Analysis of Lousiana "Academic Freedom" bill

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

One of the typos you corrected was not a typo: "projet" -- if I had had italics you wouldn't have been misled -- not "project" is the right French for the draft of a code.

And thanks for putting this out on the main page. I had parachuted right in to the end of a relatively old thread, not knowing that the newly minted law was getting better billing.

Thanks.

Art said: I also thank you, laminu. I have one question about the bill as I've seen it, specifically the part that claims to deal with the promotion of religion. My understanding of the bill is that it says:

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

This seems to me to be rather contradictory. Because of the nature of religious belief, it is not possible to be non-discriminatory when it comes to different religions. If you do not discourage or assail any one set of beliefs, then you are offending followers of other religions, and thus discriminating against them. (This seems to be the POV for many religious people, at least, and the position of fundamentalists.) IOW, religious neutrality in and of itself is discriminatory.

One of the typos you corrected was not a typo: “projet” – if I had had italics you wouldn’t have been misled – not “project” is the right French for the draft of a code.

The whole intent of this bill is to adulterate the teaching of science, more specifically, evolution. No other discipline is addressed, no other academic domain is addressed (e.g., language, math, etc.). Only special consideration is given to evolution, and clearly the Dishonesty Institute is prepared to provide the arguments against evolution in their already waiting-in-the-wings materials. I would consider this their Achilles heel because it is not a general "academic freedom" bill, but focused on one purpose only.

The IRC's intent had been to water down evolution so much with their contrary arguments and "evidence." This theme has been appropriated and honed by the DI.

The whole intent of this bill is to adulterate the teaching of science, more specifically, evolution. No other discipline is addressed, no other academic domain is addressed (e.g., language, math, etc.). Only special consideration is given to evolution, and clearly the Dishonesty Institute is prepared to provide the arguments against evolution in their already waiting-in-the-wings materials. I would consider this their Achilles heel because it is not a general “academic freedom” bill, but focused on one purpose only.

....more specifically, evolution. No other discipline is addressed, no other academic domain is addressed (e.g., language, math, etc.).

.....promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

laminu said:

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

The main author, Sen. Nevers, is an electrical contractor, not a lawyer or logician. Bill language is put together and reviewed by legislative staff who have no jurisdiction over the substance of what they write, even in this case, where, according to Sen. Nevers, the language is original to Louisiana.

A bill that allows teachers to present scientific evidence against a certain theory should be welcomed by everyone who loves the scientific process.

However, if a given "theory" can't survive scientific criticism, then it's time to discard it.

FL -

As you were gloating on the last thread about this bill, let me give you my opinion.

I was one of those who said this bill "could" stand up in court. In contrast to the author here, who clearly knows massively more about LA law than I do.

What I meant was that I could imagine a tiny chance of a "perfect storm".

1) If the bill came before an exceptionally corrupt, partisan judge in a lower court. However, this is unlikely. There are a few bad judges everywhere; I didn't mean to imply that LA judges are especially bad.

2) It would certainly be appealed. The most likely result again would be that the first competent court that saw it would kill it and drive a stake in its heart. This is its probable fate under any circumstances.

3) In the unlikely event that it made it to the supreme court, today's court would rule against it by at least 5-4. It's even possible that Roberts or Alito would use the cover of a sure defeat to take the dignified way out. They haven't shown much in the way of "independence" from the commands of their masters yet, but they may have limits. This bill very clearly discriminates against Catholics (Catholic dogma does not require inaccurate teaching of science, and therefore there is no possible claim of spiritual benefit overcoming educational and intellectual disadvantage - the bill merely allows Catholic students, along with all others, to be taught someone else's sectarian garbage instead of science).

4) However, in the unlikely event that John McCain is elected and is feeling friendly toward the wingnuts who have always undermined him and is even able to appoint a wingnut even if he wants to, a flawed, destined-to-be-overturned 5-4 decision might stand for a few years.

Meanwhile, your bill would just be an embarrassment to Louisianans. It wouldn't compel anyone, not even in Louisiana, technically, to teach ID/creationism junk instead of science.

The fact that the bill is all about evolution says that it has primarily a narrow sectarian religious purpose. The creos reject most of modern science and history but their favorite target is usually evolutionary biology.

As such it should fail the "Lemon test" as it has clearly a religious purpose.

By narrow it is fundie protestant only and not even all fundies have a problem with evolution. The Catholic church which is one of the main denominations in Louisiana doesn't buy into creationism either.

The whole intent of this bill is to adulterate the teaching of science, more specifically, evolution. No other discipline is addressed, no other academic domain is addressed (e.g., language, math, etc.). Only special consideration is given to evolution, and clearly the Dishonesty Institute is prepared to provide the arguments against evolution in their already waiting-in-the-wings materials. I would consider this their Achilles heel because it is not a general “academic freedom” bill, but focused on one purpose only.

harold said: In the unlikely event that it made it to the supreme court, today's court would rule against it by at least 5-4.

DavidK said: The whole intent of this bill is to adulterate the teaching of science, more specifically, evolution. No other discipline is addressed, no other academic domain is addressed (e.g., language, math, etc.). Only special consideration is given to evolution, and clearly the Dishonesty Institute is prepared to provide the arguments against evolution in their already waiting-in-the-wings materials. I would consider this their Achilles heel because it is not a general "academic freedom" bill, but focused on one purpose only. The IRC's intent had been to water down evolution so much with their contrary arguments and "evidence." This theme has been appropriated and honed by the DI.

Mats:

>A bill that allows teachers to present scientific evidence against a certain >theory should be welcomed by everyone who loves the scientific process.

Teachers should present evidence for and against all theories; a bill that singles out a few particular theories for this treatment is obviously bogus.

>However, if a given “theory” can’t survive scientific criticism, then it’s time >to discard it.

Hence the discardment of intelligent design theory.

"Please try to control the ad hominem attacks. ... and who must learn to suppress the daily fear that the ground under their feet may open up with no warning,"

Pot, meet kettle. Lawyer or no lawyer, failure understanding right-lateral strike-slip faults is no virtue.

"this bill shall not be construed..."

can a bill really say how it is to be construed?

sure, this is ok for construing in the sense of "how to interpret", but this seems to be using construe in the sense of "how the bill will be judged"

this seems to me like a "bill for the immediate capture and gassing of Jews" stating "this bill shall not be construed as an attack on basic human rights"

Mats the Death Cult troll: A bill that allows teachers to present scientific evidence against a certain theory should be welcomed by everyone who loves the scientific process.

Mats the Death Cultist troll: However, if a given “theory” can’t survive scientific criticism, then it’s time to discard it.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Mats | June 29, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply A bill that allows teachers to present scientific evidence against a certain theory should be welcomed by everyone who loves the scientific process. However, if a given “theory” can’t survive scientific criticism, then it’s time to discard it.

Not true. Newton's "theory" didn't 'survive scientific criticism', but it's still used because it's useful. In general, scientific theories are used until more useful one comes along. Since evolution generates thousands of papers per year, and ID generates none, you'd have to be some kind of idiot to want to replace evolution with ID.

raven said: We no longer even allow priests to cut people's hearts out on flat topped pyramids to keep the sun and rain gods happy.

steve s said:

Mats | June 29, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply A bill that allows teachers to present scientific evidence against a certain theory should be welcomed by everyone who loves the scientific process. However, if a given “theory” can’t survive scientific criticism, then it’s time to discard it.

Not true. Newton's "theory" didn't 'survive scientific criticism', but it's still used because it's useful. In general, scientific theories are used until more useful one comes along. Since evolution generates thousands of papers per year, and ID generates none, you'd have to be some kind of idiot to want to replace evolution with ID.

Paul Burnett said:

laminu said:

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

The main author, Sen. Nevers, is an electrical contractor, not a lawyer or logician. Bill language is put together and reviewed by legislative staff who have no jurisdiction over the substance of what they write, even in this case, where, according to Sen. Nevers, the language is original to Louisiana.

Bullshit! Section D appeared - word for word! - in Florida's bogus “Academic Freedom Act,” Senate Bill 2692, introduced Friday, February 29, 2008 - see Section 1.(7) in http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=484. (Those who forget Google exists are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.) The Dishonesty Institute's cloven hoofprints and sulfurous stench were all over that bill in Florida in February, just as they are now in Louisiana. It's amazing that Louisiana's resident exorcist didn't detect them before he signed the bill.

Chayanov said:

The whole intent of this bill is to adulterate the teaching of science, more specifically, evolution. No other discipline is addressed, no other academic domain is addressed (e.g., language, math, etc.). Only special consideration is given to evolution, and clearly the Dishonesty Institute is prepared to provide the arguments against evolution in their already waiting-in-the-wings materials. I would consider this their Achilles heel because it is not a general “academic freedom” bill, but focused on one purpose only.

A Holocaust denier needs to get on board with this and start promoting that idea in history classes, all the while claiming "academic freedom." Or maybe the Klan can come into biology classes and discuss the inherent inferiority of non-Whites. Let's see how much support these bills get after that.

What I meant to add to the discussion, in part, is that the deacon/author of the bill continues to deny that demonstrable fact. It’ll all come out in the inevitable trial. Laminu

Chayonov: You raise a good point. There are usually two ways to overcome a bad law: challenge it directly or enforce it strictly.

A bill that allows teachers to present scientific evidence against a certain theory should be welcomed by everyone who loves the scientific process. However, if a given “theory” can’t survive scientific criticism, then it’s time to discard it.

RBH said: Laminu wrote

Chayonov: You raise a good point. There are usually two ways to overcome a bad law: challenge it directly or enforce it strictly.

In the Navy a version of that last approach was known as a "white mutiny" -- do exactly and only what is ordered. When I was an enlisted man aboard a missile ship back in the 1960s it took us less than 6 weeks to get a new assistant division officer, an ensign who was a smart-ass physics major fresh out of OCS who thought he knew everything there was to know about prepping and launching the birds, exiled to Deck Division using that approach. :)

Mike, wouldn't it be wonderful if science teachers were required to have actually done some science to be qualified?

Sadly, I think the vast majority are at the other end of the educational spectrum. As other commenters have pointed out, there are too many "science teachers" who don't even have a science degree, never mind having done any actual science.

It is my understanding that science teachers in the UK are required to possess a science degree. Back in the days when biology, chemistry and physics were taught as separate subjects, a relevant degree would typically be demanded of the teacher. These days, with "combined science" and "21st century science" (like science has no history?), I believe that a degree in, say, biology is sufficient qualification to teach all sciences.

This entire fiasco illustrates some of the several problems with public schools in the US. First, inadequately qualified teachers. Second, text books that are plain wrong (Nobel laureate Richard Feynman was once asked to participate in a text book selection process, and discovered that all of the submitted books contained errors, some of which were fundamental). Third, text-book selection procedures that are corrupt and conducted by people with no relevant expertise. Fourth, education standards that are set by people with no expertise (or, at least, by people who possess the option to ignore the advice of the experts). Fifth, curricula set at local level by people who are not required to possess any relevant expertise. Are you seeing a theme here?

The net effect of all this is that misconceptions and ignorance are propagated within a community. Without the support of the community (who, after all, vote for the members of the local school boards), even the best science teacher cannot overcome these obstacles.

It seems the fear mongering of the evolander community, driven largely by some deeply entrenched physiological paranoia, is reaching new levels on the various posting sites.

People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so. Any survey by qualified think-tanks on the subject reveals a majority of Americans fall into this camp and they include the secular as well as many faith-based groups..it's simply a fact.... including the well educated and scientifically savy segments.

The hard core true believer types in the evolander camp seem to be very threatened by any query of their scientific convictions in direct opposition to all scientific principles requiring a constant examination of a theory designed to test its efficacy and if possible to disprove it entirely.

Instead they make irrational and mentally worrisome claims about the mere suggestion of alternative explanations, ID for instance, supposing that such is a leading effort to make America a theocracy (that such mentally disturbed minds have voice in our classrooms is a major cause of concern to the thinking citizen), that all science will be perturbed and America will return to the "dark ages" (Is that really the best you can do...such ignorance is astonishing.), and that all scientific progress will grind to a halt.

In my experience one way of detecting an unstable construct is to perturb it and see if it can process or absorb the perturbation and return to a stable equilibrium.

Apparently the theory of evolution and its most dedicated adherents are quite unstable and only by force, legal haggling, special interest group lobbying, and mob rule can they maintain their power and position...critical thinking, open dialogue, public debate, scientific investigation and observation seem to be off the table with the evolanders.

Americans usually smell these attitudes out over time and permit personal freedom, public discourse, and reexamination to prevail...we'll see.

His final embarrassment came when it was his turn dock the boat at the pier. He rammed the pier with a shuddering CRUNCH which sent us to dry dock for repairs. For a couple of months after that his only designation from anyone on the boat was “Crunch”. Straitened him out though.

You are correct. However, everyone of those items mentioned is a buzzword for the religious righteous and they all have a common thread.

A junior high or high school is not the proper place to debate scientific theory. Students do not expound these theories, instead they learn from those who do such work and understand the theories.
The ploy of the Dishonesty Institute is to foist this role on to ill-prepared students who haven't the foggies idea of what the theories are, that's why they're in school to learn.
Various tests have shown that not only students, but adults as well are ignorant regarding not only scientific theories, but also geography, math, etc. So now they are expected to decide on the acceptability of a scientific theory? Nah. They're more interested in text-messaging their friends.

kieth dissembled thusly:

It seems the fear mongering of the evolander community, driven largely by some deeply entrenched physiological paranoia, is reaching new levels on the various posting sites.

Here in the real world, where actions have consequences, people do tend to get a bit paranoid when we find we're being fed lies. This is because lies are well known to cause all sorts of harm to people who don't deserve to be harmed. The only people who have a problem with this, are liars themselves.

People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so.

Have any of those "quite technically qualified" people ever managed to do any actual scientific work, and writer even one single peer-reviewed paper, disproving evolution?

keith said: People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so.

RBH said: When I was an enlisted man aboard a missile ship back in the 1960s it took us less than 6 weeks to get a new assistant division officer, an ensign who was a smart-ass physics major fresh out of OCS who thought he knew everything there was to know about prepping and launching the birds, exiled to Deck Division using that approach. :)

keith said: ... Apparently the theory of evolution and its most dedicated adherents are quite unstable and only by force, legal haggling, special interest group lobbying, and mob rule can they maintain their power and position...critical thinking, open dialogue, public debate, scientific investigation and observation seem to be off the table with the evolanders. ...

DavidK said: A junior high or high school is not the proper place to debate scientific theory. Students do not expound these theories, instead they learn from those who do such work and understand the theories. The ploy of the Dishonesty Institute is to foist this role on to ill-prepared students who haven't the foggies idea of what the theories are, that's why they're in school to learn. Various tests have shown that not only students, but adults as well are ignorant regarding not only scientific theories, but also geography, math, etc. So now they are expected to decide on the acceptability of a scientific theory? Nah. They're more interested in text-messaging their friends.

keith yammers.... It seems the fear mongering of the evolander community, driven largely by some deeply entrenched physiological paranoia, is reaching new levels on the various posting sites.

What lies are you referring to regarding ID and IC in a purely scientific sense?
Raging Bee,

Please demonstrate the proof that these unstated remarks are lies (statements knowingly false with the intention of misleading, misrepresenting, and knowingly malignant). Some specified would be appreciated, complete with references

The psychologically deranged always presume others are incapable of making their own judgements, analyzing facts, drawing proper conclusions, discriminating in their studies and thus in need of the elite element to guide and direct them to the ultimate truth.........God save us from the arrogant, wirehead, geeky, narrow minded, egomaniacal, true believers in the evothug community....you give intelligence a very bad name and reputation.

IM Rabbit,

I suggest a through reading of some James Thurber essays might assist you in your failed quest to write satire. Your amateurish, sophomoric, semi-illiterate screeds carry the weight of a cobweb as argument and merely enforce the proposition previously advanced.

Of course id ID is of no value then some quite major elements of forensic, electrical, electronic, sensory, and communications sciences are practically useless although quite productive over the last 100 years under "ID" methodologies writ large.

Then we could go back to letting science, absent any form of ID, tell us those canals on Mars were signs of little green Martians and their industry.

This is the level of individual in the political arena (LA) we are dealing with. From a web search for Jindal:

"As others noted during his 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial campaigns, in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer."

Now he's trying to excorise evolution from Louisiana. Pray for rain anyone?

keith said: I suggest a through reading of some James Thurber essays might assist you in your failed quest to write satire. Your amateurish, sophomoric, semi-illiterate screeds carry the weight of a cobweb as argument and merely enforce the proposition previously advanced.

this seems to me like a “bill for the immediate capture and gassing of Jews” stating “this bill shall not be construed as an attack on basic human rights”

Inoculated Mind said: Actually, ID would conclude that the "canals on Mars" were evidence of the existence of aliens, so I'm not sure how that helps your argument. :)

ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in teh world so your strawman fallacy as usual fails...do you people have any idea of the difference between critical thinking, the socratic method, and pure sophiostry?...pitiful.

The application of pattern recognition, digital and analoge filtering technique, noise reduction algorithms, DNA "fingerprinting", statistical tests for random vs systematic error in physical processes, intelligence activities, ad finitum all make use of precisely the same techniques, analyses, and approaches available to the ID paradigm as applied to biological observations.

Is your caricature of DI a true measure of your ignorance, hubris, lack of sophistication, intellectual dishonesty, and
tepid reasoning ability...because, if so, I prefer to discontinue the dialog with you in particular, since I only engage with people capable of rational diuscourse.

Mike, wouldn’t it be wonderful if science teachers were required to have actually done some science to be qualified?

keith said: ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in teh world ...

keith said: What lies are you referring to regarding ID and IC in a purely scientific sense? Raging Bee,

Just reading back through the essay and saw this quote, despite being more than 130 years old it expresses my current opinion on ID and most psudo-science eloquently.

"He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts."

keith said: [snip] People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so. Any survey by qualified think-tanks on the subject reveals a majority of Americans fall into this camp and they include the secular as well as many faith-based groups..it's simply a fact.... including the well educated and scientifically savy segments. [snip]

keith sez... ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in the world so your strawman fallacy as usual fails…

The application of pattern recognition, digital and analoge filtering technique, noise reduction algorithms, DNA “fingerprinting”, statistical tests for random vs systematic error in physical processes, intelligence activities, ad finitum all make use of precisely the same techniques, analyses, and approaches available to the ID paradigm as applied to biological observations.

RBH said: I've read a lot of ID stuff, including twi of Dembski's books (The Design Inference and No Free Lunch), both of Behe's books, two of Johnson's books, and more articles and essays than I care to remember.

keith said: ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in teh world

keith the Liar For Jesus™ Of course id ID is of no value then some quite major elements of forensic, electrical, electronic, sensory, and communications sciences are practically useless although quite productive over the last 100 years under “ID” methodologies writ large.

RBH said: Where are the data on biological structures and processes allegedly generated by IDists using those techniques? Non-existent. They babble a lot about it, but somehow never get around to actually doing it.

ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in teh world so your strawman fallacy as usual fails...do you people have any idea of the difference between critical thinking, the socratic method, and pure sophiostry?...pitiful.

The application of pattern recognition, digital and analoge filtering technique, noise reduction algorithms, DNA "fingerprinting", statistical tests for random vs systematic error in physical processes, intelligence activities, ad finitum all make use of precisely the same techniques, analyses, and approaches available to the ID paradigm as applied to biological observations.

Is your caricature of DI a true measure of your ignorance, hubris, lack of sophistication, intellectual dishonesty, and tepid reasoning ability...because, if so, I prefer to discontinue the dialog with you in particular, since I only engage with people capable of rational diuscourse.

keith said: The application of pattern recognition, digital and analoge filtering technique, noise reduction algorithms, DNA "fingerprinting", statistical tests for random vs systematic error in physical processes, intelligence activities, ad finitum all make use of precisely the same techniques, analyses, and approaches available to the ID paradigm as applied to biological observations.

Hey, Keith, since you're here - they're looking for you over at Pharyngula ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_think_this_can_be_my_last_po.php ) to defend your favorite movie: "Expelled" opened in in Canada last weekend, and for the whole country the entire take was a whopping $24,374! Does that define abysmal failure or what?

RBH said: keith wrote

The application of pattern recognition, digital and analoge filtering technique, noise reduction algorithms, DNA “fingerprinting”, statistical tests for random vs systematic error in physical processes, intelligence activities, ad finitum all make use of precisely the same techniques, analyses, and approaches available to the ID paradigm as applied to biological observations.

I've read a lot of ID stuff, including twi of Dembski's books (The Design Inference and No Free Lunch), both of Behe's books, two of Johnson's books, and more articles and essays than I care to remember. What I have never ever seen in any of them is what keith claims to exist: the systematic application of the various techniques he names to biological phenomena. Where are the data on biological structures and processes allegedly generated by IDists using those techniques? Non-existent. They babble a lot about it, but somehow never get around to actually doing it.

Paul Burnett said: "Expelled" opened in in Canada last weekend, and for the whole country the entire take was a whopping $24,374!

Inoculated Mind said: Actually, ID would conclude that the "canals on Mars" were evidence of the existence of aliens,

keith: the proof of creationist dishonesty is well documented, and there are several places you can go, with absolutely no help from any of us, to find it. Hell, if you're feeling lazy, you can just stop wasting keystrokes and start reading the posts on this blog! (I suggest you start with Judge Jones' Kitzmiller ruling -- it's pretty specifric and descriptive.)

God save us from the arrogant, wirehead, geeky, narrow minded, egomaniacal, true believers...

Why would you need your imaginiary sky-daddy to "save" you from geeks and wireheads? Too scared to face them yourself? Poor baby...

Mike Elzinga said: The rules in most States in the US do not allow people who have years of research and work experience to teach unless they take all the education courses required for certification by the State Board of Education. Even a Nobel laureate can’t get a teaching job in a public school.

Eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: The rules in most States in the US do not allow people who have years of research and work experience to teach unless they take all the education courses required for certification by the State Board of Education. Even a Nobel laureate can’t get a teaching job in a public school.

Purely anecdotally, but I'd have to say that my HS teachers were generally much better *teachers* than my grad school teachers. And once the novelty (the student's novelty, not the Laureate's) had worn off, I don't think that nobel prize would help you with classroom management of 16 year olds. :) So cert. requirements are not necessarily a bad thing, though I'd agree that in practice they have a certain bureaucratic rigidity. I pretty much agreed with the rest of your post. Sadly, because it paints a grim picture of the challenges faced by the average US H.S. teacher.

Keith, you are obviously up on the latest creationist lingo, like "evolander" and the recent attempts by them (Particularly Dembski) to try to say that all these legitimate sciences are using "ID Methodologies." But your grasp of the details doesn't seem to be very good.

"ignorance, hubris, lack of sophistication, intellectual dishonesty, and tepid reasoning ability..." Yeah, that's why I caught the founder of Intelligent Design in a lie when I interviewed him on my show. Because it is so easy that even people like me with tepid reasoning abilities can do it!

http://www.inoculatedmind.com/2007/02/episode-64/

Gee that's an awful lot of insults for someone who doesn't know anything about me. And its funny that you misunderstood my statement of "The way we detect the role of intelligent beings in the world is first by knowing how intelligent beings operate" to mean "ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in teh world"(sic). These are two different statements. As everyone here is pointing out, IDists claim that they can detect the handiwork of intelligent beings, which they have been unable to demonstrate.

You know a lot of ID creationist buzzwords, but can't seem to back any of it up. But that's ok, we're always ready to hear it at this site, but we have little patience for people coming in just to lob insults and proclaim the death of a theory that continues to demonstrate its usefulness and factual accuracy on a daily basis.

Inoculated Mind said: "ID is not about detecting intelligent beings in teh world"(sic). These are two different statements.

Keith pooted:

People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so. Any survey by qualified think-tanks on the subject reveals a majority of Americans fall into this camp and they include the secular as well as many faith-based groups..it's simply a fact.… including the well educated and scientifically savy segments.

the only "fact" presented in your rambling missive is that you apparently are highly susceptible to the argumentum ad populum.

IOW, you're a sheep.

baaaaaah.

People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so.

It seems the fear mongering of the evolander community, driven largely by some deeply entrenched physiological paranoia, is reaching new levels on the various posting sites.

People from all walks of life and various persuasions are on record as questioning the evolutionary paradigm, many quite technically qualified to do so. Any survey by qualified think-tanks on the subject reveals a majority of Americans fall into this camp and they include the secular as well as many faith-based groups..it’s simply a fact....including the well educated and scientifically savy segments.

The hard core true believer types in the evolander camp seem to be very threatened by any query of their scientific convictions in direct opposition to all scientific principles requiring a constant examination of a theory designed to test its efficacy and if possible to disprove it entirely.

Instead they make irrational and mentally worrisome claims about the mere suggestion of alternative explanations, ID for instance, supposing that such is a leading effort to make America a theocracy (that such mentally disturbed minds have voice in our classrooms is a major cause of concern to the thinking citizen), that all science will be perturbed and America will return to the “dark ages” (Is that really the best you can do…such ignorance is astonishing.), and that all scientific progress will grind to a halt.

In my experience one way of detecting an unstable construct is to perturb it and see if it can process or absorb the perturbation and return to a stable equilibrium.

Apparently the theory of evolution and its most dedicated adherents are quite unstable and only by force, legal haggling, special interest group lobbying, and mob rule can they maintain their power and position…critical thinking, open dialogue, public debate, scientific investigation and observation seem to be off the table with the evolanders.

Americans usually smell these attitudes out over time and permit personal freedom, public discourse, and reexamination to prevail…we’ll see.

chuck said: As to the law, doesn't someone have to have a complaint about an actual action in order to sue? In other words, no one can file suet just because of the mere existence of the law, or can they?

"It is obvious to most people that Intelligent Design is a prolonged exercise in self deception in order to reach a religious conclusion."

Says who? Most people in the militant evolutionist community, most people in all science, most people in academia, most people in America ( unlikely since 1/2 are not even aware of the specifics of the)debate, most people i the world...what is your definition of most...silly, ridiculous, unsubstantiated remark noted.

What specific assertions are made by ID principals knowingly, that are easily falsified?

So you accuse Thaxton,Bradley and Olsen of these several behaviours as well as Polanyi as regards the thermodynamic and information arguments these highly qualified scientists make in tier publications. To say nothing of the same arguments advanced by the late A. E. WilderSmith. This is to ascertain the level of ignorance in your understanding.

Stevroni,

IDer's are not creationists in the sense commonly understood and the methods have nothing to do with de nuevo creative acts... your attempts to declare the two as the same are simply intellectually dishonest. The methods of ID are used every day in teaching technical subjects in the disciplines previously listed. This is a fact easily demonstrated by referring to the course material of several engineering disciplines, mathematical statistics, applied mathematics, criminology to state a few.

Creationism, as opposed to ID, is a religiously connected doctrine and should not be taught in public education science curricula.

Phantom ,

Nice try crap for brains, but inserting words into my statements ("actions")is quite revealing of your basic dishonesty. ID is not about detecting the presence of people...period.

The movie will reach 1.5 million people this year and if only one wild dog is successful with you...that's a success.

Paulette,
If the people you abjure were easily persuaded you would be in Dembski's lap as you fit the description perfectly.

Eric,

Your ignorance is on display as the methods to detect systematic error and random error make no precise source models but rather detect bias in measurements due to calibration errors, exclusion of correction factors in physical phenomena, etc., that can be analyzed and corrected to result in essentially mean zero statistics and permit analysts and technicians to deal with purely random error sources.

Expelled was #20 and ranking 20 in any category except dumbass would be a tremendous feat for Paul and IM.

Dear Butthead Mike, You have zero comprehension of my work, career or anything else and your petty insults have zero impact. You are simply an arrogant asshole who constantly refers to his many accomplishments, his degrees, his godlike status among the technical elites; all without a scintilla of evidence to support a word of it.

I can prove I was a member of the design and implementation team on the most sophisticated fire control system developed that is still in operation on the Apache (3rd generation)involving all these techniques.

I can prove the collaboration with Honeywell on the development of heuristics for operations research modelling in the energy sector.

I can prove the application of these techniques in radiometric survey data reduction and source detection contour maps.

I can prove the use of thermo in designing process models for chemical plants and refinery operations.

I see you spent all your time in research or teaching...wow...ever do any real application or just generate paper.

In other words put up or shutup..your egomania is wearing thin.

Did I mention you're an arrogant asshole.

If the very language of a law – the law on its face –threatens a deprivation of protected rights, anybody who can show that he’s part of the class of those threatened can sue to invalidate it.

keith said: IDer's are not creationists in the sense commonly understood and the methods have nothing to do with de nuevo creative acts... your attempts to declare the two as the same are simply intellectually dishonest. The methods of ID are used every day in teaching technical subjects in the disciplines previously listed. This is a fact easily demonstrated by referring to the course material of several engineering disciplines, mathematical statistics, applied mathematics, criminology to state a few. Creationism, as opposed to ID, is a religiously connected doctrine and should not be taught in public education science curricula.

keith said: Eric, Your ignorance is on display as the methods to detect systematic error and random error make no precise source models but rather detect bias in measurements due to calibration errors, exclusion of correction factors in physical phenomena, etc., that can be analyzed and corrected to result in essentially mean zero statistics and permit analysts and technicians to deal with purely random error sources. Expelled was #20 and ranking 20 in any category except dumbass would be a tremendous feat for Paul and IM. Dear Butthead Mike, You have zero comprehension of my work, career or anything else and your petty insults have zero impact. You are simply an arrogant asshole who constantly refers to his many accomplishments, his degrees, his godlike status among the technical elites; all without a scintilla of evidence to support a word of it. I can prove I was a member of the design and implementation team on the most sophisticated fire control system developed that is still in operation on the Apache (3rd generation)involving all these techniques. I can prove the collaboration with Honeywell on the development of heuristics for operations research modelling in the energy sector. I can prove the application of these techniques in radiometric survey data reduction and source detection contour maps. I can prove the use of thermo in designing process models for chemical plants and refinery operations. I see you spent all your time in research or teaching...wow...ever do any real application or just generate paper. In other words put up or shutup..your egomania is wearing thin. Did I mention you're an arrogant asshole.

The methods of ID are used every day in teaching technical subjects in the disciplines previously listed. This is a fact easily demonstrated by referring to the course material of several engineering disciplines, mathematical statistics, applied mathematics, criminology to state a few.

Every time keith gets nailed, he loses his temper and starts calling people names.

But he can never explain any of the technical or scientific terms he tosses around inappropriately and misapplies to biology. And why such defensiveness about the knowledge others have? Is he pissed-off because he can't impress anyone. There is no evidence that he has any qualifications to comment on anything related to science, especially biology.

He needs to get back on his meds to control his anger management problems.

Mike Elzinga said: Every time keith gets nailed, he loses his temper and starts calling people names.

Alas Dembski would enjoy it far too much.

keith said: In other words put up or shutup..your egomania is wearing thin.

Mike Elzinga said: Hee Hee. But you would have the fun of winning before you were permanently banned.

I do not like ad-hominem insults. With Dembski that’s hard to avoid.

Keith,
You are in luck.
By an admittedly bizarre and unlikely coincidence the university you claim to be near (OU @ Norman if I'm correct) has one, if not the, best History of Science departments in the world. Really. (http://www.ou.edu/cas/hsci/)
One of the best History of Science libraries in the world too. (http://libraries.ou.edu/info/index.asp?id=20)
Admittedly it's not graduate Art Meta-History. But you should give it a try.
You can go from "Everything is made of water" to Newton in one semester and Newton to Now the next. These are undergraduate, so they should be easy for you.
They are great classes. Truly fascinating.
It would do you a world of good.

Flint said: It is? I haven’t seen it even once.

Thanks Chuck,

In my undergrad days I was fortunate to take a survey course in HOS from the Dean and person most responsible for acquiring the Degolier collection among many other accomplishments.

In my retirement, I am enrolled in the M.A. Liberal Studies at O.U. with an emphasis in HOS. I have now completed 15 hours including three more survey classes in HOS, directed by two of their tenured faculty.

It is remarkable how much BS has been pumped out by the evolander cult in this area when you study the actual history and the people who performed the work.

The great percentage were multidisciplinary in philosophy, theology, mathematics, and perhaps a specialty in physics or chemistry...biology has contributed significantly only in the last 200 years...as a minor player overall.

The Catholic Church, though vilified by the ignorant, is largely responsible for promoting science, preserving records of scientific progress, funding research, and being quite supportive of new ideas during the era 500 - 1600.

The evolander stories of witch burning, Galileo, Copernicus , the Inquisition and such are hardly recognizable by the true historians on the subjects.

Fortunately, I have actually studies the materials as above and can simply ignore the ignorance and stupidity displayed by the buttheads herein.

As for Elzinga his silence on his many accomplishments stated without a scintilla of evidence speaks quite loudly. His criticisms are pitiful and simply pleas for someone to pat his little head and psych him up..I suspect he needs that rather a lot....as he is a non-player and a nobody.

Of course evos congregate in little self congratulatory packs as no one of them is up to a solid debate and they so have their little emotional deficiencies, mental hangups, and complexes.

I just think you're all brilliant and acute and so logical and well informed...now babies..feel better?

Says who?

Everyone who has any real understanding of the relevant issues. Including, I might add, conservative, Lutheran, Republican, Bush-Jr-appointee Judge Jones.

IDer’s are not creationists in the sense commonly understood and the methods have nothing to do with de nuevo creative acts… your attempts to declare the two as the same are simply intellectually dishonest.

Then kindly explain the significance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists." When you're done crying and throwing a(nother) tantrum, that is...

The Catholic Church, though vilified by the ignorant, is largely responsible for promoting science, preserving records of scientific progress, funding research, and being quite supportive of new ideas during the era 500 - 1600.

And guess what -- they support evolution, and honest science in general, and explicitly reject creationism/ID/teach the controversy/whatever you phony hacks will be calling it next week. Not only that, but they explain, in fairly plain language, WHY they support it. Did you ever even read their doctrine about it?

The great percentage were multidisciplinary in philosophy, theology, mathematics, and perhaps a specialty in physics or chemistry…biology has contributed significantly only in the last 200 years…as a minor player overall.

tell that to the millions who haven't died because of the field over the last 200 years, if you want to stick to that limited timeframe.

If that's what you got out of studying the history of science's impact on humanity, you are dumber than I thought.

...and that's saying something, considering how dumb I thought you were.

The Catholic Church, though vilified by the ignorant, is largely responsible for promoting science, preserving records of scientific progress, funding research, and being quite supportive of new ideas during the era 500 - 1600.

what the supporters of the "church as the source of the renaissance" always seem to forget is that it was mostly the church that made it so hard for ANYONE outside of the church to learn to read and write to begin with.

the "holy mother church" did more to stymie the eventual enlightenment than any other specific organization one can name.

the enlightenment happened IN SPITE OF the church.

Not to mention that it was the Muslims, not the church who preserved Greek knowledge in the first place. It was not until the enlightenment that Europe finally caught up with the Muslims, Indian and Chinese in term of technology.

Without the threats posed by the technologically superior Islamic world and the flow of idea that occurred during the crusades it is highly doubtful that the church would turn around and support science, and even them it was politically correct science that don't go against church's dogma.

They are still doing that today mind you, the Vatican's stance on birth control have disastrous consequences on the AIDS epidemic.

Wow, I've encountered holocaust deniers before, but I think this is the first time I've come across a inquisition denier. But hey, I guess it makes sense... if Darwin invented genocide, the Church couldn't possibly have practiced it. All those Cathars just tripped and fell into their cooking fires, or accidentally bumped into crusader swords!

"Every Christian has been taught the story of the Caliph destroying the Library in Alexandria. As a matter of fact, this library was frequently destroyed and frequently recreated. Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar, and its last antedated the Prophet. The early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they called 'people of the Book', provided they paid tribute. In contrast to the Christians, who persecuted not only pagans but each other, the Mohammedans were welcomed for their broadmindedness, and it was largely this that facilitated their conquests. To come to later times, Spain was ruined by fanatical hatred of Jews and Moors; France was disastrously impoverished by the persecution of Huguenots."

Hmmm. Actually I too would be fascinated if Keith could tell us which "true historians" are sceptical of accounts of Galileo & the Inquisition, and so on.

Also, the wonderful irony of a creationist lambasting evolutionists for having "mental hangups" and "complexes" was not lost on me.

...the only other common contention supported by evidence as to who first burned the Library of Alexandria was that it was the Archbishop of Alexandria (backed by the Emperor Theodosius).

--Colin Wilson, The Occult, Panther: London, 1984, P. 278.

either way, there is no evidence to support anybody BUT the xians being those responsible. Moreover, there was a long history of xians/crusaders destroying the writings of Greeks and Muslims before and after that time.

The guiding principle of Pope Gregory was, "Ignorance is the mother of piety." According to this principle, Gregory burned the precious Palestine Library founded by Emperor Augustus, destroyed the greater part of the writings of Livy and forbade the study of the classics.

Yeah, the CC was sure the bastion and source of the enlightenment, alrighty...

*rolleyes*

Also, the wonderful irony of a creationist lambasting evolutionists for having "mental hangups" and "complexes" was not lost on me.

=projection.

"...promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

I never knew that human cloning was a scientific theory. The origin of life certainly is not a scientific theory and I am not quite sure wether global warming is a scientific theory. That only seems to leave evolution as a scientific theory. So in a sense, this bill does look like being targeted at The Theory of Evolution.

Ichthyic said: as I think was mentioned by someone elsewhere around these parts, it was the early xians who insisted on the first recorded burning of the library, under Julius Caesar.

keith said: What specific assertions are made by ID principals knowingly, that are easily falsified?

So you accuse Thaxton,Bradley and Olsen of these several behaviours as well as Polanyi as regards the thermodynamic and information arguments these highly qualified scientists make in tier publications. To say nothing of the same arguments advanced by the late A. E. WilderSmith.

IDer's are not creationists in the sense commonly understood

and the methods have nothing to do with de nuevo creative acts...

your attempts to declare the two as the same are simply intellectually dishonest.

The methods of ID are used every day in teaching technical subjects in the disciplines previously listed. This is a fact easily demonstrated by referring to the course material of several engineering disciplines, mathematical statistics, applied mathematics, criminology to state a few.

ID is not about detecting the presence of people...period.

... and if only one wild dog is successful with you...that's a success.

Your ignorance is on display as the methods to detect systematic error and random error make no precise source models but rather detect bias in measurements due to calibration errors, exclusion of correction factors in physical phenomena, etc., that can be analyzed and corrected to result in essentially mean zero statistics and permit analysts and technicians to deal with purely random error sources.

I can prove I was a member of the design and implementation team on the most sophisticated fire control system developed that is still in operation on the Apache (3rd generation)involving all these techniques. I can prove the collaboration with Honeywell on the development of heuristics for operations research modelling in the energy sector. I can prove the application of these techniques in radiometric survey data reduction and source detection contour maps. I can prove the use of thermo in designing process models for chemical plants and refinery operations.

Did I mention you're an arrogant asshole.

Ichth,

Biology is merely a piggy back usurper of the great scientific ideas and disciplines including chemistry, mathematics, physics, etc., etc. I can grant some credence to the integration of the real sciences into a discipline, but to claim that biology is responsible for some great life extending advance is pure poppycock. Medical Doctors are not exclusively biologists, neither are researchers, radiation medicine is primarily a physics development; zoology, etymology, etc. precede biology by decades.

Dragon, Your head is so far up your butt a block and tackle couldn't pull it out. The Islamic world absent the western/American educational resources would be sucking their oil out of the ground through sippy straws. Now put on your burka, pet your camel and go away...what a moron.

France had the enlightenment and took two hundred years to get away from fighting each other, dictatorships, and abject poverty. England embraced the Renaissance and escaped all of the above through the industrial revolution, technology and true science... to say nothing of the U.S. accomplishments.

The enlightenment was a piffle and a moral confusion and inconsequential in comparison to the Renaissance.

Speaking of academic freedom, is bigbang’s ban permanent?

keith said: Thanks Chuck, In my undergrad days I was fortunate to take a survey course in HOS from the Dean and person most responsible for acquiring the Degolier collection among many other accomplishments. In my retirement, I am enrolled in the M.A. Liberal Studies at O.U. with an emphasis in HOS. I have now completed 15 hours including three more survey classes in HOS, directed by two of their tenured faculty. ... Fortunately, I have actually studies the materials as above and can simply ignore the ignorance and stupidity displayed by the buttheads herein. ...

keith sez to me... Stevroni, IDer’s are not creationists in the sense commonly understood and the methods have nothing to do with de nuevo creative acts… your attempts to declare the two as the same are simply intellectually dishonest... The methods of ID are used every day in teaching technical subjects in the disciplines previously listed. Creationism, as opposed to ID, is a religiously connected doctrine and should not be taught in public education science curricula.

keith said: Eric, Your ignorance is on display as the methods to detect systematic error and random error make no precise source models but rather detect bias in measurements due to calibration errors, exclusion of correction factors in physical phenomena, etc., that can be analyzed and corrected to result in essentially mean zero statistics and permit analysts and technicians to deal with purely random error sources.

Bjoern said:

Ichthyic said: as I think was mentioned by someone elsewhere around these parts, it was the early xians who insisted on the first recorded burning of the library, under Julius Caesar.

You are right that Christians burnt the library. But that certainly did not happen under Julius Caesar - since Caesar died some decades before Jesus was even born!

keith said: Ichth, Biology is merely a piggy back usurper of the great scientific ideas and disciplines including chemistry, mathematics, physics, etc., etc. I can grant some credence to the integration of the real sciences into a discipline, but to claim that biology is responsible for some great life extending advance is pure poppycock.

zoology, etymology, etc. precede biology by decades.

Fortunately, I have actually studies the materials as above and can simply ignore the ignorance and stupidity displayed by the buttheads herein.

Right -- you've made how many posts? On how many different threads? Over how long a period fo time? To tell us you can ignore us? Please.

France had the enlightenment and took two hundred years to get away from fighting each other, dictatorships, and abject poverty. England embraced the Renaissance and escaped all of the above through the industrial revolution, technology and true science...

England never had civil war, distatorships, or abject poverty? And they never embraced the Enlightenment? What a load of crap. Do words like "Cavaliers," "Roundheads," "Cromwell," "Newton," "Pepys," "Restoration," or "Burning Times" ring any bells in that hateful empty head of yours?

Your ignorance of basic history is both annoying and laughable. Just like your obvious ignorance of every other subject of which you've spoken. I'd ask what else you could be so wrong about, but I'm afraid I'll get an answer.

Raging Bee, you are quite correct. Isn't it amazing that someone so interested in the History of Science has not even heard of the Scottish Enlightenment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment

keith said: Wow, I can feel the Christian love from that comment Keith, no wonder people call Christian hypocrites. It's fun watching you do a Gish gallop around every issues without giving answer a concrete answer to any of them, ever heard of chemistry? algebra? arabic numerical system? peer review? algorithm? etc. Wonder why it sounds middle eastern? I want to see you name a European scientist during that era who wasn't influenced by the Greeks or Arabs. Islamic science died the moment religious nuts gain power just like in early Christian Europe, if you truly study history you should take that as a warning. America is great because in the end it doesn't matter what you believe as long as the science is done, when you want science to conform to your ideology the result is bush league lysenkoism. In case you don't notice we are lagging behind The enlightenment is the continuation of the renaissance keith, not some separate event. This country was found by men of the enlightenment on the foundation of reason and commonsense, if you don't like it please move to Turkey of Saudi Arabia where they teach cdesignproponentnist and religion is the law of the land.

keith said: Dragon, Your head is so far up your butt a block and tackle couldn't pull it out. The Islamic world absent the western/American educational resources would be sucking their oil out of the ground through sippy straws. Now put on your burka, pet your camel and go away...what a moron. France had the enlightenment and took two hundred years to get away from fighting each other, dictatorships, and abject poverty. England embraced the Renaissance and escaped all of the above through the industrial revolution, technology and true science... to say nothing of the U.S. accomplishments.

Raging Bee said: Fortunately, I have actually studies the materials as above and can simply ignore the ignorance and stupidity displayed by the buttheads herein. Right -- you've made how many posts? On how many different threads? Over how long a period fo time? To tell us you can ignore us? Please. France had the enlightenment and took two hundred years to get away from fighting each other, dictatorships, and abject poverty. England embraced the Renaissance and escaped all of the above through the industrial revolution, technology and true science... England never had civil war, distatorships, or abject poverty? And they never embraced the Enlightenment? What a load of crap. Do words like "Cavaliers," "Roundheads," "Cromwell," "Newton," "Pepys," "Restoration," or "Burning Times" ring any bells in that hateful empty head of yours? Your ignorance of basic history is both annoying and laughable. Just like your obvious ignorance of every other subject of which you've spoken. I'd ask what else you could be so wrong about, but I'm afraid I'll get an answer.

DaveH: thanks for the Scotland tip, I'll have to take some time reading that at length.

OT Note: there seems to be a problem with this new blog comment layout. Sometimes I click "Update" and get more comments; sometimes I click "Update" and comments disappear; sometimes I click "Update" and nothing happens, and I have to click "Refresh" as well; sometimes I click both "Update" and "refresh" and STILL can't see comments I saw earlier. Sometimes I click "Refresh" to get the up-to-date number of comments, and then I still have to click "Update" to see the new ones. Guess it's still evolving...

Yeah, We're way behind Iran in nanotechnology except we own 98% of the patients filed worldwide in the subject.

May I recommend a through reading of "Dawn to Decadence" by perhaps the preeminent thinker and historian of the last century, Jacque Barzun. Then you might stop believing Gutenberg was an Arab.

The germ theory (attributing disease to unseen living organisms) goes back almost 2,000 years and its development has many contributors with major developments before biology was even a word.

I am very much a product of the American education system from 1949 to 1970...when we actually read and understood art, history, science, and music.

This group of intellectual vagabonds is the perfect picture of what happened when your "enlightened, secular humanism" gained a foothold in the system 1970 -present where by your own admission people are quite undereducated, confused, morally lost, ethically challenged, and semi-literate outside some narrow, confined dogma like, for instance, biology.

People who take Voltaire and Napoleon for their heroes and beacons of enlightenment are rightly confined to basement labs and white rats.

And to think you people have some impact on our children..shudder.

And the church, catholic or protestant, has naught to do with HIV; its more your team, the buttboys, perverts, drug abusers and such enlightened types that contaminated the blood supply for a decade and caused sexual promiscuity to become a worldwide pandemic.

England never had civil war, distatorships, or abject poverty? And they never embraced the Enlightenment?

"ID is not about detecting the presence of people…period." Hey Keith - no one ever claimed that - we've been trying to correct you on this issue, but you seem to be too dense to understand what we're saying.

"Biology is merely a piggy back usurper of the great scientific ideas and disciplines" Wow - you are either really really ignorant about the history of science, or you hate evolution SO MUCH that you are willing to insult the entirety of biology so you can feel good about disliking evolution. I'm sorry, but try agriculture. Try medicine. Try biotechnology. Every day you are eating the fruits, literally so, of the work of biologists, both amateurs and professionally trained. Your zealotry on this issue has even caused you to consider technologies that intersect other disciplines as being wholly a part of those other disciplines - they're in both, Keith. "zoology, etymology, etc. precede biology by decades." Doooood.... zoology and eNTOmology are disciplines of BIOLOGY! "Etymology deals with the history of words - as someone else suggested above you should really look into the Etymology of "Intelligent Design" - creationists...cdesign proponentsists...design proponents.

And for the record, I'll make something that goes beyond the top 20 someday. You don't believe me but I've got big plans for my education, and to educate the public about a topic that has almost as much misinformation involved as does ID/creo. The big difference, though, is that my own communications work is rightly called journalism, not propaganda. Even if it didn't make it really big I would be satisfied in producing accurate and informative work designed to help people learn and think, not mis-educate.

"Now put on your burka, pet your camel and go away…" ooh and you're racist too! Big Surprise. You'll fit in very well at Uncommon Descent. Your atrocious grammar and spelling uniquely qualifies you as assistant to Dembski's Blog Czar. (Or is it assistant Blog Czar?)

"And the church, catholic or protestant, has naught to do with HIV; its more your team, the buttboys, perverts, drug abusers and such enlightened types that contaminated the blood supply for a decade and caused sexual promiscuity to become a worldwide pandemic."

Revealing yet again that you have an uncanny ability to display profound ignorance on any topic you see fit. And displaying more bigotry, this time against homosexuals, I'm surprised you're not a DI fellow already!

"People who take Voltaire and Napoleon for their heroes and beacons of enlightenment are rightly confined to basement labs and white rats." Who said anything about Voltaire and Napoleon? You're making stuff up as you go.

"Yeah, We’re way behind Iran in nanotechnology except we own 98% of the patients filed worldwide in the subject." Yet again... Iran is top amongst Islamic nations in nanotech. Can you compose a single correct sentence, Keith?

What is the point of all this time you are wasting over here, Keith? You keep saying ID is great science, and then go off in irrelevant tangents trying to prove your HOS knowledge (which is deeply flawed), rather than own up and show the evidence. You're broad characterizations of people here at the Thumb are comical. Show us the science, Keith. Or do you have none?

Oh, dang, now we're into the boring culture wars stuff. Our visitor
needs to get back into the bogus science so we can have some fun.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

keith said:And the church, catholic or protestant, has naught to do with HIV; its more your team, the buttboys, perverts, drug abusers and such enlightened types that contaminated the blood supply for a decade and caused sexual promiscuity to become a worldwide pandemic.

keith said: This group of intellectual vagabonds is the perfect picture of what happened when your "enlightened, secular humanism" gained a foothold in the system 1970 -present where by your own admission people are quite undereducated, confused, morally lost, ethically challenged, and semi-literate outside some narrow, confined dogma like, for instance, biology. People who take Voltaire and Napoleon for their heroes and beacons of enlightenment are rightly confined to basement labs and white rats. And to think you people have some impact on our children..shudder. And the church, catholic or protestant, has naught to do with HIV; its more your team, the buttboys, perverts, drug abusers and such enlightened types that contaminated the blood supply for a decade and caused sexual promiscuity to become a worldwide pandemic.

Such pure, unadulterated toxic vilification is refreshing. Many IDers seek to hide their discriminatory and narrow-minded social agenda, but fortunately we can always count on people like Keith to “out” the true purpose of the ID movement with posts like this.

Bigbang asked: "Speaking of academic freedom, is bigbang’s ban permanent?"

.

No response. No purging of bigbang’s post by uncle PZ.

So then it wasn’t a permanent ban? Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll necessarily agree to resume providing my unique and thought provoking insights here, unless PZ agrees to tone down the anti-theist rhetoric, like his charge that religion is dangerous and a lie, and that people are “credulous idiots” just b/c they may happen to believe, as PvM does, in an unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance.

keith blathered: ID is not about detecting the presence of people...period.

keith, Liar For Jesus™: The movie will reach 1.5 million people this year and if only one wild dog is successful with you...that's a success.

keith whined: Expelled was #20 and ranking 20 in any category except dumbass would be a tremendous feat for Paul and IM.

keith projected: Dear Butthead Mike, You have zero comprehension of my work, career or anything else and your petty insults have zero impact. You are simply an arrogant asshole who constantly refers to his many accomplishments, his degrees, his godlike status among the technical elites; all without a scintilla of evidence to support a word of it.

keith babbled: I can prove I was a member of the design and implementation team on the most sophisticated fire control system developed that is still in operation on the Apache (3rd generation)involving all these techniques. I can prove the collaboration with Honeywell on the development of heuristics for operations research modelling in the energy sector. I can prove the application of these techniques in radiometric survey data reduction and source detection contour maps. I can prove the use of thermo in designing process models for chemical plants and refinery operations.

keith describes himself: In other words put up or shutup..your egomania is wearing thin. Did I mention you're an arrogant asshole.

Dembski does the opposite. Intead of hypothesizing some detectable pattern called “design,” Dembski’s filter counts as “design” anything he can’t explain via natural law or random chance.

bigbang said: Bigbang asked: "Speaking of academic freedom, is bigbang’s ban permanent?" No response. No purging of bigbang’s post by uncle PZ. So then it wasn’t a permanent ban? Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll necessarily agree to resume providing my unique and thought provoking insights here, unless PZ agrees to tone down the anti-theist rhetoric, like his charge that religion is dangerous and a lie, and that people are “credulous idiots” just b/c they may happen to believe, as PvM does, in an unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance.

bigbang bigot whined: So then it wasn’t a permanent ban? Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll necessarily agree to resume providing my unique and thought provoking insights here

midwifetoad said: Is this an accurate presentation of Dembski's position? I have trouble believing he is this stupid.

midwifetoad said:

Dembski does the opposite. Intead of hypothesizing some detectable pattern called “design,” Dembski’s filter counts as “design” anything he can’t explain via natural law or random chance.

Is this an accurate presentation of Dembski's position? I have trouble believing he is this stupid.

bigbang said: Bigbang asked: "Speaking of academic freedom, is bigbang’s ban permanent?" . No response. No purging of bigbang’s post by uncle PZ. So then it wasn’t a permanent ban? Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll necessarily agree to resume providing my unique and thought provoking insights here, unless PZ agrees to tone down the anti-theist rhetoric, like his charge that religion is dangerous and a lie, and that people are “credulous idiots” just b/c they may happen to believe, as PvM does, in an unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance.

midwifetoad said: Dembski does the opposite. Intead of hypothesizing some detectable pattern called “design,” Dembski’s filter counts as “design” anything he can’t explain via natural law or random chance.

midwifetoad said:

Dembski does the opposite. Intead of hypothesizing some detectable pattern called “design,” Dembski’s filter counts as “design” anything he can’t explain via natural law or random chance.

Is this an accurate presentation of Dembski's position? I have trouble believing he is this stupid.

bigbang said: Bigbang asked: "Speaking of academic freedom, is bigbang’s ban permanent?" . No response. No purging of bigbang’s post by uncle PZ. So then it wasn’t a permanent ban? Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll necessarily agree to resume providing my unique and thought provoking insights here, unless PZ agrees to tone down the anti-theist rhetoric, like his charge that religion is dangerous and a lie, and that people are “credulous idiots” just b/c they may happen to believe, as PvM does, in an unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance.

midwifetoad said:

Dembski does the opposite. Intead of hypothesizing some detectable pattern called “design,” Dembski’s filter counts as “design” anything he can’t explain via natural law or random chance.

Is this an accurate presentation of Dembski's position? I have trouble believing he is this stupid.

“The method takes the form of a three-stage Explanatory Filter. Given something we think might be designed, we refer it to the filter. If it successfully passes all three stages of the filter, then we are warranted asserting it is designed. Roughly speaking the filter asks three questions and in the following order: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it? “

Such pure, unadulterated toxic vilification is refreshing. Many IDers seek to hide their discriminatory and narrow-minded social agenda, but fortunately we can always count on people like Keith to “out” the true purpose of the ID movement with posts like this. To your detractors I say - hey, at least Keith’s is an *honest* hate.

For example, the first stage of the test is “Could nature have done this?” The standard for most rational people, of course, is that if you can demonstrate a possible natural pathway, then the filter spits out a “no design hit”. ID advocates want to use the same filter, but stack the answer so that you have to specify the specific pathway in order to fail the filter.

Raging Bee said: OT Note: there seems to be a problem with this new blog comment layout.

bigbang said: Bigbang asked: "Speaking of academic freedom, is bigbang’s ban permanent?" . No response. No purging of bigbang’s post by uncle PZ. So then it wasn’t a permanent ban? Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll necessarily agree to resume providing my unique and thought provoking insights here, unless PZ agrees to tone down the anti-theist rhetoric, like his charge that religion is dangerous and a lie, and that people are “credulous idiots” just b/c they may happen to believe, as PvM does, in an unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance.

RBH said: The last question -- "Does design explain it?" -- is not even asked. It is the default decision if chance and law (allegedly) don't explain some phenomenon. It is merely a formalization of the God of the Gaps argument for design.

midwifetoad said: I have read lots of creationist stuff. It's just hard to believe that this is the best they can do.

Raging Bee said: And guess what -- they support evolution,

RBH said: Even Dembski misrepresents his own "filter." I've read The Design Inference. The last question -- "Does design explain it?" -- is not even asked. It is the default decision if chance and law (allegedly) don't explain some phenomenon. It is merely a formalization of the God of the Gaps argument for design.

Draconiz said: They are still doing that today mind you, the Vatican's stance on birth control have disastrous consequences on the AIDS epidemic.

As Lenny was fond of pointing out, if Dembski's EF were honest, then the order in which the questions was asked would be irrelevant and there would be no default. Lenny suggested considering design first, and if design couldn't be demonstrated, then assuming natural processes. And pointed out that in that order, by golly, we "find" primarily natural causes though with the usual healthy dollop of false positives and negatives.

And many have pointed out that Dembski's filter simply doesn't mention feedback processes, adaptive systems, and other complex mechanisms. These (which include nearly every natural process there is) are neither entirely regular, nor entirely chance. One might almost think process was forgotten on purpose.

Mike Elzinga said:

If the very language of a law – the law on its face –threatens a deprivation of protected rights, anybody who can show that he’s part of the class of those threatened can sue to invalidate it.

How does this work if, say, a school district uses the law to passively avoid the teaching of evolution (of course, many do this already)? For example, could they interpret the “academic freedom” to mean that evolution is controversial and detrimental to its students and they are free to eliminate such detrimental, controversial topics in the interest of fairness and harmony in order to get on with education (probably allowing allusions to ID/Creationism along the way)? Could parents who want their children to get a good education about evolution sue a district that chooses to eliminate or water down the topic?

Midwife writes... I guess this is where it becomes too stupid for me to believe. It’s just, “Here be dragons.”

I have read and listened to evos explain how ID and IC propositions have been falsified and find their arguments ...well ridiculously silly.

In essence their argument is:

The earliest water wells had a windlass with a handle which when cranked raised water from the well.

My car also has door handles...thus cars most likely arose from the windless and were not designed by automotive engineers.

No one has falsified any of these three, except by assertion and hand-waving.

Personally I don't hate anyone ...it's not permitted...I love to raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become. One has only to scan the PZ Myers blog, PT, TO etc. to see the depth of hatred, animosity, personal attack, career intervention, etc. and "the end justifies the means" methods of the organized intellectual violence at the heart of the evolander community.

It's about science on the surface but it cuts into all aspects of western culture and at the root is the tension and debate between materialism/secularism/atheism vs a spiritual world view and perhaps Christianity in particular.

You talk about my little rhetorical games and in your warped little black and white world attribute a stark realism to them, rather than recognize provocation.

I laugh at your ignorance and dishonesty, but I despise your methods and philosophy.

Agriculture and many other sciences preceded "biology" by centuries and besides biology is just a name given to a consolidated approach to integrating various disciplines under a rubric to accomplish results in the "life sciences".

In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."[3]

No wonder evos have distaste for Shapiro and Harold...the truth is so painful when administered by your own flesh.

Evos propose that it is possible to cross the Bering Strait by pogo stick hopping from one piece of ice flow to another, thus by envisioning such a process it become an equally likely method as a trip on a ship. Construction of just so stories bears no resemblance to physical reality.

see http://www.idthink.net/biot/eflag/index.html

keith said: I have read and listened to evos explain how ID and IC propositions have been falsified and find their arguments ...well ridiculously silly.

You may see a glimmer of hope in that, but my guess is that courts would be very reluctant to dictate to any state what topics need to be taught to what students at what grade levels if the “minimum standard” education requirement in that state’s own constitution is to be met. The minimum standard language isn’t purposeless, however; so far as I know, it is included to provide the basis on which the state equalizes public education funds around the state, so as (1) to do the right thing and (2)to ward off the federal equal protection challenges that would come from the poorer districts if public education were funded solely out of local property taxes.

keith quotes an old book by a discredited author... There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations...

keith said: In essence their argument is: The earliest water wells had a windlass with a handle which when cranked raised water from the well. My car also has door handles...thus cars most likely arose from the windless and were not designed by automotive engineers.

Personally I don’t hate anyone …it’s not permitted…I love to raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become.

You talk about my little rhetorical games and in your warped little black and white world attribute a stark realism to them, rather than recognize provocation.

I laugh at your ignorance and dishonesty, but I despise your methods and philosophy.

No wonder evos have distaste for Shapiro and Harold…the truth is so painful when administered by your own flesh.

One has only to scan the PZ Myers blog, PT, TO etc. to see the depth of hatred, animosity, personal attack, career intervention, etc. and “the end justifies the means” methods of the organized intellectual violence at the heart of the evolander community.

keith said: I have read and listened to evos explain how ID and IC propositions have been falsified and find their arguments ...well ridiculously silly.

In essence their argument is: The earliest water wells had a windlass with a handle which when cranked raised water from the well. My car also has door handles...thus cars most likely arose from the windless and were not designed by automotive engineers. No one has falsified any of these three, except by assertion and hand-waving.

Personally I don't hate anyone ...it's not permitted...I love to raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become. One has only to scan the PZ Myers blog, PT, TO etc. to see the depth of hatred, animosity, personal attack, career intervention, etc. and "the end justifies the means" methods of the organized intellectual violence at the heart of the evolander community.

It's about science on the surface but it cuts into all aspects of western culture and at the root is the tension and debate between materialism/secularism/atheism vs a spiritual world view and perhaps Christianity in particular.

You talk about my little rhetorical games and in your warped little black and white world attribute a stark realism to them, rather than recognize provocation.

I laugh at your ignorance and dishonesty, but I despise your methods and philosophy.

Evos propose that it is possible to cross the Bering Strait by pogo stick hopping from one piece of ice flow to another, thus by envisioning such a process it become an equally likely method as a trip on a ship. Construction of just so stories bears no resemblance to physical reality.

Warning to keith: You've just confessed to trolling the board. Any more and your comments go straight to the Bathroom Wall.

Thanks, RBH. Keith provides some valuable insight into the twisted, hateful mind of a frothing fundie but after a while he's just an annoying fuckhead who obviously needs to get laid.

Wolfhound said: Thanks, RBH. Keith provides some valuable insight into the twisted, hateful mind of a frothing fundie but after a while he's just an annoying fuckhead who obviously needs to get laid.

So the standard for ID is to have the "designer" reveal their methods somehow in a laboratory, reveal prescriptive instructions on their methods, encode their methods into life in some indisputable biological message....etc.

But if one asks what was the first replicator, how did it arise, could you demonstrate the arising of the first replicator...no we don't do that sort of thing, it takes to long, its pretty complex, trust us it happened.

So far every possible test of evolution writ large has been dismissed so it's pretty clear falsification of any aspect of your paradigm, hypothesis, fable is beyond the reach of scientific investigation.

No analogy is quite congruent as to be applicable.

Mathematical analysis doesn't apply to one time events like abiogenesis or evolutionary mechanisms....we'll just assume it's true and highly probable under unknown laws and conditions that cannot be reproduced.

The genetic code isn't really a code and the use of sources, channels, receivers, noise sources and such are not therefore applicable to the analysis of the cell, DNA...etc. from an information based systems approach.

James Shapiro's work is really an outlier approach to understanding bacterial cellular operations and his stated position that the cell is an information based, manufacturing and assembly operation with self regulatory, sensory based, proto-sentient mobile elements capable of major, short horizon, reorganization, Natural Genetic Engineering is his term. ( be careful it could be a slippery slope) is not real science....no one likes him anyway.

Nothing in biology is IC..I know because Rev. Lenny told me so..no need for any further work on this proposition..we have spoken and that's final.

ID is contrary to all human experience. Everyone knows anything worth producing is best arrived at by random event trial and error methods..thinking, planning, reasoning, designing,..that's for sissies...RM and NS adapted to all such work is the natural and efficient way to go.

Look at Edison, he tried more than 1,000 filament materials and it wasn't until bat guano and goat hair both failed that he luckily struck upon tungsten. Edison wasn't an engineer he was a mechanical evolutionist....a trial and error man.

The argument advanced by this group that the moon is made of green cheese is quite elegant and much more scientific than any argument I have seen you produce in decades. I wonder if this extraordinary research has been submitted for peer review to any astronomical journal or is it a NASA secret under some legal restriction. Coming from the great minds represented here it has received not a single dissenting post ...that's good enough for me. I know when I'm bested and will refer any and all skeptics to this site for argumentation on the subject.

How about unicorns and mermaids as your next project..I'll be very intersted in your results.

keith said: The argument advanced by this group that the moon is made of green cheese is quite elegant and much more scientific than any argument I have seen you produce in decades.

Eric asks bigbang: “Why don’t you post your opinion on the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill, i.e. the subject of this thread . . . ”

.

No Eric, not until I see PZ and the other antitheists here behave more civilly. Anti-theism is as despicable as racism or any other form of bigotry, and those who indulge in such base behavior should not be tolerated, and certainly should not be allowed any authority, on this forum or anywhere for that matter, at least until they learn to behave more appropriately.

bigbang bigot said: Eric asks bigbang bigot: “Why don’t you post your opinion on the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill, i.e. the subject of this thread . . . ” . No Eric, not until I see PZ and the other antitheists here behave more civilly. Anti-theism is as despicable as racism or any other form of bigotry, and those who indulge in such base behavior should not be tolerated, and certainly should not be allowed any authority, on this forum or anywhere for that matter, at least until they learn to behave more appropriately.

bigbangBigot posts nothing but smarmy lies, nonsense, or nonsense derived from lies, that is, when he isn't trying to commit character assassinations. And yet, bigbangBigot demands that we treat him civilly, and is taken aback when we refuse to do so...

Phantom, do you agree with me in saying that bigbangBigot has done and attempted to do absolutely nothing to earn any civility from any of us? I mean, he demonstrates that his only purposes here are 1) to engage in his moronic innuendos that all atheistic "Anti-theistic" evilotionists, including PvM and Professor Myers, are out to destroy Christianity, and 2) spread repeatedly debunked lies that he arrogantly refuses to admit are lies.

Anti-theism is as despicable as racism

not hardly.

unless you consider your theism to not be a choice?

damn, what a moron.

you represent exactly what is wrong with religion.

there is no evolution of blog posting, that much is clear. or rather, it seems to be a cyclical evolution or a slow spiral, not sure whether up or down.

I think the trolls, while they breed rapidly and can digest anything, depend more than you'd think on human feeding to survive. It may seem cruel to let them starve for attention, but capturing, neutering and releasing them is costly and time-consuming, and the clock is running out on resources.

Marion Delgado said: ... It may seem cruel to let them starve for attention, but capturing, neutering and releasing them is costly and time-consuming, and the clock is running out on resources.

bigbang, civility is certainly not for liars like you.

But if one asks what was the first replicator, how did it arise, could you demonstrate the arising of the first replicator…no we don’t do that sort of thing, it takes to long, its pretty complex, trust us it happened.

So far every possible test of evolution writ large has been dismissed so it’s pretty clear falsification of any aspect of your paradigm, hypothesis, fable is beyond the reach of scientific investigation.

Mathematical analysis doesn’t apply to one time events like abiogenesis or evolutionary mechanisms.…we’ll just assume it’s true and highly probable under unknown laws and conditions that cannot be reproduced.

The genetic code isn’t really a code and the use of sources, channels, receivers, noise sources and such are not therefore applicable to the analysis of the cell, DNA…etc. from an information based systems approach.

Hilarious, one troll raves on about muslims, homosexuals, atheists, etc, displaying horrendous bigotry, and the other troll goes on about how evolutionists are bigots?!

And in the SAME THREAD!

Do they read each other's stuff?

Keith, evolution has been tested countless times, and has succeeded. I even use evolutionary biology in my research on corn. One of its closest relatives, Sorghum, has had its genome more completely sequenced than Corn has, so I am using the sequence of genes in Sorghum to predict the sequence of genes in Corn where there's no sequence. This works because they came from a common ancestor, and many of the genes are still in the same order. This isn't about a conflict of worldviews (except when creationists make it one), this is about real science that gives real results, and a group of people that are afraid (as you are) that it means they have to abandon all their cherished beliefs, which they don't.

Everyone, I think Keith is displaying quite a bit of familiarity with lingo and specific details that IC Creationists have been talking about. Any thoughts on whether this could be someone we already know?

Inoculated Mind said: Hilarious, one troll raves on about muslims, homosexuals, atheists, etc, displaying horrendous bigotry, and the other troll goes on about how evolutionists are bigots?! And in the SAME THREAD! Do they read each other's stuff?

Some here don’t seem to understand what bigotry is, and many seem unwilling or unable to behave civilly.

A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. I’m sorry to say that PZ Meyers’s comments, such as his declaration that religion is dangerous and a lie, and that believers are “credulous idiots” clearly reveals his bigotry. Although I myself am not especially religious, I know many fine people that are, and I refuse to be part of a forum that tolerates bigotry of this or any kind.

When I see less bigotry and more civility, I’ll reconsider participating in these threads.

I don't understand why keith thinks he is causing us evos distress and ire... when he's directly paying us research dollars through his taxes, giving us precious lab space on public grounds to do our research, and sustaining us with free food aplenty. We love you keith. Keep shelling out the moolah. Hahahaha

Ichthyic said: Anti-theism is as despicable as racism not hardly. unless you consider your theism to not be a choice? damn, what a moron. you represent exactly what is wrong with religion.

I'm sorry, I meant to say bigbang is a nit-wit. *sigh*

keith, Liar For Jesus™: I have read and listened to evos explain how ID and IC propositions have been falsified and find their arguments ...well ridiculously silly. In essence their argument is: The earliest water wells had a windlass with a handle which when cranked raised water from the well. My car also has door handles...thus cars most likely arose from the windless and were not designed by automotive engineers.

keith, Liar For Jesus™: Personally I don't hate anyone ...it's not permitted...

keith, admitted troll and master of projection: I love to raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become. One has only to scan the PZ Myers blog, PT, TO etc. to see the depth of hatred, animosity, personal attack, career intervention, etc. and "the end justifies the means" methods of the organized intellectual violence at the heart of the evolander community.

keith, Liar For Behe: In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."[3]

Inoculated Mind said: Everyone, I think Keith is displaying quite a bit of familiarity with lingo and specific details that IC Creationists have been talking about. Any thoughts on whether this could be someone we already know?

bigbang said: No Eric, not until I see PZ and the other antitheists here behave more civilly. Anti-theism is as despicable as racism or any other form of bigotry, and those who indulge in such base behavior should not be tolerated...

bigbang bigot said: Some here don’t seem to understand what bigotry is, and many seem unwilling or unable to behave civilly. A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

bigbang whined: When I see less bigotry and more civility, I’ll reconsider participating in these threads.

keith said: I have read and listened to evos explain how ID and IC propositions have been falsified and find their arguments ...well ridiculously silly. In essence their argument is: The earliest water wells had a windlass with a handle which when cranked raised water from the well. My car also has door handles...thus cars most likely arose from the windless and were not designed by automotive engineers.

No one has falsified any of these three, except by assertion and hand-waving.

phantomreader42 said:

bigbang bigot said: Some here don’t seem to understand what bigotry is, and many seem unwilling or unable to behave civilly. A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Like, for example, someone who insists, repeatedly, that Hitler was inspired by "Darwinism", without the slightest speck of evidence, no matter how many times he's shown to be wrong, in order to spread a blood libel against science? Would someone like that qualify as a bigot, bigot? Now, who around here has been doing that?

Marion Delgado said: there is no evolution of blog posting, that much is clear. or rather, it seems to be a cyclical evolution or a slow spiral, not sure whether up or down. I think the trolls, while they breed rapidly and can digest anything, depend more than you'd think on human feeding to survive. It may seem cruel to let them starve for attention, but capturing, neutering and releasing them is costly and time-consuming, and the clock is running out on resources.

If what you said was true, then icthologists[sic] would all state that cetaceans and elasmobranchs rose from the same ancestors. Clearly you don't know what you are writing about.

more breathtaking inanity from keith: Evos propose that it is possible to cross the Bering Strait by pogo stick hopping from one piece of ice flow to another, thus by envisioning such a process it become an equally likely method as a trip on a ship. Construction of just so stories bears no resemblance to physical reality.

bigbang said: A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

The one glaring thing about Keith and Bigbang is that in the last 3 days and dozens of their posts, we've gotten vitriol, we've gotten ad hominems, and we've gotten personal attacks and insults without end.

What we have not gotten - and it bears mentioning this over, and over, and over again, if only to drive the point home one more time - what we have not gotten from them is one single scrap of evidence that supports their case.

As Einstiein said to one of his critics(and I paraphrase) "If I were wrong, you wouldn't need a hundred scientist to say so, one simple fact would be enough" [Since his critic was Adolph Hitler, have I just violated Godwin's law?]

phantomreader42 said: Keith, serious question: Are you physically capable of telling the truth? Or do you have some bizarre brain disease that forces you to misrepresent everything you talk about?

Tangent: Nice pod-cast. You were very cordial to Philip Johnson, even though he lied to you. You have been bookmarked.

keith said: Evos propose that it is possible to cross the Bering Strait by pogo stick hopping from one piece of ice flow to another, thus by envisioning such a process it become an equally likely method as a trip on a ship. Construction of just so stories bears no resemblance to physical reality.

keith said: Evos propose that it is possible to cross the Bering Strait by pogo stick hopping from one piece of ice flow to another, thus by envisioning such a process it become an equally likely method as a trip on a ship. Construction of just so stories bears no resemblance to physical reality.

stevaroni said: Oh, and being launched by volcanoes (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&direction=next&oldid=57546)

There are several possible explanations for how animals got to where they are today after leaving the Middle East ... Another comes from the example of Krakatoa, which in 1883 erupted and destroyed most of the island which remained lifeless for many years. But eventually the same life that was there before the eruption came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region[1] were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing the last time I heard the almost identical creo explanation of how the animals on the ark managed to get to the Americas. That, and the kangaroos floating across the Pacific on pine tree rafts.

Sure it would. First, though, the kangaroos, wallabies and wombats would have to hold a Mammalian Subcommittee Meeting (marsupial division), and all decide to go colonise Australia and nowhere else, while all the other mammals would have to agree to stay out of there. I suppose it was done with a show of paws in a spirit of compromise. After all, the placental mammals got the rest of the world, so it seems fair.

By interspecial agreement, the border was drawn along Wallace's Line. Monkeys to the left, tree kangaroos to the right. Just so. Would that the UN were that efficient.

keith said: Evos propose that it is possible to cross the Bering Strait by pogo stick hopping from one piece of ice flow to another, thus by envisioning such a process it become an equally likely method as a trip on a ship. Construction of just so stories bears no resemblance to physical reality.

Eric said: I might as well pile on ...

The exact circumstances of how each kind of animal got to where it is today will never be known because the diaspora cannot be repeated.

stevaroni said: iml8; You missed the "money sentence" from that sweet little Conservapedia article....

The exact circumstances of how each kind of animal got to where it is today will never be known because the diaspora cannot be repeated.

“Should cut the RED wire? Or the BLUE … ?”

“Should cut the RED wire? Or the BLUE … ?”

stevaroni said: It doesn't matter, this is one of those dumb bombs. It's going to spew regardless of what you do.

Two pit bulls: $500 each.
Triple-strength pepper spray: $25.
Mail-order Taser: $350.
Praying a specific scientist gets cancer: Priceless.

The first time I ran across Conservapedia I was Googling for
whatever (I remember not) and ran into a page which presented
me with what could be rendered down into the following logic:

"The event had to be supernatural because all possible
explanations are ruled out."

"OK, you mean that not only have all known explanations been
ruled out, but all unknown explanations have been for all
time?"

"Of course not! That's an unreasonable standard of proof!"

I can only vaguely visualize the look on my face as this
soaked in. WHAT IS THIS THING? I looked at the banner:
CONSERVAPEDIA. I charitibly assumed that maybe the rest of
it was more level-headed but had neither the inclination nor
reason to investigate. Such further encounters as I have
had with it tend to undermine the sense of charity further.
"You REALLY need to change that name."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

From your own beloved Wikipedia on the germ theory article.

(And I specifically said two thousand years in agreement with the historical record.)

The Atharvaveda is the first ancient text dealing with medicine. It identifies the causes of disease as living causative agents such as the yatudhānya, the kimīdi, the kṛimi and the durṇama. The atharvāns seek to kill them with a variety of drugs in order to counter the disease (see XIX.34.9). One of the earliest western references to this latter theory appears in On Agriculture by Marcus Terentius Varro (published in 36 BC), wherein there is a warning about locating a homestead in the proximity of swamps:

“ ...and because there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases.[2] ”

In The Canon of Medicine (1020), Abū Alī ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) stated that bodily secretion is contaminated by foul foreign earthly bodies before being infected.[3] He also discovered the contagious nature of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, and introduced quarantine as a means of limiting the spread of contagious diseases.[4]

When the Black Death bubonic plague reached al-Andalus in the 14th century, Ibn Khatima hypothesized that infectious diseases are caused by "minute bodies" which enter the human body and cause disease. Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]

"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."

Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seedlike entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances.

Italian physician Francesco Redi provided proof against spontaneous generation. He devised an experiment in 1668 where he used three jars. He placed a meat loaf in each of the three jars. He had one of the jars open, another one tightly sealed, and the last one covered with gauze. After a few days, he observed that the meat loaf in the open jar was covered by maggots, and the jar covered with gauze had maggots on the surface of the gauze. However, the tightly sealed jar had no maggots inside or outside it. He also noticed that the maggots were only found on surfaces that were accessible by flies. From this he concluded that spontaneous generation is not a plausible theory.

I realize that false attribution and strawman construction is part and parcel of the evo bag of deception and fallacy but just where does anyone detect that ID as a line of investigation into alternative explanations for biological complexity, nano-machines, cellular operations impact people performing science?

My view might be that in the beginning a number of kinds were created that contained sufficient information, internal organization and NGE capacities to develop all the diversity we observe over an uncertain, possibly quite large, period of time.

I am unaware of ID proponents in the mainstream of the theory who deny microevolution, decent with modification within vertical narrow types or who would alter in any particular respect the way biological science is largely conducted.

The aberrant paranoia of returning to the dark ages because of an attempt to introduce a line of investigation into the origin of complexity by an intelligent agent is logically fallacious and is truly difficult to comprehend for the logical mind.

What evidence is there that one who is pursuing ID and IC as an explanatory conclusion would cease to be able to conduct valid science...where is the dismal outlook confirmed anywhere in the scientific world.

After all by your own admission much great science was performed and confirmed in life science prior to any theory of evolution in the most remote sense and creationism was quite typically embraced by science.

I really don't get why people are so threatened, predict such catastrophic problems pervading all life science ...it seems to make no logical sense whatsoever.

Thus one must conclude that under such irrational behaviors and objections the real issue lies somewhere else and the posts by major evos certainly lead to the conclusion that it is a desire to put an end to all faith, all spiritual world views, all belief in God and the destruction of anyone who would attempt to practrice their scientific talents and hold such views.

The facts are on the table that thousands of spiritually minded people practice great science and have for centuries.

keith said: Personally I don’t hate anyone …it’s not permitted…I love to raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become. ... You talk about my little rhetorical games and in your warped little black and white world attribute a stark realism to them, rather than recognize provocation.

keith said: What evidence is there that one who is pursuing ID and IC as an explanatory conclusion would cease to be able to conduct valid science...where is the dismal outlook confirmed anywhere in the scientific world.

iml8 said:

keith said: What evidence is there that one who is pursuing ID and IC as an explanatory conclusion would cease to be able to conduct valid science...where is the dismal outlook confirmed anywhere in the scientific world.

HELLO: I am Dr. Moses Abu of the Discovery Institute of Nigeria in Lagos. Our organization is conducting VALID SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH into Intelligent Design science. We have over SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS in grants, and we are looking for qualified researchers to assist us in our Intelligent Design studies. We would be interested in inspecting your proposals for Intelligent Design research projects, and providing funding for them if they pass through a thorough review. Please send us your proposals; please include details of your bank account access so we can get funding to you if your proposals is accepted. Awaiting your response. Most sincerely, Moses Abu PHD White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

I hate to say it, but we might as well ban keith and bigbangingbigot now. They've consistently spewed the most obviously ignorant and dishonest assertions, over and over, long after each and every one of them has been refuted by more than one respondent; they hijack multiple threads with posts that, at best, have little or nothing to do with the original topic; their junior-high-redneck-level insults now outweigh whatever intellectual content they may once have brought to the debate; they are clearly trying to poison the well and drag every discussion down to their level; and they've pretty much explicitly admitted that that was their real intent the whole time. They are IGNORANT in the most literal sense of the word: they routinely IGNORE the facts and evidence that has been clearly pointed out to them. They don't engage with us, so there's no reason for us to engage with them.

We banned Larry Fafarman long ago; and these nose-pickers are making Larry look intelligent. They're sinking to the level of Roy Martinez.

keith

You just said two days ago that non-European, non-church members has contributed nothing to science and now you cite an article that name 2 Arabs and 1 Indians who discover materialistic explanations for a phenomena long before the Europeans? The scientific method and experiments help make these men's work possible and yet you say ID, with no viable hypothesis and zero contribution to science is superior?

Saying evolution is not part of biology is like saying Newtonian physics contribute nothing to the works of Einstein.

Mainstream ID don't reject 4 billion year old earth? Common descent? Paul nelson just said all creatures show up in the Cambrian with no relationship to one another on a di vdo dammit! Some of their fellows are yec for pete's sake

You are not denied your god keith, you can still put her on a metaphysical altar instead of in the material world where she is not to be found

Raging Bee said: I hate to say it, but we might as well ban keith and bigbangingbigot now.

keith said: What evidence is there that one who is pursuing ID and IC as an explanatory conclusion would cease to be able to conduct valid science...where is the dismal outlook confirmed anywhere in the scientific world.

The facts are on the table that thousands of spiritually minded people practice great science and have for centuries.

spirituality of all forms drive men to do science keith, dawkins call himself spiritual in regards to how nature amazes him. Saying spiritual men do science doesn't make anyone's god true.

Draconiz said: Saying spiritual men do science doesn't make anyone's god true.

While I myself have always been civil, even apologizing to PvM for having made a bit of fun of his imagined, unreal, non-existent god that he claims is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” it’s obvious that most of the Darwinians here are utterly incapable of being reasonable or civil; the bigotry here only escalates.

Perhaps I’ll check back in a year or two to see if any of you have evolved into something more civil and less bigoted, but I suspect that most of you will only devolve in the other direction.

Don't let the "Back" button hit your ass on the way out...

bigbangBigot said: While I myself have always been civil...

Larryboy read prior post on germ theory article and please reconsider or ask Spongebob for advice, (although it's in black and white I know your ego won't let you admit your error, but it's true just the same)

First I have demonstrated the complete ignorance of the posters by showing that the theory of germs and disease by unseen/micro-organisms did indeed have its roots 2,000 years ago long before biology was even imagined as a discipline...and using the evos favorite source wikipedia for goodness sake.

Stanton is simply a liar and as usual makes demeaning unsubstantiated attributions. I never said nor do I believe that only spiritual people can do valid science...one's spiritual beliefs, faith and practice are not determinative of one's scientific expertise or results....so far as I can determine.

If you choose to believe that you can pogo hop from ice berg to ice berg across the Strait so be it, but it won't make it true.

A bear caught on a flow or large ice field and floating it across hardly fits my analogy. Did the bear have a pogo stick? Ice flow travel not what I said and your misstatement is simply a typical dishonest effort. Read again... hopping from piece to piece by pogo stick was precisely what I said.

Dragon is a liar as well. I never said such cultures did no science ...goodness they practically invented astronomy among other pursuits.

Eric ibid ...learn to read and quit lying.

ID scientists, even Creationists do good science, publish regularly, are tenured profs, and generate income for their organizations. I believe what you intend is that they do not publish in your select journals as having conducted ID research because the very hint of such a subject would automatically disqualify that sort of paper from any consideration.

If ID opponents were intellectually honest and open to debate they would invite ID scientists to submit papers and then have them peer reviewed prior to publication with the same courtesy as for others and perhaps resubmit after correction, etc. If these papers were deficient and could be shown to be such in a fair review so be it. Instead it's the policy to reject such out of hand and spew hatred at these people.

ID may or may not be a superior explanation for abiogenesis and how life diversified...I don't know, but I sure respect the effort to investigate the possibility as a valid scientific effort. Apart from that I have more confidence in the Shapiro hypotheses than RM and NS based on his quite valid research...yes, I know he is not an ID person.

You say I hate science yet I have studied it and admired its accomplishments all my life. I have not practiced in the life sciences but certainly in all the related hard science disciplines. I admire tremendously the work of many, many scientists and the positive impact on humanity they have made...period.

If anyone knows an honest evo I can post with please refer me to them...they certainly don't reside here.

I see no response to the question concerning precisely how the consideration of ID translates into catastrophe for all U.S. science, return to the dark ages, promotion of scientific illiteracy. Just how does that work in real life?

If ID opponents were really smart they would urge the NSF to grant say 500,000 to a team of IDer's and challenge them to do research and publish findings over a 1-2 year period subject to peer review, public pronouncement, conference presentation etc. How better to see if the ID group could demonstrate useful and scientifically acceptable results of merit.

When you have a video of those bears hopping from flow to flow on pogo sticks just send it along.

bigbang said: While I myself have always been civil, even apologizing to PvM for having made a bit of fun of his imagined, unreal, non-existent god that he claims is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” it’s obvious that most of the Darwinians here are utterly incapable of being reasonable or civil; the bigotry here only escalates. Perhaps I’ll check back in a year or two to see if any of you have evolved into something more civil and less bigoted, but I suspect that most of you will only devolve in the other direction.

keith said: If ID opponents were intellectually honest and open to debate they would invite ID scientists to submit papers and then have them peer reviewed prior to publication with the same courtesy as for others and perhaps resubmit after correction, etc. If these papers were deficient and could be shown to be such in a fair review so be it. Instead it's the policy to reject such out of hand and spew hatred at these people.

Keith sez... If ID opponents were intellectually honest and open to debate they would invite ID scientists to submit papers which would be peer reviewed...

bigbang said: Perhaps I’ll check back in a year or two to see if any of you have evolved into something more civil and less bigoted, but I suspect that most of you will only devolve in the other direction.

keith said: Ichth, Dragon, Your head is so far up your butt a block and tackle couldn't pull it out. The Islamic world absent the western/American educational resources would be sucking their oil out of the ground through sippy straws. Now put on your burka, pet your camel and go away...what a moron.

PvM says to bigbang: “farewell my confused fellow Christian friend.”

.

Goodbye my poor deluded acquaintance. Give my best to your unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance, and to PZ who thinks all you believers are credulous idiots.

Has it been a year already? Time flies.

bigbang teased: Blah, blah, blah... Perhaps I’ll check back in a year or two to see if any of you have evolved into something more civil and less bigoted, but I suspect that most of you will only devolve in the other direction.

bigbang said: PvM says to bigbang: “farewell my confused fellow Christian friend.” . Goodbye my poor deluded acquaintance. Give my best to your unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance, and to PZ who thinks all you believers are credulous idiots.

bigbangBigot said: PvM says to bigbang: “farewell my confused fellow Christian friend.” . Goodbye my poor deluded acquaintance. Give my best to your unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance, and to PZ who thinks all you believers are credulous idiots.

bigbang said: PvM says to bigbang: “farewell my confused fellow Christian friend.” . Goodbye my poor deluded acquaintance. Give my best to your unreal, nonexistent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance, and to PZ who thinks all you believers are credulous idiots.

If ID opponents were intellectually honest and open to debate they would invite ID scientists to submit papers which would be peer reviewed…

Not to mention that peer review process for ID is shoddy at best, Behe's Darwin's black box was peer reviewed over the phone by some guy who hasn't even read the book yet!

iml8 said:

stevaroni said: Oh, and being launched by volcanoes (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&direction=next&oldid=57546)

Huh? This I gotta see ...

There are several possible explanations for how animals got to where they are today after leaving the Middle East ... Another comes from the example of Krakatoa, which in 1883 erupted and destroyed most of the island which remained lifeless for many years. But eventually the same life that was there before the eruption came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region[1] were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking.

Something seems to be missing here ... no, I didn't leave anything significant out. I think I just got my ration of mad science for the morning. I have nothing inherently against conservatives. But if I were one I would write Conservapedia and say: "Could you please change your name? You're making us look bad." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

zoology, etymology, etc. precede biology by decades.

— Larry Boy quotes the troll

So you are saying that the study of life proceeded the study of life, and hence it isn’t properly part of the study of life.

— Larry Boy

fnxtr said: OK, that's as surreal as a Magritte painting. Conservapaedia is one big Sokal. Gotta be. No other explanation.

I do not know how to show you that you are making a fool of yourself. It is clear to me that you have not decided to listen. You only accept statements as true based on your agreement with them, and do not care about external reality. You misinterpret what you are told, because you are incapable of learning with your current attitude.

If you ever grow up I will be happy to assist you in learning. I implore you to change your current attitudes because by living in your own fantasies you harm us all by depriving us of any intellectual contributions you may be able to make if you accepted reality, and damaging your own soul by its strain of maintaining your counter-factual opinions.

ID scientists, even Creationists do good science, publish regularly, are tenured profs, and generate income for their organizations.

And even in those rare instances, such scientists have never actually done any valid work disproving evolution or proving ID -- or even stating clearly what "ID theory" is. One such scientist, a guy named Behe, you must have heard of him, was forced to admit this under oath at the Dover trial (a trial our token creo-bigots have never even mentioned in ANY of their posts here).

Sorry, Skippy, but valid work in completely unrelated fields does not make anyone's ID work valid -- even if such work exists.

iml8 said:

Raging Bee said: I hate to say it, but we might as well ban keith and bigbangingbigot now.

I would say that would be cutting off a lot of fun, but then again this isn't a humor forum. At least, not intentionally. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Sadly, once again, we've had another thread reduced to wrestling the trolls.

Once again, we're all dirty, the time was wasted, and the trolls have enjoyed it.

stevaroni said: Once again, we're all dirty, the time was wasted, and the trolls have enjoyed it.

Stevei to IM: That's the first dumb thing we've said since yesterday when we bought the Brooklyn Bridge.

Larryboy teaching me anything would be a first; keep your eye on those pogo stick polar bears Larry and keep smoking that high grade weed.

keith said: Larryboy teaching me anything would be a first; keep your eye on those pogo stick polar bears Larry and keep smoking that high grade weed.

Raging Bee rare huh! How would you know..all seeing evilander.

Unrelated fields like physics, chemistry, mathmatics, biology, microbiology, medical research, etc.

Is your brain still operative or are you on autopilot?

If I were frightened, paranoid, defeated, weepy, and cowering for cover I'd ban me to.

First I have demonstrated the complete ignorance of the posters by showing that the theory of germs and disease by unseen/micro-organisms did indeed have its roots 2,000 years ago...

No, Skippy, you've proven that one of us made one mistake on one issue. And now, like most other discredited creo-hacks, you're clutching that one lonely instance like a child hiding behind his old threadbare security-blanket. I have no doubt that you will go to your grave repeatedly reminding everyone in sight of this one shining moment when you were actually right about something.

As far as being consistently right is concerned, you still have yet to outperform a stopped clock.

IM8: Then you should be able to keep pegging the irony meter all century, since every scientific study, research, proposed is the result of DESIGN, COGNITIVE THOUGHT, PLANNING, INTELLECT, CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, LOGICAL INFERENCE and if any form of cellular life is created it will be the product of just such methods as is universally experienced and never, never, never by RM and NS or any purely materialistic processes not guided by intelligence.

Prove me wrong and win a Nobel prize, perform abiogenesis.

Dead Silence as for 200 years!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought so moron.

Pray to Darwin Moloch for abiogenesis ...we're waiting.

keith said: Larryboy read prior post on germ theory article and please reconsider or ask Spongebob for advice, (although it's in black and white I know your ego won't let you admit your error, but it's true just the same) First I have demonstrated the complete ignorance of the posters by showing that the theory of germs and disease by unseen/micro-organisms did indeed have its roots 2,000 years ago long before biology was even imagined as a discipline...and using the evos favorite source wikipedia for goodness sake.

keith said: IM8: Then you should be able to keep pegging the irony meter all century ...

Oh...and Keith, in case you are still confused, here's an excerpt from another article at Wikipedia:

"Biology (from Greek βιολογία - βίος, bios, "life"; and λόγος, logos, "study"), is a branch of Natural Science, and is the study of living organisms and how they interact with their environment. Biology deals with every aspect of life in a living organism. Biology examines the structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution of living things. It classifies and describes organisms, their functions, how species come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the natural environment. Four unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology: cell theory, evolution, genetics and homeostasis."

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

And so yes, Keith, by definition this includes germs and germ theory no matter when they were hypothecized.

keith said: IM8: Then you should be able to keep pegging the irony meter all century, since every scientific study, research, proposed is the result of DESIGN, COGNITIVE THOUGHT, PLANNING, INTELLECT, CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, LOGICAL INFERENCE and if any form of cellular life is created it will be the product of just such methods as is universally experienced and never, never, never by RM and NS or any purely materialistic processes not guided by intelligence. Prove me wrong and win a Nobel prize, perform abiogenesis. Dead Silence as for 200 years!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought so moron. Pray to Darwin Moloch for abiogenesis ...we're waiting.

PvM said: Prove me wrong, show how ID explains anything.

Oh...and Keith, in case you are still confused, here's an excerpt from another article at Wikipedia:

"Biology (from Greek βιολογία - βίος, bios, "life"; and λόγος, logos, "study"), is a branch of Natural Science, and is the study of living organisms and how they interact with their environment. Biology deals with every aspect of life in a living organism. Biology examines the structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution of living things. It classifies and describes organisms, their functions, how species come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the natural environment. Four unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology: cell theory, evolution, genetics and homeostasis."

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

And so yes, Keith, by definition this includes germs and germ theory no matter when they were hypothecized.

What I want is for someone to prove to ME that the Moon isn’t made of green cheese.

Henry J said: The moon's been up there for billions of years.

My sister-in-law teachers grade school in Louisiana. We got to talking about this here law. Now, would I be correct in saying that she DOES now have the right to teach Alchemy, Astrology, and Greek Mythology as alternative scientific theories? I'm also pushing for a flat Earth and Geocentric Universe. She can teach all of it now right?

Erasmus D said: My sister-in-law teachers grade school in Louisiana. We got to talking about this here law. Now, would I be correct in saying that she DOES now have the right to teach Alchemy, Astrology, and Greek Mythology as alternative scientific theories? I'm also pushing for a flat Earth and Geocentric Universe. She can teach all of it now right?

Larryboy teaching me anything would be a first; …

Erasmus D said: My sister-in-law teachers grade school in Louisiana. We got to talking about this here law. Now, would I be correct in saying that she DOES now have the right to teach Alchemy, Astrology, and Greek Mythology as alternative scientific theories? I'm also pushing for a flat Earth and Geocentric Universe. She can teach all of it now right?

Mike Elzinga said:

Larryboy teaching me anything would be a first; …

Everyone here has already noticed this.

I saw Wallace and Grommit. The moon is made of BEIGE cheese. Pay up.

phantomreader42 said: How about the alternative theory that the rivers arose from the semen of the Sumerian god Enki? :)

Raging Bee said: No, Skippy, you've proven that one of us made one mistake on one issue.

mplavcan said: I saw Wallace and Grommit. The moon is made of BEIGE cheese. Pay up.

Larry Boy said: Keith is making you dumber.

It is precisely Keith's decision to quote mine ancient text that convinces me he has not had a history of science class at a graduate level. No one science historian in their right mind would make the assertion that a person said something that sounds like a modern theory to modern ears, therefore we can trace the modern theory to that person. But, to be fair, even Carl Sagan occasionally made the error of view past philosophies through modern philosophies, instead of simply trying to understand the philosophies of the past on their own merits. So I suppose there are like some reasonable people who could make Keith's mistake. But it was a mistake.

Larry: My apologies. I'm not familiar with the history, and my confusion was in regard to the question of how rigorously an idea has to be stated before it becomes valid scientific work. IIRC, you are right, at least on the point that the Dutch guy with the name I can neither pronounce nor spell was the first to actually observe germs, as opposed to merely guessing that something like what we now know as germs is having an effect.

I'm willing to cut earlier generations some slack, but there is a difference between idly speculating or guessing, and doing serious work to see whether you guessed right.

keith said: IM8: Then you should be able to keep pegging the irony meter all century, since every scientific study, research, proposed is the result of DESIGN, COGNITIVE THOUGHT, PLANNING, INTELLECT, CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, LOGICAL INFERENCE and if any form of cellular life is created it will be the product of just such methods as is universally experienced and never, never, never by RM and NS or any purely materialistic processes not guided by intelligence. Prove me wrong and win a Nobel prize, perform abiogenesis. Dead Silence as for 200 years!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought so moron. Pray to Darwin Moloch for abiogenesis ...we're waiting.

Raging Bee (replying to the troll) said: As far as being consistently right is concerned, you still have yet to outperform a stopped clock.

You were and are wrong, dead wrong, and all the restatement, hand-waving and redefinition won't change the facts. I laugh at your immature little coverups and tantrums. Poor babies!

But like typical wireheads with deeply ingrained psychological problems, you can't bear the fact of imperfection.

I guess I'll have to treat you like the wireheads I managed for years and tell you how brilliant you are...I wouldn't want you back in therapy on my watch.

It will be news to most historians of science that Ptolemy really had no cosmological or astronomical credentials, too early in history.

Euclid ...geometry... no way, that was Roger Penrose.

I'm glad biology is a minor branch of science and evolution a nit within a broad subject, because otherwise I would get worried about scientific progress.

On the count of three check your pocket protectors for leaky pens.

Isn't it amazing that Dembski has mastered three disciplines through formal education and practice while on the side mastered yours by casual reading...what an intellect.

Of course, I took biology with all the jocks and cheerleaders who needed grade points for an easy A. I remember it was taught by the substitute shop teacher and he won some award for masterng the subject over the summer break.

Oh and I was at the O.U. lecture and despite the assholes from your camp , their rudeness, loudmouths, absense of decorum and foul language, Dembski did a masterful job of shutting up the only prof of merit some Phillip guy and his bush-ape wife who looked like a witchdoctor from Borneo.

Mike Elzinga said:

Larryboy teaching me anything would be a first; …

Everyone here has already noticed this.

Let's see being correct and triumphant twice a day for 20 years on the net debating wireheads is about 300 x 2 x 20 hmmmmm 12,000 victories for me on only about 100 subjects of interest. That's because I had to work over every wirehead separately ( the're awfully slow on the uptake). But persistence is required for such pedagogical tasks with impaired intellects such as these.

Thanks for the positive feedback..I feel real progress is being made.

Be sure and light the ends with the fuse tomorrow, but don't try to smoke any of them.

keith said without the faintest sense of irony: Oh and I was at the O.U. lecture and despite the assholes from your camp , their rudeness, loudmouths, absense [sic] of decorum and foul language, Dembski did a masterful job of shutting up the only prof of merit some Phillip guy and his bush-ape wife who looked like a witchdoctor from Borneo.

keith said: Let's see being correct and triumphant twice a day for 20 years on the net debating wireheads is about 300 x 2 x 20 hmmmmm 12,000 victories for me on only about 100 subjects of interest. That's because I had to work over every wirehead separately ( the're awfully slow on the uptake). But persistence is required for such pedagogical tasks with impaired intellects such as these. Thanks for the positive feedback..I feel real progress is being made. Be sure and light the ends with the fuse tomorrow, but don't try to smoke any of them.

keith said: Oh and I was at the O.U. lecture and despite the assholes from your camp , their rudeness, loudmouths, absense of decorum and foul language, Dembski did a masterful job of shutting up the only prof of merit some Phillip guy and his bush-ape wife who looked like a witchdoctor from Borneo.

keith said: Blah, blah blah...

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So you're now claiming that you're a stopped clock? You should see a specialist.

The amusing thing is that every negative assertion about ID, the people, the science, the research , the publications can be stomped into dust particles by a simple web search.

One among many possibilities is: http://biologicinstitute.org/research/

A review of the site in full reveals information completely at odds with the wireheads here and proof positive of their intellectual dishonesty or abject ignorance (take your choice please) of the hounds of Darwin residing here.

One article of research in particular deals with a subject and its methodologies specifically called out by the weenies of wireville as never having been explored by ID types.

Sternberg RV (2008) DNA codes and information: Formal structures and relational causes. Acta Biotheoretica doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9049-6. PMID: 18465197

A list of recent published papers by ID types is included on the site for any intellectually honest viewer to see.

Now each evo look in your hand ..that thing you see is your butt handed to you.

A number of similar site references are available on request ...if you need further public embarrassment.

keith said: The amusing thing is that every negative assertion about ID, the people, the science, the research , the publications can be stomped into dust particles by a simple web search.

You don't suppose keith is actually serious with that bogus cite? You don't suppose he really thinks that shows ID?

Wow, keith. Ignorance of history, biology, science, physics, etc., I can understand in a troll. But don't you think you should learn something about ID before you make foolish and content-free statements about it?

Keith, you need to work at your trolling more. You don't even require any MENTAL EFFORT to refute. That's sad.

Gunther Wagner congratulated Dr. Gauger on doing some great experimental work, but noted some logical inconsistencies in inference. The first is a phylogenetic comparative issue; it is necessary to know the ancestral state of the two proteins. If you are dealing with two proteins each derived separately from a common ancestor, then the experiment involves a minimum of two steps, backwards to the ancestral condition and then forwards to the alternative derived condition. It seems unlikely that you would be able to do that experimentally, especially if you have no idea of the environmental conditions under which the evolutionary diversification took place, and no idea if there were any intermediate forms that no longer survive. In response, Gauger admitted that the two proteins she studied are quite old and that studies of enzymes that are more recently diverged from each other report a lot of functional co-option, but only on a small scale. She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

Are there universal principles of complex design? What are they? What stamp, if any, do they leave on things manufactured according to a complex design specification? Are any of these stamps present in living systems? Model proteins based on analogy between the structure--function relationship in written Chinese and in proteins (D. Axe, B. Dixon, P. Lu, manuscript in press).

I hate to do this now that my favorite Granddaughter has joined, but this train wreck will be closed around midnight Eastern Time.

keith said: The amusing thing is that every negative assertion about ID, the people, the science, the research , the publications can be stomped into dust particles by a simple web search.

RBH said: I hate to do this now that my favorite Granddaughter has joined, but this train wreck will be closed around midnight Eastern Time.

RBH said: I hate to do this now that my favorite Granddaughter has joined, but this train wreck will be closed around midnight Eastern Time.

bigbang said: Eric asks bigbang: “Why don’t you post your opinion on the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill, i.e. the subject of this thread . . . ” . No Eric, not until I see PZ and the other antitheists here behave more civilly. Anti-theism is as despicable as racism or any other form of bigotry, and those who indulge in such base behavior should not be tolerated, and certainly should not be allowed any authority, on this forum or anywhere for that matter, at least until they learn to behave more appropriately.

“Etymology deals with the history of words - as someone else suggested above you should really look into the Etymology of “Intelligent Design”

RBH said: I hate to do this now that my favorite Granddaughter has joined, but this train wreck will be closed around midnight Eastern Time.

What better note to close on? :)