Darwin in China'? Someone just made that up? Is that what you are referring to?
Are you naturally this stupid, or do you have to work at it? The creationist myth that there is some vast "Darwinist" conspiracy in the US persecuting them is the lie I was referring to.

No stop attacking. I was just asking who actually said this. Just wondering why he would say that if it is not true. What was his purpose?

phantomreader42 · 27 May 2008

RotundOne said:
phantomreader42 said:
RotundOne said:
And that is a claim that is false.
No one said that you can 'criticize Darwin in China'? Someone just made that up? Is that what you are referring to?
Are you naturally this stupid, or do you have to work at it? The creationist myth that there is some vast "Darwinist" conspiracy in the US persecuting them is the lie I was referring to.
No stop attacking. I was just asking who actually said this. Just wondering why he would say that if it is not true. What was his purpose?

"The Observer" said this, and he said it because his twisted religious and political ideology requires him to lie. His purpose is to spread falsehoods and undermine science, because his imaginary god demands the rejection of reality. In short, he's a typical creationist fraud.

fnxtr · 27 May 2008

DeliberatelyObtuseOne said: I think what they are saying is that in China you can say that overall Darwinism is invalid but you cannot do that here.

That is the lie, liar. You can do that here. You just have to back it up with... you know, the "e" word that you anti-reality types hate so much.

Flint · 27 May 2008

A more accurate statement would be that the Sternberg case was overblown at best. Just compare the actual emails with how the republican majority committee decided to interpret them. A political whack job… Sternberg made some poor decisions when letting the, what many consider to be substandard, paper by Meyer to be published. The rest seems to be mostly a conspiracy argument that is taking on its own life such as being laid off by the Smithsonian…

Now wait a minute. From all the rather exhaustive discussion here and elsewhere, we seem to have established: 1) Sternberg belongs to the baraminology study group, a creationist outfit if ever there was one. 2) Sternberg attended a creationists-only conference, where he discussed Meyer's paper with Meyer. 3) Sternberg was WELL aware that Meyer's paper was (a) creationist in nature; and (b) covered a topic well outside the focus of the journal he edited. 4) Sternberg was WELL aware that by prior schedule, he would be sticking Meyer's paper into the last edition he was editing, after which he'd be out anyway. 5) Sternberg used his editorial position to carefully skirt the responsibilities of peer review, so as to get the paper published. Seriously, if there WERE any reviewers, does anyone have the slightest doubt of their religious persuasion? 6) Sternberg was WELL aware that by doing so, he could spike the otherwise-accurate complaint that creationists had no peer-reviewed publications. This would be a PR coup of the first magnitude. 7) Sternberg subsequently misrepresented his scheduled departure as editor as a case of persecution. 8) Sternberg was WELL aware that (a) he never was employed by the Smithsonian; and (b) his research position there never changed, yet at the very least he allowed to stand, the creationist claims to the contrary. So PvM's representation is disingenuous at best, probably mendacious. Sternberg did NOT just passively "let the paper be published"; he actively and deliberately engineered that publication, in the process undermining both the journal and the procedures usually followed to publish there. There is in fact strong circumstantial evidence that Sternberg was instrumental in getting Meyer to write the paper in the first place, by promising to sleaze it into the journal. The entire enterprise from planning to execution to misrepresentation illustrates the very essence of creationist tactics. And of course, Sternberg is a creationist. This is an exact replica of Leonard's efforts to get a creationist PhD from Ohio State, except that effort ran into the glare of public awareness before they got away with it. Leonard picked the only two creationists on the Ohio State faculty, despite their having nothing to do with the PhD topic, and the three of them arranged to circumvent the procedures (and trash Ohio State's reputation) in the interests of creationist PR. The implication that Sternbert (or Leonard) just kinda fell asleep at the wheel is flat false.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 27 May 2008

RotundOne said:
phantomreader42 said:
RotundOne said:
And that is a claim that is false.
No one said that you can 'criticize Darwin in China'? Someone just made that up? Is that what you are referring to?
Are you naturally this stupid, or do you have to work at it? The creationist myth that there is some vast "Darwinist" conspiracy in the US persecuting them is the lie I was referring to.
No stop attacking. I was just asking who actually said this. Just wondering why he would say that if it is not true. What was his purpose?

The same thing all creationists and IDers have as purpose: to impose their religious view of life as scientific truth in our schools without ever offering any scientific research to support it. And all creationists lie. All of them. Most of them without consciously acknowledging it, but all of them lie. That claim about criticism and China was just another lie.

Science Avenger · 27 May 2008

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Bobby has already been shown to be a childish troll. You will not receive a meaningful

Watch those details folks: "bobby": lower case, childish troll "Bobby": upper case, reasonable guy Bobby, I suggest you choose a different moniker so as to avoid this confusion, unless you like catching flack you didn't earn.

phantomreader42 · 27 May 2008

Science Avenger said:
Rilke's Granddaughter said: Bobby has already been shown to be a childish troll. You will not receive a meaningful
Watch those details folks: "bobby": lower case, childish troll "Bobby": upper case, reasonable guy Bobby, I suggest you choose a different moniker so as to avoid this confusion, unless you like catching flack you didn't earn.

Actually, I've seen troll-bobby swap case several times.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 27 May 2008

Oopsie. My apologies to Bobby, but not to bobby.