Three Years Already? Merry Kitzmas!

We are delighted that you linked to our humble blog. For the word-historians among you, the Kitzmas festival originated a year ago at another site, when the name Kitzmillermas was proposed. It was quickly shortened to Kitzmas, and was feverishly celebrated, but only at that one site. This is the festival's second year, and perhaps it will now take off and fly.

Forgot the link to my name. All fixed now.

I wouldn't say they're smarting over their wounds, but maybe it's just your choice of words.[/snark]

Wishing everyone at Panda's Thumb a Merry Kitzmas, and a very Happy Monkey to all!

This has been a great year for science.

Thamks to everyone at Panda's Thumb who work so hard to promote science and oppose pseudoscience.

For the Christians among you - Merry Christmas!

For the pagans and atheists (and astronomers) - Happy solstice!

For those who just like a good excuse to drink beer - Happy New Year!

For all of us - Merry Kitzmas!

I've been corrected on another site. Although I blundered into "Kitzmas" independently, it seems that PZ Myers and Panda's Thumb both used that term a year earlier, on 20 December 2005, when the Dover decision was announced.

Law professors (including some who oppose intelligent design) have skewered Jones’ embarrassing judicial opinion as poorly argued and unpersuasive. ---- John West.

In the meantime, public interest in intelligent design has continued to grow, as has support for academic freedom to question Darwinism (no doubt encouraged by this year’s theatrical documentary Expelled). ---- John West.

FL, every time you guys attack Judge Jones or his decision, you just sound like a bunch of little crybabies that can't handle the fact that you lost. Are you the kind of guy that claims the refs cheated whenever your team loses as well?

FL said: (By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!) FL :)

I propose that henceforth FL be known as "Scrougembski".
Happy Kitzmas to all!

Vince

I don't debate with flagrant creationists, but I did add something to my article regarding West's empty claim that Jones' opinion attracted criticism. I mentioned that most US Supreme Court decisions contain quite pungent dissents, so criticism isn't all that remarkable. It's virtually inevitable. Besides, if Jones' decision were so legally flawed, why wasn't it appealed?

The Curmudgeon said: Besides, if Jones' decision were so legally flawed, why wasn't it appealed?

Due in large part to an evil conspiracy by Anti-Americans and Darwinists to revive Hitler’s brain again.

FL said:"(By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!)"

"Bobby"/"J" and reactions have been Bathroom Walled.

Cheers, Dave

The Curmudgeon said:

Due in large part to an evil conspiracy by Anti-Americans and Darwinists to revive Hitler’s brain again.

That brain? Again? How many times do we have to revive Darwin's brain?

1) The birth of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible is an empirically unverifiable event. The only accounts we have were written decades after the event by people who did know Jesus in person.

A more important anniversary to note will be the Ohio bait and switch scam that the Discovery Institute ran on the Ohio State Board of Education 5 years ago. Years before the intelligent design creationist scam lost in court the ID perps themselves were running in the switch scam on any rube stupid enough to buy into the teach ID scam. Ohio was the first public bait and switch. Meyer and Wells participated in conning the Ohio rubes into taking the teach the controversy switch scam. The Ohio creationist rubes wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but all they got was the bogus switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. What is worse is that they took the switch from the same guys that had just tried to lie to their faces about the nonexistant science of intelligent design. Not a single legislator or school board has gotten any ID science to teach after they claimed to be able to teach the junk. It turns out that the Discovery Institute tried to run in the switch on the Dover rubes, but they ran into a group that was just as dishonest as they were and the Dover creationist had their own dishonest agenda. The rest is history.

When the guys that ran the intelligent design scam would rather run a bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters rather than teach the science of intelligent design, any thinking human being should be able to figure out that the ID scam is up and over. The trouble is that there are enough people that are willing to take the next scam from the liars that fooled them with the last scam. It could be that they were not fooled, but how sad is that? Is one dishonest scam just as good as any other?

The current scam has always been second rate even among the creationist political faction represented most recently by the ID perps. The obfuscation scam is just the smoke that they spew out to make it sound like they might have an argument. The primary scams have been creation science where they claimed to have the science to back up their Biblical beliefs, and intelligent design science. The obfuscation scam has always just been filler. Now it seems to be the only game in town. Just because it is all that they have left shouldn't be any reason for anyone to support the effort.

The ID perps promised the creationist rubes a Rolls-Royce and all they delivered was ox cart parts. The ox cart isn't even assembled with no ox in sight, and there is no evidence that there are even enough parts to build the thing. They let the rubes try to build it and take the fall. It should not escape anyones notice that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute never put up an intelligent design lesson plan in all the years that they claimed to be able to teach intelligent design science, and in all the years that they have been running the bait and switch they have never put up their own switch scam lesson plan. They let the rubes fumble with it and take the fall. Just read the Ohio Boards first attempt. They actually tried to use Wells' book "Icons" to create a lesson plan. Who can believe that? Wells' book should have a sticker in it that clearly states that it is for propaganda purposes only and is not to be used in public school lesson plans.

HP said: Wishing everyone at Panda's Thumb a Merry Kitzmas, and a very Happy Monkey to all!

Besides, if Jones' decision were so legally flawed, why wasn't it appealed?

Because Dover elected a new school board favorable to science. They had no reason to appeal.

FL said: (By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!) FL :)

The Curmudgeon said: That's right, I had forgotten. Still, if the opinion were really flawed, other school boards would be eager to take up the challenge. No school board has yet decided to take the risk. Also, except for meaningless blather from creationist websites, I haven't seen any serious legal criticism of Jones' opinion. Once it was clear that Pandas was a creationist text, the game was essentially over. It certainly didn't help that the school board's actions were shown to be religiously motivated. Jones really didn't have much choice in the matter. The facts determined the outcome. Jones followed well-established precedents, and didn't make up his own rules.

The Curmudgeon said: I've been corrected on another site. Although I blundered into "Kitzmas" independently, it seems that PZ Myers and Panda's Thumb both used that term a year earlier, on 20 December 2005, when the Dover decision was announced.

On Jesus' real existence: it depends on what you mean by him. I think there's sufficient evidence to support the idea that there was such a Galilean holy man, who was persuaded that he was the Messiah of Israel, and was crucified for it. Anything more is far more debateable.

It is true that none of the sources on him are contemporary, and all the early ones are deeply compromised. The same might be said of Socrates, or even Alexander the Great. There's not many figures in ancient history of whom it could not be said.

This is what I love about history. I realise that to a scientist, the attitude is baffling. The evidence in science is by definition what can be demonstrated by repeated verifiable observation of nature. Historical records - the only evidence a historian goes on - are always equivocal, biased, flawed, incomplete and inexact, and we can't go back to the laboratory or the field and observe the facts. Sometimes a new record surfaces. We still live in hope that the great papyrus dumps in Egypt, for example, will yield a new document that shines light on the origins of Christianity. But otherwise, as C S Lewis remarked, the documents say what they say, and we make of them what we can, arguing ferociously the while.

It's a silly game, but anyone can play. Like science, if only in that.

If there were a legal flaw to stand on, the Thomas More Law Center could/would/should have taken up the appeal, no?

The Curmudgeon said:

If there were a legal flaw to stand on, the Thomas More Law Center could/would/should have taken up the appeal, no?

No, not if their client (the newly elected school board) didn't want to appeal. But if that firm thought their case was so good, they could go out and hustle up another school board some place else and have another fling at it. I don't think they've been doing that.

KP said:

FL said: (By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!) FL :)

FL: The Bible can't even get "Jesus Christ's" genealogy straight. Matthew 1 gives 28 generations from David to Jesus; Luke 3 gives 43. Why is all this information given if it was supposed to be an immaculate conception anyway?

The Curmudgeon said: No, not if their client (the newly elected school board) didn't want to appeal. But if that firm thought their case was so good, they could go out and hustle up another school board some place else and have another fling at it. I don't think they've been doing that.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: ... I don't know why FL sees the birth of Jesus as refuting evoloution. If it were a natural event, then evolution would kick in. But surely FL would say that it was a miracle, and therefore a violation of natural law by definition?

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Common error: the doctrine of the "immaculate conceptions" holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin; it isn't the virgin conception of Jesus.

KP said: FL: The Bible can't even get "Jesus Christ's" genealogy straight. Matthew 1 gives 28 generations from David to Jesus; Luke 3 gives 43. Why is all this information given if it was supposed to be an immaculate conception anyway? I guess it's supposed to lead up to Joseph as the presumed "father" by being married to the immaculately knocked-up Mary. The two versions can't even get Joseph's father straight (Matthew sez "Jacob," Luke sez "Heli") and despite the detailed (and conflicting) genealogies of Joseph, there is no account that I know of where Mary came from. So much for the Bible being the "inerrant word of god." And an immaculate conception, even if it were true, neither supports nor refutes the processes of evolution.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not to be found in the bible at all. It's a Roman Catholic dogma adopted in the, what, sixteenth century (?), after it had already been around for a long time.

The idea descends ultimately from the notion (Gnostic in origin) that the flesh is inherently impure because of Original Sin, and can only give rise to corruption. The Albigensians and others took this to the extent of Manicheanism, the doctrine that the world was inherently sinful, and therefore must be the work of the Devil.

After they'd finished burning the Albigensians, the official Church accommodated some of their ideas. Since Jesus was perfect, (which he had to be, as a perfect sacrifice) it must follow that his origin, the flesh that bore him, was also immaculate. Hence, Mary, his mother, must have been born without the stain of Original Sin herself. Thus her conception was also immaculate even though it was by ordinary human means, a special miracle wrought by God.

Protestantism has always rejected this idea, FWIW, as it has the further reinforcements of Marian theology adopted by Rome subsequently.

Each day I'm more convinced that one of the reasons that anti-evolution activists are so successful with the public if not the courts is that it's so easy to get people off on a tangent of religion instead of focusing on how there anti-evolution "science" is retreating from what little promise as science it ever had. Specifically, it's getting rare to hear even basic claims of "what happened when," let alone how to test them.

Anyway, to bring this more on topic I just want to object that you "Developmentists" are wrong when you claim that "Intelligent Delivery" is Storkism. ID does not identify the deliverer, and besides, we "Sdelivery proponentsists" are not asking that ID be taught either, only a "critical analysis" of UDT. ;-)

The Curmudgeon said:

Because Dover elected a new school board favorable to science. They had no reason to appeal.

That's right, I had forgotten. Still, if the opinion were really flawed, other school boards would be eager to take up the challenge. No school board has yet decided to take the risk. Also, except for meaningless blather from creationist websites, I haven't seen any serious legal criticism of Jones' opinion. Once it was clear that Pandas was a creationist text, the game was essentially over. It certainly didn't help that the school board's actions were shown to be religiously motivated. Jones really didn't have much choice in the matter. The facts determined the outcome. Jones followed well-established precedents, and didn't make up his own rules.

KP said:

The Curmudgeon said: No, not if their client (the newly elected school board) didn't want to appeal. But if that firm thought their case was so good, they could go out and hustle up another school board some place else and have another fling at it. I don't think they've been doing that.

True... I guess my point was that if there was a legal flaw to be taken seriously, TMLC would be publishing it in all the Law Reviews/journals, broadcasting it on Court TV, and screaming it at the top of their lungs everywhere they go. I guess there is that Montana Law Review thing http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Current%20Issue.htm Whatever.

Frank J said: Each day I'm more convinced that one of the reasons that anti-evolution activists are so successful with the public if not the courts is that it's so easy to get people off on a tangent of religion instead of focusing on how there anti-evolution "science" is retreating from what little promise as science it ever had. Specifically, it's getting rare to hear even basic claims of "what happened when," let alone how to test them.

FL posted (somewhat bizarrely, I think) that the birth of Jesus as recounted in the Bible refutes evolution.

So how come you still refuse to explain why Jesus' birth refutes evolution, despite the fact that evolution has been observed in detail?

Oh, that's right, you're using Our Lord and Savior as an excuse to foist your own dogmatic delusions onto us.

As to the topic at hand, I seem to recall that back in the pre-Kitzmiller days, “someone” said he’d like to get the Darwinists on the witness stand under oath, so he could squeese the truth out of them using the vise strategy.

FL said: [snip] This IS the Christmas season, I'm sure you'll agree, so it's [the virgin birth of Christ] a timely topic for anyone to suggest. That's why I suggested it. [snip]

Merry Kitzmas and a happy new science class!

Nothing bizarre about it, SWT. If the leadership of PandasThumb would permit me to do so, I could submit a guest essay that shows how the virgin birth of Christ necessarily negates, disrupts, and otherwise refutes evolution as currently taught.

— FL

FL said:

FL posted (somewhat bizarrely, I think) that the birth of Jesus as recounted in the Bible refutes evolution.

Nothing bizarre about it, SWT. If the leadership of PandasThumb would permit me to do so, I could submit a guest essay that shows how the virgin birth of Christ necessarily negates, disrupts, and otherwise refutes evolution as currently taught.

FL said: By the way KP, I do have a response for your "alleged contradiction" argument, but I do not (and did not) have any intention of offering it in this thread.

SWT said:

FL said:

FL posted (somewhat bizarrely, I think) that the birth of Jesus as recounted in the Bible refutes evolution.

Nothing bizarre about it, SWT. If the leadership of PandasThumb would permit me to do so, I could submit a guest essay that shows how the virgin birth of Christ necessarily negates, disrupts, and otherwise refutes evolution as currently taught.

It's not that hard to whip up a new blog -- or perhaps your church's IT infrastructure even has that capability now. It would seem reasonable to check out those possibilities before asking PT to host such a guest essay.

Hi all,

Happy Kitzmas to everyone! One which we should note as the Kitzmas before the greatest, grandest, Darwin Day in recent memory: February 12, 2009.

Without being accused of name dropping, I want to point out to the creos posting here that I attended an alumni gathering at New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School as the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial unfolded, where I heard the school's principal pledge that Intelligent Design would never be taught there as long as he continued serving as the school's principal (which he still is). A year ago I brought this to my "buddy" Bill Dembski's attention, when he asserted - via private e-mail correspondence - that he knew many Texas high school principals who wanted Intelligent Design taught in lieu of evolution in their science classrooms. When I asked Bill if any of these taught a rigorous introductory physics class to a class of entering freshmen (which is true of Stuyvesant's principal); he ignored me completely.

I earnestly hope that other high school principals would follow in the lead of Stuyvesant's (which is widely regarded as the nation's finest high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology) by declaring that it is their school policy not to have Intelligent Design creationism or other variants of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as creationism taught in their school classrooms. The overall quality of American secondary school science education would take a quantum step forward if these declarations were issued and then enforced.

With best wishes for the holidays,

John Kwok

Fl shouldn't be too hard on us since it is perfectly impossible to believe in the Virgin birth, the incarnation, or vicarious atonement without faith. It isn't our fault we don't believe these incredible things: it's God's fault or at least His responsibility. After all, if Fl were to insist that we bore any of the blame, he'd have to claim the credit for his own salvation.

What makes Christianity so repugnant to reason is not that it demands that we accept the truth of the very unlikely fact that somebody died for our sins, but that we also accept the plausibility and coherence of the truly bizarre principle that the moral status of mankind as a whole can be altered by one guy getting himself killed. Once you've swallowed that later ox, the previous gnat, though big for a gnat, is not going to be any problem. No wonder it takes divine intervention to make a normal, unbrainwashed human being buy into this childish dreck. Maybe Yahweh pulls it off by calling on help from Olympus and Valhalla.

Why do you display so much hate? Why does every other group scream tolerance while bashing Christians on Christmas.That's okay every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

Tricia said: Why do you display so much hate? Why does every other group scream tolerance while bashing Christians on Christmas.That's okay every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

Tricia said: Why do you display so much hate? Why does every other group scream tolerance while bashing Christians on Christmas.That's okay every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

Tricia said: Why do you display so much hate? Why does every other group scream tolerance while bashing Christians on Christmas.That's okay every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

What annoys me is so few people understand what I mean when I call them cdevolution explorentists.

Marion Delgado said: What annoys me is so few people understand what I mean when I call them cdevolution explorentists.

As for the sidetracking FL, he's wrong again. Just as a UFO abducting me, probing me, and delivering me to work would not disprove the existence of our city's bus system, a one-time (and it explicitly states it was a one-time thing) supernatural disruption of the normal conception cycle for humans would say nothing about random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. or the development of species.

Even proof that there was a God who impregnated human women with the aid of angels would not speak one way or another to, e.g., the question of how, or whether, some dinosaurs' descendants were birds.

Curmudgeon it was, but surely you see that would be teaching religion!

So the new edition of Pandas calls them cdevolution explorerentsists. The extra characters around evolution explorer are not to be considered spandrels.

Marion Delgado said: Curmudgeon it was, but surely you see that would be teaching religion!

KP said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Common error: the doctrine of the "immaculate conceptions" holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin; it isn't the virgin conception of Jesus.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction. However, I was trying to find where it says Mary was conceived without Original Sin -- are you talking about the business where Gabriel drops in and tell her that she has "found favor with God" (Luke 1:28-30)? Sorry I'm lazy and don't feel like rifling through too much more of the Bible tonight, so I'm hoping you'll point me to chapter & verse.

Merry Kitzmass and Happy Monkey to all!

Except for FL. To FL I wish enlightenment, albeit, a long shot gift. Perhaps a scarf would have been a better choice.

Having dealt with FL on other forums I can tell you it will be a disheartening experience. You can tell FL that green is blue and demonstrate it to him any number of ways, but to FL blue is green.

And that's that.

Creationists like FL aren't interested in "truth" or knowledge or science or understanding. They're only interested in their very own personal souls, and their doubt (and I believe they have lots of doubt). Bah, humbug to you, FL!

I won't be responding to FL on any thread. Been there, done that.

However, to everybody in the world except FL, I wish a Merry Christmas, Season's Greetings, Happy Holidays and good cheer and make merry as much as you can. I, for one, have a tree, presents, family in town and a grand feast planned.

Here's part of my Christmas gift list:

To PZ - 6 more arms to which hug Trophy Wife.
To Wes - thicker hawk gloves.
To Josh - a PhD and another Kitzmiller!
To Nick - prior drafts of Explore Evolution showing Dembski and Behe "in flagrante delicto"
To Barbara - a brain for Bobby.
To Genie - no more trips down the Grand Canyon with creationists.
To Texas - a spine.

And, that's it for 2008. Thank you creationists for providing so much amusement. Seriously, you can't get this much fun on Showtime!

Bill Gascoyne said: The Puritans who landed on Plymouth Rock went so far as to forbid the celebration of Christmas because of its pagan roots.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: The difference was the Puritans wanted to "purify" the Anglican church, whereas the Separatists wanted to break away from it entirely. Eventually the Massachusetts Bay Colony, founded by Puritans, absorbed the Separatist Plymouth Bay Colony. Ironically, the Puritans became the Congregationalists, and from the Congregationalists was spun off the Unitarians. Apologies to non-religion geeks, and to those not interested in the minutiae of history.

Sorry to get us so far away from Kitzmas!

FL said: As suggested earlier, you seem comfortable and unafraid to discuss it in depth. But it really can't be done here without interfering with Curmudgeon's topic (the flawed Kitzmiller decision). FL

FL said:

FL posted (somewhat bizarrely, I think) that the birth of Jesus as recounted in the Bible refutes evolution.

Nothing bizarre about it, SWT. If the leadership of PandasThumb would permit me to do so, I could submit a guest essay that shows how the virgin birth of Christ necessarily negates, disrupts, and otherwise refutes evolution as currently taught. This IS the Christmas season, I'm sure you'll agree, so it's a timely topic for anyone to suggest. That's why I suggested it. However, there's no history of PT allowing "creationists" to submit guest essays AFAIK, so the next best thing would be for one of PT's own blogsters to initiate a discussion of the same subject from an evolution-defending perspective. Most of all, I did say a separate thread. Check it out yourself. I appreciate those who have responded already, but hey, I never said to hash out that topic in THIS thread. I specifically said create a new thread, a separate thread, a different thread. You and Frank J will want to re-read what I said because honestly, it doesn't look like you got it the first time. I do appreciate KP's response (attempting to defend evolution against the implications of Jesus's birth via alleging that a contradiction exists between Matt and Luke's genealogy.) Perhaps y'all might invite KP to go ahead and contribute a guest essay and initiate a separate thread on this issue. He seems comfortable and unafraid of discussing the issue. By the way KP, I do have a response for your "alleged contradiction" argument, but I do not (and did not) have any intention of offering it in this thread. FL

I guess a Kitzmas thread has a short half-life.

Frank J said: Anyway, to bring this more on topic I just want to object that you "Developmentists" are wrong when you claim that "Intelligent Delivery" is Storkism. ID does not identify the deliverer, and besides, we "Sdelivery proponentsists" are not asking that ID be taught either, only a "critical analysis" of UDT. ;-)

61 Percent of Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. 47 Percent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. --- Harris Poll, November 2008 http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=773&sid=1544302

FL said: To help keep this thread focussed strictly on evolutionary matters, I offer the following helpful statistics for readers:

61 Percent of Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. 47 Percent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. --- Harris Poll, November 2008 http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=773&sid=1544302

Ho Ho Ho!! Given those numbers, I'm gonna have me a MERRY Christmas this year, baby!! FL :)

FL, why does it make you happy that there are so many ignorant and superstitious people in your country?

FL said: Ho Ho Ho!! Given those numbers, I'm gonna have me a MERRY Christmas this year, baby!!

Please explain how appealing to a majority as according to your cherry-picking demonstrates how the virgin birth of Jesus Christ disproves evolution.

Doc Bill said: Here's part of my Christmas gift list: To PZ - 6 more arms to which hug Trophy Wife. To Wes - thicker hawk gloves. To Josh - a PhD and another Kitzmiller! To Nick - prior drafts of Explore Evolution showing Dembski and Behe "in flagrante delicto" To Barbara - a brain for Bobby. To Genie - no more trips down the Grand Canyon with creationists. To Texas - a spine. And, that's it for 2008. Thank you creationists for providing so much amusement. Seriously, you can't get this much fun on Showtime!

Dear FL:

I am still waiting for my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his fellow intellectually-challenged pals over at the Dishonesty Institute to explain how Intelligent Design could predict plausible solutions to ongoing ecological problems like this:

Let's say you have a disappearing kelp bed off the coast of say, Washington or California. Coincidentally there seems to be a rapid population decrease in the sea otter population and a rapid population increase in the sea urchin population. Could all of these be related somehow?

I must confess that I, as a lapsed invertebrate paleobiologist, am not really that bright. Could you tell me what predictions Intelligent Design might make for such a scenario? If you can, then you'd be a major step ahead of my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers.

Appreciatively yours,

John Kwok

FL: Not sure if it was to you, but I recall asking similar questions before.

1. Would you be more or less merry if the numbers were:

40 Percent of Americans believed in the Virgin Birth.
10 Percent of Americans accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution.

2. Would you be more or less merry if the numbers were:

90 Percent of Americans believed in the Virgin Birth.
80 Percent of Americans accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution.

John Kwok said: Dear FL: I am still waiting for my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his fellow intellectually-challenged pals over at the Dishonesty Institute to explain how Intelligent Design could predict plausible solutions to ongoing ecological problems like this: Let's say you have a disappearing kelp bed off the coast of say, Washington or California. Coincidentally there seems to be a rapid population decrease in the sea otter population and a rapid population increase in the sea urchin population. Could all of these be related somehow? I must confess that I, as a lapsed invertebrate paleobiologist, am not really that bright. Could you tell me what predictions Intelligent Design might make for such a scenario? If you can, then you'd be a major step ahead of my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. Appreciatively yours, John Kwok

Stanton said: Given as how FL has demonstrated himself, for all these years, to be wholly physically incapable of explaining how Intelligent Design is scientific, let alone explaining why we should teach that, or a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as translated by King James so many centuries ago can be used for scientific application, do you honestly expect him to miraculously develop the necessary mental fortitude to grapple with kelp, sea urchins and sea otters? I mean, if you do, I'm tempted to give you some Nevada beachfront property my late uncle willed me.

John Kwok said: Dear FL: I am still waiting for my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his fellow intellectually-challenged pals over at the Dishonesty Institute to explain how Intelligent Design could predict plausible solutions to ongoing ecological problems like this: Let's say you have a disappearing kelp bed off the coast of say, Washington or California. Coincidentally there seems to be a rapid population decrease in the sea otter population and a rapid population increase in the sea urchin population. Could all of these be related somehow? I must confess that I, as a lapsed invertebrate paleobiologist, am not really that bright. Could you tell me what predictions Intelligent Design might make for such a scenario? If you can, then you'd be a major step ahead of my "buddy" Bill Dembski and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. Appreciatively yours, John Kwok

John Kwok said: Stanton, Oh sure. I'll make a deal. I'll swap the Brooklyn Bridge for that Nevada property.

FL said:

FL said: To help keep this thread focussed strictly on evolutionary matters, I offer the following helpful statistics for readers:

61 Percent of Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. 47 Percent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. --- Harris Poll, November 2008 http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=773&sid=1544302

Ho Ho Ho!! Given those numbers, I'm gonna have me a MERRY Christmas this year, baby!! FL :)

Shoot, forgot to edit! Anyway, there's the corrected version.

Interestingly, only 26% of all adults believe that the Torah is the word of God, even though it is the same as the first five books of the Old Testament.

FL said: All the more reason to do a separate thread on this topic, KP. Christmas is coming, it's timely, it's interesting. You should ask to guest-contribute. (Or maybe David Fickett-Wilbar as well.) As suggested earlier, you seem comfortable and unafraid to discuss it in depth. But it really can't be done here without interfering with Curmudgeon's topic (the flawed Kitzmiller decision).

FL said: To help keep this thread focussed strictly on evolutionary matters, I offer the following helpful statistics for readers:

61 Percent of Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. 47 Percent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Was re-reading my comment and thought that maybe my rhetorical questions would cause FL and others to miss the point that the two poll questions aren't mutually exclusive, according to the data provided.

I suppose another explanation could be that the poll was fake or poorly conducted and/or the numbers are bogus.

They add up to more than 100%. Doesn’t than mean that at least some Americans who believe in the virgin birth also believe Darwin’s theory? Is that possible??

FL said: Many people may simply be too busy to think about whether or not random mutation, natural selection, and common descent can account for the Virgin Birth ...

FL wrote:

"Many people may simply be too busy to think about whether or not random mutation, natural selection, and common descent can account for the Virgin Birth (the correct answer, of course, is “NOT”.)"

Or many people, (at least 8% of the general population if the poll is accurate), disagree with you. After all, random mutation, natural selection and common descent don't account for diamonds either and yet lots of people believe that both are real.

Virgin birth doesn't disprove evolution any more that evolution disproves the virgin birth. The difference is that there is evidence for one and only a questionable translation as evidence for the other.

FL said: Always possible. Many people may simply be too busy to think about whether or not random mutation, natural selection, and common descent can account for the Virgin Birth (the correct answer, of course, is "NOT".) FL

fnxtr said: FL, why does it make you happy that there are so many ignorant and superstitious people in your country?

Stanton said:

FL said: Always possible. Many people may simply be too busy to think about whether or not random mutation, natural selection, and common descent can account for the Virgin Birth (the correct answer, of course, is "NOT".) FL

Then how come you have not bothered to explain how the Virgin Birth disproves observed events, such as the appearance and rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects, nylon-eating bacteria, or the development of new and different breeds of plants and animals?

KP said: Because FL is waiting for PT to give him a forum to spew more biblical interpretations that have nothing to do with antibiotic resistant bacteria, etc. That and he's been trying to call me out into writing about the bible and posting it on PT.

FL: Nobody has claimed that random mutation, natural selection, and common descent explain unreplicated, untestable "miracles" like virgin birth. If you're going to come on this thread and claim that the virgin birth disproves evolution, then you are going to have to explain what alternative, testable theory the virgin birth, or any part of the bible, provides to explain the specific factual observations Stanton provided above (and mountains of other observations).

FL said: Always possible. Many people may simply be too busy to think about whether or not random mutation, natural selection, and common descent can account for the Virgin Birth (the correct answer, of course, is "NOT".) FL

SWT said:

FL said: Always possible. Many people may simply be too busy to think about whether or not random mutation, natural selection, and common descent can account for the Virgin Birth (the correct answer, of course, is "NOT".) FL

Curiouser and curiouser. I think that most, if not all, of the Christians who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus also believe it was a miracle. I think it's also likely that most people also understand that something is a "miracle" because it is inconsistent with natural law. If I recall correctly, the investigators charged by the Roman Catholic church to investigate purported miracles devote most of their efforts to determining if the purported miracle could be the result of events consistent with natural law. I can't think of anyone I know, or even have heard of, who thinks that the virgin birth of Jesus was the result of random mutation + natural selection. One has nothing to do with the other.

The Curmudgeon said:

Marion Delgado said: What annoys me is so few people understand what I mean when I call them cdevolution explorentists.

Isn't the term cdesign proponentsists?

Did FL ever think of getting his own blog from which to do that?

— Stanton

Did FL ever think of getting his own blog from which to do that?

— Stanton

FL said: To help keep this thread focussed strictly on evolutionary matters, I offer the following helpful statistics for readers:

61 Percent of Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. 47 Percent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. --- Harris Poll, November 2008 http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=773&sid=1544302

Ho Ho Ho!! Given that more American, I'm gonna have me a MERRY Christmas this year, baby!! FL :)

Hi Robin,

I am still waiting for FL to answer my question as to how Intelligent Design could offer testable predictions to the real-life ecological scenario I outlined yesterday. Now if he's a good boy and answers these questions, maybe we can get him a non speaking part in a Premise Media dramatic adaptation of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, featuring Tina Fey as philosopher Barbara Forrest, Jodie Foster as hometown journalist Lauri Lebo and, in a cameo appearance, Christopher Lloyd as Bill Dembski.

Cheers,

John

My dear FL:

I presume you have some interest in science since you're posting here at PT. Would appreciate a reply to my query yesterday in which I asked you how ID could offer testable predictions for the real-life ecological scenario I posed. I am still waiting.

Here's yet another, related question:

Let's assume that all three aspects are related. What would be causing the sea otters to disappear off the coast of the state of Washington? Would it be:

a) predation via Carcharodon megalodon
b) predation via the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)
c) predation via the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
d) predation via Daleks acting under the orders of Ken Ham
e) some unknown disease

(Hint: There are two possible answers and only one looks like it is correct)

If you get this right, you've earned the right to "Steal Bill Dembski's Brain" on the next episode of the forthcoming game show from Premise Media.

Looking forward to your answers....

Respectfully submitted,

John Kwok

He’s an evangelist. The wierder ones have to go to someplace people actually find interesting since, in and of itself, their message is not. I think FL is being very smart by not testing what value the marketplace of ideas puts on his.

— eric

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your latest post, but I really think it's pure old-fashion Greed masquerading as good ol' old-time religion as I noted in this parody
(with apologies to Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits) that Amazon's USA site didn't find so amusing:

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

Look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it.
You put fat Mike Behe on the Christian TV.
Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it.
You get your money for nothing like those books from Dembski!

That ain't working - that's the way you do it. Them DI guys ain't dumb.
Maybe buy this book at Amazon.com; maybe buy this book at Barnes and Noble.com.

We gotta brainwash American high school children, custom Creo deliveries.
We gotta move these IDiot books. Gotta move these ID videos....

That ain't working... that's the way you do it.
You put old Ben Stein on the Fox TV.
Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it .
You get your money for nothing like those books from Behe!

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

Hope you have a Merry Kitzmas and a Happy Monkey too!

Cheers,

John

John Kwok said: Hi Robin, I am still waiting for FL to answer my question as to how Intelligent Design could offer testable predictions to the real-life ecological scenario I outlined yesterday. Now if he's a good boy and answers these questions, maybe we can get him a non speaking part in a Premise Media dramatic adaptation of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, featuring Tina Fey as philosopher Barbara Forrest, Jodie Foster as hometown journalist Lauri Lebo and, in a cameo appearance, Christopher Lloyd as Bill Dembski. Cheers, John

John Kwok said: Hi Mike, Thanks for your latest post, but I really think it's pure old-fashion Greed masquerading as good ol' old-time religion as I noted in this parody (with apologies to Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits) that Amazon's USA site didn't find so amusing: I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. Look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it. You put fat Mike Behe on the Christian TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it. You get your money for nothing like those books from Dembski! That ain't working - that's the way you do it. Them DI guys ain't dumb. Maybe buy this book at Amazon.com; maybe buy this book at Barnes and Noble.com. We gotta brainwash American high school children, custom Creo deliveries. We gotta move these IDiot books. Gotta move these ID videos.... That ain't working... that's the way you do it. You put old Ben Stein on the Fox TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it . You get your money for nothing like those books from Behe! I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. Hope you have a Merry Kitzmas and a Happy Monkey too! Cheers, John

jkl said:

John Kwok said: Hi Mike, Thanks for your latest post, but I really think it's pure old-fashion Greed masquerading as good ol' old-time religion as I noted in this parody (with apologies to Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits) that Amazon's USA site didn't find so amusing: I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. Look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it. You put fat Mike Behe on the Christian TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it. You get your money for nothing like those books from Dembski! That ain't working - that's the way you do it. Them DI guys ain't dumb. Maybe buy this book at Amazon.com; maybe buy this book at Barnes and Noble.com. We gotta brainwash American high school children, custom Creo deliveries. We gotta move these IDiot books. Gotta move these ID videos.... That ain't working... that's the way you do it. You put old Ben Stein on the Fox TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it . You get your money for nothing like those books from Behe! I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy. Hope you have a Merry Kitzmas and a Happy Monkey too! Cheers, John

How old are you? That sounded really junior high.

Bill Gascoyne said: It is true that to this day, in the Holy Lands, shepherds do indeed abide in the fields keeping watch over their flocks by night, but the have never done so in December because it's too cold. In fact, Christmas is celebrated to compete with pagan yule festivals, so Christ is the excuse for the season, not the reason. The Puritans who landed on Plymouth Rock went so far as to forbid the celebration of Christmas because of its pagan roots.

"Christmas" festivities are not just "pre-Christian"—dating to pagan worship of the sun god—they in fact have no connection to the date of birth of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. How do we know this? While the Bible does not explicitly tell us the exact day of Jesus’ birth, it gives us clear evidence of the approximate time. From Scripture, it becomes obvious that winter is the one season in which Jesus could not have been born. Luke tells us that on the night of Jesus’ birth, the shepherds were still keeping watch over their flocks in the field (Luke 2:8). In ancient Israel, the rainy season began after the Feast of Tabernacles (which generally occurs in early October). By November, when the weather was turning cool and wet, the shepherds had already brought their flocks in from pasture and were keeping them in winter quarters. Shepherds were no longer spending the nights in the fields with the sheep, as they had done from the beginning of spring through the early fall season.

In Rome December 25 was made popular by Pope Liberius in 354 and became the rule in the West in 435 when the first "Christ mass" was officiated by Pope Sixtus III. This coincided with the date of a celebration by the Romans to their primary god, the Sun, and to Mithras, a popular Persian sun god supposedly born on the same day. The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, "to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness" (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).

Seems like an excellent time to rewatch the NOVA 2 hour special about the trial.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

You can view it online at the above site.

Don't use The Pirate Bay to download the special by entering:

nova judgement day

into the search field at thepiratebay.org

That would be wrong.

Chris Tucker said: Seems like an excellent time to rewatch the NOVA 2 hour special about the trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ You can view it online at the above site. Don't use The Pirate Bay to download the special by entering: nova judgement day into the search field at thepiratebay.org That would be wrong.

Chris Tucker said: Seems like an excellent time to rewatch the NOVA 2 hour special about the trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ You can view it online at the above site. Don't use The Pirate Bay to download the special by entering: nova judgement day into the search field at thepiratebay.org That would be wrong.

You know that the guys that perpetrated the ID scam looked at every angle, looked in every nook and cranny, and turned over every rock in sight to try to find something that they could use to support their ID “science.” It wasn’t that they never bothered to test ID, but that they never figured out anything worth testing.

— Ron Okimoto

Frank J said:

You know that the guys that perpetrated the ID scam looked at every angle, looked in every nook and cranny, and turned over every rock in sight to try to find something that they could use to support their ID “science.” It wasn’t that they never bothered to test ID, but that they never figured out anything worth testing.

— Ron Okimoto

That's especially ironic because as far back as 1996 one of the main ID leaders, Michael Behe, gave them a perfect starting point to generate and test hypotheses. As you know, in "Darwin's Black Box" he not only argued against "Darwinism" and for ID, but speculated where and when the design actuation occurred. After clearly conceding a ~4 billion year history of life and common descent (which, BTW, IDers could easily use to back up their empty "ID is not creationism" claim) Behe speculated that the design for all subsequent genomes was front-loaded in the ancestral cell. Alas, whether it was an early review by H. Allen Orr that showed how easy it was to test that hypothesis, or other DI folk who warned that ID would lose YEC and OEC support if ID conceded so much to mainstream science, or both, ID's only shot at real science was quickly abandoned.

Ron Okimoto said: This was a problem for the ID perps. They solved the problem by moving the goal posts. If something like IC had a firm definition they could have tested it. Behe knows better than most that his definitions kept failing. The simplistic definition that you could take away a part and the IC system would stop functioning failed testing. It turned out not to be true for multiple reasons. Behe tried to save IC with ploys like claiming that the parts had to be "well matched." Since he never developed any idea of how well matched any part had to be, and natural selection could make any parts more well matched if it could do anything, that part of the definition became more of a boat anchor than any step forward. The last thing that I saw out of Behe years ago was that the more parts something had the more IC it is. This obviously does nothing to fix the definition into something worth testing. All IC seems to be today is the stupid creationist probability argument based on multiple parts. ...

Okay, I see your questions, John Kwok. This will be easy.

I personally do not know how or if the 3-point Dembski/Behe Intelligent Design hypothesis that I have discussed previously in this forum, can "predict a plausible solution" to the coincidental event of disappearing sea kelp combined with disappearing sea otters combined with increasing sea urchins. The 3-point ID hypothesis that I am familiar with, says nothing about this specific event, predicts nothing about this specific event. ID offers you no answer on it.

I would also add, (just to keep John's question in line with the thread topic), that Judge Jones clearly did NOT base his opinions about ID on whether or not ID "predicted any plausible solution" concerning the sea kelp / sea otter / sea urchin situation.

Since it wasn't a priority question for Judge Jones, I don't think it'll be a priority issue for me either.

Well, there's your answer!! Thanks for asking.

FL

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Put down "I don't know" on your related multiple choice question there. Doesn't affect (let alone disprove) the 3-point ID hypothesis at all.

FL

FL said: Oh, yeah, one more thing. Put down "I don't know" on your related multiple choice question there. Doesn't affect (let alone disprove) the 3-point ID hypothesis at all. FL

FL said: Okay, I see your questions, John Kwok. This will be easy. I personally do not know how or if the 3-point Dembski/Behe Intelligent Design hypothesis that I have discussed previously in this forum, can "predict a plausible solution" to the coincidental event of disappearing sea kelp combined with disappearing sea otters combined with increasing sea urchins. The 3-point ID hypothesis that I am familiar with, says nothing about this specific event, predicts nothing about this specific event. ID offers you no answer on it. I would also add, (just to keep John's question in line with the thread topic), that Judge Jones clearly did NOT base his opinions about ID on whether or not ID "predicted any plausible solution" concerning the sea kelp / sea otter / sea urchin situation. Since it wasn't a priority question for Judge Jones, I don't think it'll be a priority issue for me either. Well, there's your answer!! Thanks for asking. FL

John Kwok said: The correct answer for this question is that the sea kelp bed disappearance is tied to the increasing abundance of sea urchins ...

The Curmudgeon said:

John Kwok said: The correct answer for this question is that the sea kelp bed disappearance is tied to the increasing abundance of sea urchins ...

Ah, but who designed the kelp? That is the ultimate question!

The Curmudgeon said:

John Kwok said: The correct answer for this question is that the sea kelp bed disappearance is tied to the increasing abundance of sea urchins ...

Ah, but who designed the kelp? That is the ultimate question!

Dembski and Behe would be much better off writing textbooks on Klingon Cosmology and Klingon Biochemistry, respectively. Alas they haven’t listened to the generous advice provided by yours truly.

FL said:

Dembski and Behe would be much better off writing textbooks on Klingon Cosmology and Klingon Biochemistry, respectively. Alas they haven’t listened to the generous advice provided by yours truly.

That's a shame, John Kwok. Perhaps they're just busy and are therefore somewhat selective about whose advice they take. Btw, I've read and enjoyed their books. Tell me again what books you've written, so that I may read yours as well. FL

FL said:

Dembski and Behe would be much better off writing textbooks on Klingon Cosmology and Klingon Biochemistry, respectively. Alas they haven’t listened to the generous advice provided by yours truly.

That's a shame, John Kwok. Perhaps they're just busy and are therefore somewhat selective about whose advice they take. Btw, I've read and enjoyed their books. Tell me again what books you've written, so that I may read yours as well. FL

FL said: Btw, I've read and enjoyed their books. Tell me again what books you've written, so that I may read yours as well. FL

Dave Thomas said:

Ron Okimoto said: This was a problem for the ID perps. They solved the problem by moving the goal posts. If something like IC had a firm definition they could have tested it. Behe knows better than most that his definitions kept failing. The simplistic definition that you could take away a part and the IC system would stop functioning failed testing. It turned out not to be true for multiple reasons. Behe tried to save IC with ploys like claiming that the parts had to be "well matched." Since he never developed any idea of how well matched any part had to be, and natural selection could make any parts more well matched if it could do anything, that part of the definition became more of a boat anchor than any step forward. The last thing that I saw out of Behe years ago was that the more parts something had the more IC it is. This obviously does nothing to fix the definition into something worth testing. All IC seems to be today is the stupid creationist probability argument based on multiple parts. ...

There was quite the discussion of "Irreducible Complexity" back in the day, when I posted "Target? TARGET? We don't need no stinkin' Target!" Some creationists argued that it wasn't the "missing part = knockout of function" part of IC's definition that was important, but simply the history. If it could be shown that some complicated feature could have evolved naturally, they said, then that "clearly" wasn't "Irreducibly complex." In the end, "Irreducible Complexity" has morphed into a term with the new meaning "Couldn't have evolved." Humph! Cheers, Dave

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Well, hey, it's been fun. Happy New Year (and Merry Kitzmas)!
Cheers, Dave