Failed Prophecies: An ID Anniversary

Re: Anniversary. That by 2000 there'd be conclusive proof that the earth was 6,000 years old? Just guessing here. Don't leave us hanging. :)

People have been claiming Evolution(ary Biology) would be dead for 149 years. One wonders why these people haven't attempted to get a new, and possibly more accurate hobby by now.

Funny, Dembski's acolytes keep claiming that evolution is already dead, it's just that the hundreds of thousands of professional scientists that have anything to do with evolution haven't noticed yet.

Don't IDists have some private alternative reality they can go an slip into, and leave the rest of us in peace?

People have been claiming Evolution(ary Biology) would be dead for 149 years. One wonders why these people haven’t attempted to get a new, and possibly more accurate hobby by now.

Don’t IDists have some private alternative reality they can go an slip into, and leave the rest of us in peace?

Would the prophecy be some juicy tidbit expressed in the Wedge Document, asserting that Intelligent Design would supplant evolution as the valid scientific theory worthy of study in science classrooms? Of course, they're absolutely right..... and if you really believe what I just said, then I have a bridge for sale over in Brooklyn, NY.

By the way, another ID anniversary is nearly upon us. Any guesses as to what it is?

— Richard B. Hoppe

Yay Kristine!

BTW - Is this the anniversary of the Famous Dembski Broken Promise to buy someone a single-malt bottle of scotch if ID lost at Dover?

7 April 2004 to be exact.

I have a a bit more of the article here, including this:

He [Dembski] calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans. ...

As if Dembski's or anyone else's gut reation should be taught as science at taxpayers' expense!

Yes! Paul Nelson Day is was what came to my mind.

Awww, poor IDers, you nasty people picking on them like this.

John Pieret said: I have a a bit more of the article here, including this: He [Dembski] calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans. ... As if Dembski's or anyone else's gut reation should be taught as science at taxpayers' expense!

Isn't there something in the ID science book that warns about "false prophets" or something? Not that anybody ever fails to weasel their way out of their own religious beliefs. Just sayin though...

John Pieret said: I have a a bit more of the article here, including this: He [Dembski] calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans. ... As if Dembski's or anyone else's gut reation should be taught as science at taxpayers' expense!

Isn’t there something in the ID science book that warns about “false prophets” or something?

The penalty for false prophecy, according to the biblical context, is capital punishment (per Deuteronomy 13:1-5). "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

John Pieret said: I have a a bit more of the article here, including this: He [Dembski] calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans. ...

And yet by the test of making money by publishing potboilers, the theme of the approaching death of Darwinism is a proven winner. Darwinism won't be dead by 2025, but neither will the writing of books promising its demise.

Anniversary? Beatdown in Dover?

I keep asking them why they don’t just find a theocracy and join it rather than attempting to destroy the USA and set up their own. Haven’t got an answer yet.

brian said: Anniversary? Beatdown in Dover?

John Kwok said: No, that occurs on December 20th, which will be the 6th anniversary of Judge John Jones's ruling at the close of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial:

brian said: Anniversary? Beatdown in Dover?

But it could be the sixth anniversary soon of the "Shakedown in Dover", when the ever adorable Bill Dembski charged the Dover Area School District for serving as a witness on his behalf, while still backing out when he realized that he couldn't have his own private attorney present at the trial. If I'm not mistaken, Bill's act was that of larceny, charging the Dover Area School District board to the tune of $20,000.

You should be aware the Dr. Dr. Dembski published a book on how the world may be retrospectively changed. Since he believes the sin came into this world this way it seems not unlikely that it doesn't matter to him if his prediction doesn't come true in 2015. He may then claim that it will happen in the far future but that it will then be also true for the past and the present.

How about this anniversary? How is that wager working out?

On 5 April Dembski offered a wager concerning Pianka:

"I'm willing to wager $1000 with David Hillis that sympathy not just nationally but at UTAustin for Pianka will take a nose dive once his TAS speech goes public. Of course, we need to set the terms of this wager more precisely. But it's a wager easily settled — Pianka needs merely to make his speech before the TAS public (the actual speech — not a bowdlerized version of it)."

brian said:

I keep asking them why they don’t just find a theocracy and join it rather than attempting to destroy the USA and set up their own. Haven’t got an answer yet.

While I know you being fesicious, it is a lot easier to take advantage of free speech and freedom of religion to promote your ideas, then co-opting government institutions to get rid of these liberties, than it is to crash a theocracy different from your own. Thankfully, my scenario is pretty unlikely too.

This is a great collection of failed predictions to go with the several Kristine mentioned in her post.

I'll wager a bottle of vintage Blatz. (Room temperature of course.) I'll even throw in a baloney sandwich.

If Dembski can make predictions, so can I:

Prediction 1: In 2016, after being reminded of what he said in 2006, Dembski will mine a few quotes to pretend that “Darwinists” have abandoned the “old Darwinism,” and claim to be vindicated. Remember that to properly execute their scam they need “Darwinism” to be both dead and dying at the same time. And of course falsified and unfalsifiable. So there is no way they can let “Darwinism” die, even in the remote chance that evolution actually does.

Prediction 2: If anything ever comes of “Ontogenetic Depth” it will not be a new scientific explanation for the origin of species, but another fancy incredulity argument that neither offers anything promising or uncovers any weakness in evolution (the fact or the theory). But like all elaborate incredulity arguments it will give nonscientists cool but misleading sound bites, while the refutations of those sound bites will be too technical to understand by all but a few % that are both science-literate and closely follow the antics of anti-evolution activists. IOW it will be like everything else the DI does.

The DI, if not those Bible-based pseudoscience outfits, is forever forced to pull a bait-and-switch at nearly every turn. Even if they turn out to be correct that design is both empirically detectable and responsible for “something” in biology, the best explanation will still be Darwinian evolution, and the conclusions will still include ~4 billion years of common descent. If they had even the slightest confidence that mainstream science was wrong about any of that, there would not be this hopeless disagreement among them as to what happened instead, and when. Behe still thinks that “non Darwinian” species changes occur in-vivo, and have periodically for ~4 billion years. Other DI folk seem to think, but never say for sure, that different lineages originated from nonliving matter periodically over ~4 billion years. Still others, like Nelson, think that life, and even the planet it inhabits is on the order of half a million times younger than most of his DI buddies. With that much internal disagreement the last thing they need to worry about is “Darwinism.”

Speaking of Nelson, it has been more than 2 years since another PT poster mentioned the possibility that Nelson might be an Omphalos creationist (one who admits that their conclusions are faith-based, and that the evidence would not support it) instead of a “true” YEC. So I asked him while he was briefly posting here. He replied to one or two other comments, suggesting that he saw my question but ignored it.

They can’t even answer a simple yes or no question, yet they pretend that they will replace (or “have replaced,” depending on which sound bite is cooler at the moment) 150 years of biology, and the case of the “alternate age” advocates, all fields of science.

We should be coming up to some Freshwater anniversary, no?

Like all ID/creationists, Dembski never got himself into the lab. He never actually designed and built apparatus and instrumentation based on how nature works. He has never put his misconceptions to any real test against nature. He has never experienced the result that, with such designs and implementations, everything in the experiment works as expected and makes the next step into our understanding of nature. Thus none of the ID/creationists can even imagine just how far off track their misconceptions are. So they confidently bluster and promise the demise of real science without having the slightest idea of what real scientists know and do.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said:

Like all ID/creationists, Dembski never got himself into the lab. He never actually designed and built apparatus and instrumentation based on how nature works. He has never put his misconceptions to any real test against nature. He has never experienced the result that, with such designs and implementations, everything in the experiment works as expected and makes the next step into our understanding of nature. Thus none of the ID/creationists can even imagine just how far off track their misconceptions are. So they confidently bluster and promise the demise of real science without having the slightest idea of what real scientists know and do.

— Mike Elzinga

Maybe Dembski has not been in a biology lab, but at least Behe and Wells have. But that gives them less of an excuse for not having a promising alternate theory by now. But even if biologists are few among DI fellows, they are funded enough to lure any scientist who is willing to sell out to pseudoscience - and sadly there are plenty of them, if only because pseudoscience is more lucrative than science in our culture. Certainly some of those sell-outs are "experimentin' away" at the Biologic Institute as we speak. I expect another "peer reviewed" vacuous argument from incredulity any day now. But they can afford to take their time, because what they have now still sells, even to those with the ability, if not the interest, to know better. I think the main DI guys not only "can imagine," but "know darn well" how "far off track their misconceptions are."

Proof that the concept of ontogenetic depth is fishy:

Ontogenetic depth partitioning by juvenile freshwater sawfish (Pristis microdon: Pristidae) in a riverine environment

Marine and Freshwater Research 60(4) 306–316 (2008)

Frank J said: Certainly some of those sell-outs are "experimentin' away" at the Biologic Institute as we speak.

James F said:

Frank J said: Certainly some of those sell-outs are "experimentin' away" at the Biologic Institute as we speak.

They are just doing a bang-up job. Even though the DI famously picks and chooses (and alters) its list of "peer-reviewed publications," the BI has nothing listed for 2009.

John Kwok said: And don't forget Scott Minnich too, Frank J. Unlike Dembski, he did testify at Dover:

Stanton said:

James F said:

Frank J said: Certainly some of those sell-outs are "experimentin' away" at the Biologic Institute as we speak.

They are just doing a bang-up job. Even though the DI famously picks and chooses (and alters) its list of "peer-reviewed publications," the BI has nothing listed for 2009.

Did they have anything listed ever?

Frank J said: Maybe Dembski has not been in a biology lab, but at least Behe and Wells have.

Might I extend your comment Mike to suggest that my own lab experience suggests that the current teaching approach to moving students from book science to research is very scattershot at best. I found my lab experiences in classes to be of little value in teaching research methods, and of little value in learning concepts as well. Similarly my real lab apprenticeships seemed to have a lot in common with cooking from a recipe. It's the recipe aspect that seems very good at cranking out technicians with PhDs.

stevaroni said:

John Kwok said: And don't forget Scott Minnich too, Frank J. Unlike Dembski, he did testify at Dover:

Yes. Badly. Really, really, badly. One can only imagine what cutting edge "research" he's going to be releasing on his Shroud of Turin project.

If by the demise of Evolution, we mean the demise of Evolution defined as:

"Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence"

(see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-modest-proposal/)

Then Dembski is probably correct.

Mike,

Unfortunately your analysis doesn't quite explain Behe's "evolution" from a quite decent biochemist into a crypto - Xian propagandist. Nor does it account for Minnich's ability to do decent research as long as it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design cretinism. Moreover, your comments don't quite explain how someone as brilliant as Kurt Wise was able to hold onto his Xian "Christian" beliefs and turn out a credible Ph. D. dissertation under the supervision of none other than Stephen Jay Gould.

Dolly Sheriff said: If by the demise of Evolution, we mean the demise of Evolution defined as: "Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence" (see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-modest-proposal/) Then Dembski is probably correct.

Not only that, but your citation illustrates Dembski's profound ignorance and understanding of modern biology, especially with the processes responsible for biological evolution.

ME: To those of us who have lived most of our professional lives in the lab, these ID/creationists don’t ring true. Whatever they did in the lab, they didn’t have to think through anything they did.

Dolly Sheriff said: If by the demise of Evolution, we mean the demise of Evolution defined as: "Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence" (see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-modest-proposal/) Then Dembski is probably correct.

Haven't the creationists been declaring evolution dead for a century or more? Isn't it the field most frequently declared dead in all science? Of course Dembski can pop up after 10 years and announce (once again, yawn) that evolution is dead, and he was right.

Remember, the way things come true in creationland is to SAY they're true.

It's easy to make predictions. The problem with "expertise people" in predictions is that "normal" people haven't enough patience to wait years and finally compare prediction and reality. I do not listen them.

John Kwok said: Mike, Unfortunately your analysis doesn't quite explain Behe's "evolution" from a quite decent biochemist into a crypto - Xian propagandist. Nor does it account for Minnich's ability to do decent research as long as it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design cretinism. Moreover, your comments don't quite explain how someone as brilliant as Kurt Wise was able to hold onto his Xian "Christian" beliefs and turn out a credible Ph. D. dissertation under the supervision of none other than Stephen Jay Gould.

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationism is a heady power trip for these characters; especially when they are young and green and, at best, barely average in their research abilities on routine easy stuff.

Dolly Sheriff said: If by the demise of Evolution, we mean the demise of Evolution defined as: "Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence" (see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-modest-proposal/) Then Dembski is probably correct.

Mike I am curious if you have noticed any trends, commonalities, or possible solutions to these training issues for scientists?

In Kurt Wise's case, Gould was trying to be "fair", lest he be accused of some kind of intolerant bias toward a YEC like Wise (I also suspect that Gould was willing to do this since Wise had been a prized undergraduate student of University of Chicago invertebrate paleobiologist Thomas J. M. Schopf, who was a friend of Gould's even if he was also a harsh critic of punctuated equilibrium.).

JGB said: Mike I am curious if you have noticed any trends, commonalities, or possible solutions to these training issues for scientists?

I see that they have found another missing link in the Homids (SP?} series

Mike,

The suits have wreaked havoc upon American manufacturing. I suggest moratorium on MBA programs across the US for the next 20 years. It is the companies where MBAs are kept under check - Apple, MS, GE - that have done really well. HP hired an MBA who nearly destroyed the company, and now the company is back on track with men and women of science. Big Pharma, Wall Street, Detroit, are all monuments to the incompetence of MBAs

rimpal said: Mike, The suits have wreaked havoc upon American manufacturing. I suggest moratorium on MBA programs across the US for the next 20 years. It is the companies where MBAs are kept under check - Apple, MS, GE - that have done really well. HP hired an MBA who nearly destroyed the company, and now the company is back on track with men and women of science. Big Pharma, Wall Street, Detroit, are all monuments to the incompetence of MBAs

Oh, boy! More crazy from Mabus! He must have chewed through the straps again...

Mike Elzinga said:

JGB said: Mike I am curious if you have noticed any trends, commonalities, or possible solutions to these training issues for scientists?

Indeed; and there are many contributing factors. Every one of these factors has a similar effect; they draw the mentor’s attention away from the close relationship a mentor needs to have with students, even to the extent that the mentor cannot spend sufficient time in the lab. That’s at the university. In industry, the trend over the years has been to dismantle the labs. These decisions are being made by a “country club” crowd of peddlers and b-school types who worm their way into positions of responsibility and decision-making without having any idea of what they are managing. Prosperity has had a particularly bad consequence of allowing armchair philosophers and neophytes to gain power and influence without getting the necessary training, expertise, and experience to handle such responsibilities. We then get auto company managers ignoring technical and scientific advice on how to build autos. We get school administrators who have no idea of what scientific and technical training are all about. We get politicians who play gotcha games with each other while having no ability to understand fundamental issues that have nothing to do with politics. We get classified (non-scrutinized) “research” being managed by generals with too much money and no ability to vet the technical and scientific capabilities and honesty of the people they give money to. Overcrowding in education at every level contributes to time pressures on everyone to do more with less and to deal with problems over which they have no control.

Wolfhound said: Oh, boy! More crazy from Mabus! He must have chewed through the straps again...

dmabus said: actually I am the *ONLY* sane one here... . . . atheists deny their own life element… LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

but you are just a HEADLESS IDIOT....

ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out.

Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now.

In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

dmabus said: but you are just a HEADLESS IDIOT....

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

but you only use words or something like that.... which really MEAN NOTHING...

Atheists

GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE…

you little liars do nothing but antagonize…

and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…

but you LOST…

THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…

*************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

*************************************

atheists deny their own life element…

LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

********************************
***************************LIGHT*********
************************************

dmabus said: you little liars do nothing but antagonize…

you got what you DESERVE...

...but you only use words or something like that

(not nearly enough asterisks, in other words)

dmabus said: you got what you DESERVE...

John, first off, you're talking with Dan Mabus, a Canadian lunatic who has no ability to be reasoned with at all. Spambots have more in common with humans in terms of rationality, reason and compassion than does Mr Mabus.

Secondly, he's Canadian, ergo, the Dover trial has no direct influence on Canadian laws or policies.

Thirdly, to a creationist, if you don't toe the party line 100% and don't agree with all aspects of party dogma, you might as well be an evil devil-worshiping, baby-eating monster.

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

Stanton said: John, first off, you're talking with Dan Mabus, a Canadian lunatic who has no ability to be reasoned with at all. Spambots have more in common with humans in terms of rationality, reason and compassion than does Mr Mabus. Secondly, he's Canadian, ergo, the Dover trial has no direct influence on Canadian laws or policies. Thirdly, to a creationist, if you don't toe the party line 100% and don't agree with all aspects of party dogma, you might as well be an evil devil-worshiping, baby-eating monster.

Dan Mabus doesn't know anything: he reduced himself to the human equivalent of an invective-laced spambot.

Mike Elzinga said:

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

In the 40+ years I have been watching them their tactics, when slapped down in the courts, seem to be to go underground until they perceive another political opportunity. The fundamentalist churches are still pushing their stuff, and there is still a big market for “creationist-friendly” textbooks for home schooling. Ken Ham certainly has figured this out. You need only to look at the intensity of their beliefs about how the wicked, Satan-driven world is warring against them to realize that they will keep this going as long as their personality cult leadership keeps harping on these phony issues from their pulpits. There will almost certainly be a considerable amount of stealth in their activities until the political winds change. The major change going against them in recent years has been the fact that so much of their debunked misconceptions are now out on the internet for all to see. They can no longer take it back and deny they made up any of that crap. ID/creationism is solidly pseudo-science; and only the most intransigent ignoramuses continue to deny it.

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

In the 40+ years I have been watching them their tactics, when slapped down in the courts, seem to be to go underground until they perceive another political opportunity. The fundamentalist churches are still pushing their stuff, and there is still a big market for “creationist-friendly” textbooks for home schooling. Ken Ham certainly has figured this out.

James F said:

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

Overt references to ID failed miserably post-Dover. ID was not explicitly mentioned in virtually any other proposed bill, their journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design folded, and, with the exception of that joke of a paper from Voie, even the DI couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed papers "supporting" ID for 2006, 2007, and 2008. That's astonishing - my personal publication record blew them away for those three years. They are still a PR force to be reckoned with, however. Just look at their influence on the science curriculum standards in Texas, where Stephen Meyer spoke as an appointed expert to the review committee. Let that sink in for a minute.

John Kwok said: As for the Xian - Far Right alliance, that has been unraveling in reaction to the 2006 and 2008 national elections (For those who think that the Tea Party Movement is yet another manifestation of that alliance, then you're mistaken. Instead, it seems to be a populist movement based on a concerned citizenry's legitimate concerns of excessive government spending, and an activist Progressive-oriented Federal Government interested in expanding its power at the expense of both the states and citizens. One clear sign of this was the Tea Party Movement's initial reluctance to join forces with the Republican Party, simply because of its longstanding ties to the Xian Far Right.). Moreover, I believe that that alliance is also splitting due to differences with respect to promoting conservation biology and acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (There is, for example, increasing recognition by some Xians - including creationists - that we need to preserve and to protect for future generations, GOD's creation (Earth's biodiversity). In recognition of this, eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson has been among those reaching out to this segment of the Xian community.).

amyc said:

John Kwok said: As for the Xian - Far Right alliance, that has been unraveling in reaction to the 2006 and 2008 national elections (For those who think that the Tea Party Movement is yet another manifestation of that alliance, then you're mistaken. Instead, it seems to be a populist movement based on a concerned citizenry's legitimate concerns of excessive government spending, and an activist Progressive-oriented Federal Government interested in expanding its power at the expense of both the states and citizens. One clear sign of this was the Tea Party Movement's initial reluctance to join forces with the Republican Party, simply because of its longstanding ties to the Xian Far Right.). Moreover, I believe that that alliance is also splitting due to differences with respect to promoting conservation biology and acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (There is, for example, increasing recognition by some Xians - including creationists - that we need to preserve and to protect for future generations, GOD's creation (Earth's biodiversity). In recognition of this, eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson has been among those reaching out to this segment of the Xian community.).

I know this really isn't the place for politics, but I have to disagree on what you said about the TP "movement". If they were really that concerned about fiscal responsibility, then where were they when we had a president who sent us from a surplus to a deficit and at the same time cut taxes that favored the rich? I don't buy the whole tea party thing, it's all made up by fox and glenn beck. That's all I'll say on politics. You may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. Now let's get back to the real topic...Has anyone else read Republican Gamorrah? It's about the extreme religious right's stranglehold on the Republican party. After reading that book, I'm thinking that the xians are still a big threat. You're right though that some of them are coming around on climate change...but only some. I know a few people who still say that they don't believe in climate change (or global warming, whichever) because they don't believe that God would let humanity destroy his (they always say his) creation. To which I reply: the dodo bird, the buffalo herds (almost!), and the thousands of other species that we kill off every year by destroying the rainforests.

James F said:

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

Overt references to ID failed miserably post-Dover. ID was not explicitly mentioned in virtually any other proposed bill, their journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design folded, and, with the exception of that joke of a paper from Voie, even the DI couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed papers "supporting" ID for 2006, 2007, and 2008. That's astonishing - my personal publication record blew them away for those three years. They are still a PR force to be reckoned with, however. Just look at their influence on the science curriculum standards in Texas, where Stephen Meyer spoke as an appointed expert to the review committee. Let that sink in for a minute. </blockquote

James F said:

Brian said: ID took a major hit in Dover. Not only did they lose in court, but they lost at the polls as the school board who tried to get creationism ID in the class room got voted out. Yes, the DI, AIG etc., still crank out press releases, give talks, and so on, but it is my impression that they have not recovered from Dover. Most people are paying them less attention now. In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

Overt references to ID failed miserably post-Dover. ID was not explicitly mentioned in virtually any other proposed bill, their journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design folded, and, with the exception of that joke of a paper from Voie, even the DI couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed papers "supporting" ID for 2006, 2007, and 2008. That's astonishing - my personal publication record blew them away for those three years. They are still a PR force to be reckoned with, however. Just look at their influence on the science curriculum standards in Texas, where Stephen Meyer spoke as an appointed expert to the review committee. Let that sink in for a minute.

Yeah, Texas science ejemacashun sucks. I know, I'm a victim of it. My biology "coach" spent a total of one day discussing evolution, and that was only to say something about how scientists have never observed even bacteria changing which means that if even smaller organisms can't change then how could there be evolution of anything? I know, it made no sense (and it's based on a complete lie), but I never got any real education about evolution until college, and now I'm pretty sure I want to major in paleontology. My health "coach" was also morally against teaching safe sex so we didn't even go over that chapter. We discussed it for a day, but he didn't really answer any questions other then to say that we shouldn't have sex. Texas education is ridiculous. They are held down by religious fundamentals. My mom wanted me to go to TCU, Baylor, or SAGU, but I decided I would rather go to a state college because I wouldn't have to worry about fundie dogma all the time.

Jesse said:

amyc said:

John Kwok said: As for the Xian - Far Right alliance, that has been unraveling in reaction to the 2006 and 2008 national elections (For those who think that the Tea Party Movement is yet another manifestation of that alliance, then you're mistaken. Instead, it seems to be a populist movement based on a concerned citizenry's legitimate concerns of excessive government spending, and an activist Progressive-oriented Federal Government interested in expanding its power at the expense of both the states and citizens. One clear sign of this was the Tea Party Movement's initial reluctance to join forces with the Republican Party, simply because of its longstanding ties to the Xian Far Right.). Moreover, I believe that that alliance is also splitting due to differences with respect to promoting conservation biology and acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (There is, for example, increasing recognition by some Xians - including creationists - that we need to preserve and to protect for future generations, GOD's creation (Earth's biodiversity). In recognition of this, eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson has been among those reaching out to this segment of the Xian community.).

I know this really isn't the place for politics, but I have to disagree on what you said about the TP "movement". If they were really that concerned about fiscal responsibility, then where were they when we had a president who sent us from a surplus to a deficit and at the same time cut taxes that favored the rich? I don't buy the whole tea party thing, it's all made up by fox and glenn beck. That's all I'll say on politics. You may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. Now let's get back to the real topic...Has anyone else read Republican Gamorrah? It's about the extreme religious right's stranglehold on the Republican party. After reading that book, I'm thinking that the xians are still a big threat. You're right though that some of them are coming around on climate change...but only some. I know a few people who still say that they don't believe in climate change (or global warming, whichever) because they don't believe that God would let humanity destroy his (they always say his) creation. To which I reply: the dodo bird, the buffalo herds (almost!), and the thousands of other species that we kill off every year by destroying the rainforests.

The TP is just like the Republicans and the Democrats. For every good idea that it is supposedly founded on, there are at least three nutters that get to make decisions for the party. Yes, I'm disenchanted with our politicians.

dmabus said: actually I am the *ONLY* sane one here... Atheists, GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE… you little liars do nothing but antagonize… and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity… but you LOST… THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780 Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism… ************************************* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ ************************************* atheists deny their own life element… LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

Dale Husband said: Take your fraud and shove it all back up your @$$!

dmabus said: actually I am the *ONLY* sane one here... Atheists, GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE… you little liars do nothing but antagonize… and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity… but you LOST… THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780 Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism… ************************************* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ ************************************* atheists deny their own life element… LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

amyc said:

John Kwok said: As for the Xian - Far Right alliance, that has been unraveling in reaction to the 2006 and 2008 national elections (For those who think that the Tea Party Movement is yet another manifestation of that alliance, then you're mistaken. Instead, it seems to be a populist movement based on a concerned citizenry's legitimate concerns of excessive government spending, and an activist Progressive-oriented Federal Government interested in expanding its power at the expense of both the states and citizens. One clear sign of this was the Tea Party Movement's initial reluctance to join forces with the Republican Party, simply because of its longstanding ties to the Xian Far Right.). Moreover, I believe that that alliance is also splitting due to differences with respect to promoting conservation biology and acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (There is, for example, increasing recognition by some Xians - including creationists - that we need to preserve and to protect for future generations, GOD's creation (Earth's biodiversity). In recognition of this, eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson has been among those reaching out to this segment of the Xian community.).

I know this really isn't the place for politics, but I have to disagree on what you said about the TP "movement". If they were really that concerned about fiscal responsibility, then where were they when we had a president who sent us from a surplus to a deficit and at the same time cut taxes that favored the rich? I don't buy the whole tea party thing, it's all made up by fox and glenn beck. That's all I'll say on politics. You may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. Now let's get back to the real topic...Has anyone else read Republican Gamorrah? It's about the extreme religious right's stranglehold on the Republican party. After reading that book, I'm thinking that the xians are still a big threat. You're right though that some of them are coming around on climate change...but only some. I know a few people who still say that they don't believe in climate change (or global warming, whichever) because they don't believe that God would let humanity destroy his (they always say his) creation. To which I reply: the dodo bird, the buffalo herds (almost!), and the thousands of other species that we kill off every year by destroying the rainforests.

amyc said: I suggest we just ignore this mabus guy. He obviously doesn't give any real responses to anyone, and he doesn't add anything to the discussion. We should just treat his posts like they are not there

Oh, crap. Mabus is Canadian, too?

Sorry everyone.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Too long on the lone prairie, I guess.

This is a bit off topic but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.
I followed the link from this topic to Glenn Mortons blog on Global Warming. I take it from his blog that he thinks global snow cover is evidence against global warming. This sounds fishy to me but I don't feel I have the knowledge to question it. Anyone want to give me an educated opinion on this? If not here, somewhere else? Thanks.

I hold out precious little hope that the Tea party is somehow resistant to fundamentalist take over. Over the top essentially anti-government rhetoric, they've already conquered that territory. Perhaps the relationship between Republicans and fundamentalists could be broken if both the Tea party and Micheal Steele stick around

In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they’re less of a threat now. What’s your take?

— Brian

JGB said: I hold out precious little hope that the Tea party is somehow resistant to fundamentalist take over. Over the top essentially anti-government rhetoric, they've already conquered that territory. Perhaps the relationship between Republicans and fundamentalists could be broken if both the Tea party and Micheal Steele stick around

dmabus said: THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

Brian said: In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

eric said:

Brian said: In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

I don't think I completely agree with your (later posted) 'low ebb' comment. I think it would be better to say that the faux-secular-science aspect of creationism is at a low ebb; the creationist movement seems to be moving back to a more overtly religious stance, and away from pretending it has a viable alternative explanation. Legally there hasn't been a lot of movement since Dover (no major court cases). Politically they've been successful in passing some vague laws (LA) and standards (TX). These don't seem to have caused any change in science education yet, but their passage implies the movement isn't ebbing in terms of political influence. This part of is just my opinion, but I don't think numerically the number of creationists have significantly changed since Dover, and so I'd argue there has been no "ebb" in terms of acceptance of creationist ideas by the public. ***** Hey RBH, any chance you can reveal the mystery anniversary you referred to in the original post?

eric said:

Brian said: In short, yeah, Dembski et al. are annoying, but they're less of a threat now. What's your take?

I don't think I completely agree with your (later posted) 'low ebb' comment. I think it would be better to say that the faux-secular-science aspect of creationism is at a low ebb; the creationist movement seems to be moving back to a more overtly religious stance, and away from pretending it has a viable alternative explanation. Legally there hasn't been a lot of movement since Dover (no major court cases). Politically they've been successful in passing some vague laws (LA) and standards (TX). These don't seem to have caused any change in science education yet, but their passage implies the movement isn't ebbing in terms of political influence. This part of is just my opinion, but I don't think numerically the number of creationists have significantly changed since Dover, and so I'd argue there has been no "ebb" in terms of acceptance of creationist ideas by the public. ***** Hey RBH, any chance you can reveal the mystery anniversary you referred to in the original post?

rimpal said: Mike, The suits have wreaked havoc upon American manufacturing. I suggest moratorium on MBA programs across the US for the next 20 years. It is the companies where MBAs are kept under check - Apple, MS, GE - that have done really well. HP hired an MBA who nearly destroyed the company, and now the company is back on track with men and women of science. Big Pharma, Wall Street, Detroit, are all monuments to the incompetence of MBAs

This part of is just my opinion, but I don’t think numerically the number of creationists have significantly changed since Dover, and so I’d argue there has been no “ebb” in terms of acceptance of creationist ideas by the public.

— eric

SLC said: Isn't that incompetent MBA now running for Governor of California. Just what that state needs.

Some Young Adults Are Leaving Church What’s their gripe? And what can you learn from this exodus? By Doug Horchak An April-May 2007 study in the United States found that young adults are leaving Christian churches in record numbers. The primary reason? They find their church irrelevant to their lives and many of its members judgmental or hypocritical. A survey by LifeWay Research revealed that seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23 And 34% of those said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30 … “‘This is sobering news,’ says Ed Stetzer, director of Nashville-based LifeWay Research, which is affiliated with the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. ‘It seems the teen years are like a free trial on a product. By 18, when it’s their choice whether to buy in to church life, many don’t feel engaged and welcome,’ says associate director Scott McConnell” (Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Young Adults Aren’t Sticking With Church,” USA Today, Aug. 8, 2007). Barna poll: Even among young Christians … [half] of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be, too judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.

google screen: ‘Cardinal Cormac: ‘Atheism the greatest of evils.” by Ruth …May 22, 2009 … You need that behaviour to gain and strengthen your superior Catholic Morality to withstand sub-human atheist danger to the proper working … www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?…Atheism… - Cached ‘Atheists ‘not fully human’, says Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor …I am also surprised that this interview didn’t ask the natural follow-up question “do you think that atheists are subhuman?” …

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor Paedo Protector - Name and shame …A priest at the centre of the latest child abuse scandal to rock the Catholic Church has been moved from his Sussex parish. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor …

Some commenters are suggesting those predicting the demise of evolution should get a more fruitful hobby. I suppose watching simulated creationist sex is a turnoff for some, but the 'Reproduction Cycle In Lower Life Forms Under the Rocks of Mars' shows either the majesty of God's work, or direct creation's flat out improbability. From the Church of the Subgenius, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=560641303896109248#

It is hilarious.

The Texas thing is a nightmare. They have attacked far more than just science. They have even removed Thomas Jefferson as a prominent figure in the 18th century from the history standards simply because they don't like him. They're going after everything they can. They've gone off the deep end, but I personally see a lot of rope being given to them.

Rocket Mike said:

The Texas thing is a nightmare. They have attacked far more than just science. They have even removed Thomas Jefferson as a prominent figure in the 18th century from the history standards simply because they don't like him. They're going after everything they can. They've gone off the deep end, but I personally see a lot of rope being given to them.

There is good news from Texas! Little Lord McLeroy, the deposed chairman of the TSBOE, has also been defeated in the Republican primary. The rational Republicans evidently would not put up with any more of his undermining of education standards. Two more of the members that were supporting the dumbing down of science and social studies decided not to run after their agenda were attacked. A third, who voted for the social studies debacle, was also defeated in her bid to return to the board. They won't be there to undermine the textbook selection next year, but they can still do damage with the final vote on standards later this year. However, I think the awful standards can be circumvented by good teachers and reasonable textbooks.

Glenn Morton is a global warming denying nutjob. Why are you quoting him?

Science said: Glenn Morton is a global warming denying nutjob. Why are you quoting him?

By my reckoning, based on the ARIS surveys, between 1 and 2 million people leave the religion every year.

— raven

That list of failed predictions was great, but surely they should have included:
"They called me mad? I'll show them who's mad! HAHAHAHAHAAHA!"
Because some of them have surely said that and haven't shown us yet.
Okay, well technically, they have, but not in the way they'd intend.

Frank, look at his blog, The Migrant Mind. It's hard for me to say whether he denies not only the AGW, but the GW as such, he seems to be all over the place. He constantly argues that the current data used to prove GW is useless, for one.

Moreover, his rhetoric there is the usual denier rhetoric and sarcasm. He swallowed the "Climategate" wholesale. He claims that "Climatologists are not to be trusted" (just like that, without qualifiers). He compares climatologists to YECs. He also has the Galileo-Bozo complex.

Here's a sample of his writing on GW:

"When I clicked on the first link, I got the following evidence of suppression of dissent from global warming advocates.

These hysteriacs who claim to be on the side of science are really interested only in suppressing free research and freedom of expression. I got to the info I wanted by going to the cached pages. It seems that these AGW folk simply can’t stand to be criticized. They settle the science by not allowing any dissent."

I know Morton's story very well. I was a fan of his essays. But after he showed his true face it's not longer possible to consider him a rational person. He got over his YECism but that's that.

John Kwok said: The Tea Party Movement started back in February after a MSNBC news reporter suggested that we needed a tea party to stop excessive government spending. Almost immediately they started to spring up. The Tea Party Movement is a genuine grass roots movement aimed at curbing a Progressive Socialist-leaning expansion of the Federal Government, reduce government spending and restore more civil liberties toward both individual states and citizens.

I mentioned in another thread about Kentucky (creationism in Connecticut) which I'll repeat here:

Kentucky, 2010 March 6th, 2010 One “academic freedom” bill was introduced in Kentucky in 2010. Bill Details

Bill Number: HB 397 Title: Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act Introduction Date: February 8, 2010 Current Status: Referred to House Education Committee

Here’s the text: http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1287

Frank J said: No one would like to see organized religion go away more than I, but in the unlikely event of that I'm convinced that we'd still have a problem with poor science education, and peddlers of pseudoscientific snake oil. It wouldn't surprise me if Dembski said that he had been an atheist all along.

Scientia said: Moreover, his rhetoric there is the usual denier rhetoric and sarcasm. He swallowed the "Climategate" wholesale. He claims that "Climatologists are not to be trusted" (just like that, without qualifiers). He compares climatologists to YECs. He also has the Galileo-Bozo complex.

DavidK said: I mentioned in another thread about Kentucky (creationism in Connecticut) which I'll repeat here: Kentucky, 2010 March 6th, 2010 One “academic freedom” bill was introduced in Kentucky in 2010. Bill Details Bill Number: HB 397 Title: Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act Introduction Date: February 8, 2010 Current Status: Referred to House Education Committee Here’s the text: http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1287

James F said:

Frank J said: No one would like to see organized religion go away more than I, but in the unlikely event of that I'm convinced that we'd still have a problem with poor science education, and peddlers of pseudoscientific snake oil. It wouldn't surprise me if Dembski said that he had been an atheist all along.

I'm guessing you're being tongue-in-cheek, Frank, but without the funding of religious fundamentalists the Discovery Institute would have about the same influence as the Time Cube guy, and without their basic Dominionist modus operandi, their entire raison d'être vanishes.

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

John Kwok said: The Tea Party Movement started back in February after a MSNBC news reporter suggested that we needed a tea party to stop excessive government spending. Almost immediately they started to spring up. The Tea Party Movement is a genuine grass roots movement aimed at curbing a Progressive Socialist-leaning expansion of the Federal Government, reduce government spending and restore more civil liberties toward both individual states and citizens.

Spontaneous? Grass-roots? Pffft. John, you're talking out your arse on this one. The teabaggers are being promoted from "below" by white supremacist organizations who are mainstreaming their Xian terrorism via friendly mouthpieces like Faux Noise, Whirled Nut Doily, Dredge, etc. Stop trying to portray the new white power movement as being something actually sensible, credible, or even popular. The fringers are getting a lot of play right now, but they're just being manipulated with divisive ploys and white suburban race paranoia. Restoring civil liberties? WTF are you smoking, Kwok? You sound like a YEC'er when you speak of the 'baggers.

Hey, we already had a thread locked due to politics, let's try to keep that to a minimum.

Alex H said: Hey, we already had a thread locked due to politics, let's try to keep that to a minimum.

And the mystery anniversary is close. :)

— RBH

RBH said: This is a great collection of failed predictions to go with the several Kristine mentioned in her post.

Frank J said:

RBH said: This is a great collection of failed predictions to go with the several Kristine mentioned in her post.

I took that to mean that all our guesses were wrong. But SWT (April 3, 2:55 PM) got it right (though someone else came very close).

John Kwok said: The Tea Party Movement started back in February after a MSNBC news reporter suggested that we needed a tea party to stop excessive government spending. Almost immediately they started to spring up. The Tea Party Movement is a genuine grass roots movement aimed at curbing a Progressive Socialist-leaning expansion of the Federal Government, reduce government spending and restore more civil liberties toward both individual states and citizens. Cutting taxes to "favor the rich" is a policy which that great Republican president, John F. Kennedy, used to help spur economic growth in the early 1960s. He recognized that doing this would help ensure greater economic prosperity and substantial job growth. It's too bad the President of the United States seems committed to his Progressive Socialist agenda, instead of trying to learn from what Kennedy and Clinton did right in ensuring our country's economic prosperity:

amyc said:

John Kwok said: As for the Xian - Far Right alliance, that has been unraveling in reaction to the 2006 and 2008 national elections (For those who think that the Tea Party Movement is yet another manifestation of that alliance, then you're mistaken. Instead, it seems to be a populist movement based on a concerned citizenry's legitimate concerns of excessive government spending, and an activist Progressive-oriented Federal Government interested in expanding its power at the expense of both the states and citizens. One clear sign of this was the Tea Party Movement's initial reluctance to join forces with the Republican Party, simply because of its longstanding ties to the Xian Far Right.). Moreover, I believe that that alliance is also splitting due to differences with respect to promoting conservation biology and acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (There is, for example, increasing recognition by some Xians - including creationists - that we need to preserve and to protect for future generations, GOD's creation (Earth's biodiversity). In recognition of this, eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson has been among those reaching out to this segment of the Xian community.).

I know this really isn't the place for politics, but I have to disagree on what you said about the TP "movement". If they were really that concerned about fiscal responsibility, then where were they when we had a president who sent us from a surplus to a deficit and at the same time cut taxes that favored the rich? I don't buy the whole tea party thing, it's all made up by fox and glenn beck. That's all I'll say on politics. You may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. Now let's get back to the real topic...Has anyone else read Republican Gamorrah? It's about the extreme religious right's stranglehold on the Republican party. After reading that book, I'm thinking that the xians are still a big threat. You're right though that some of them are coming around on climate change...but only some. I know a few people who still say that they don't believe in climate change (or global warming, whichever) because they don't believe that God would let humanity destroy his (they always say his) creation. To which I reply: the dodo bird, the buffalo herds (almost!), and the thousands of other species that we kill off every year by destroying the rainforests.

And let's leave the political debate at that, please.

Amyc -

I suggest you read your 20th Century American history and see what a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, did to spur economic growth by cutting taxes. To a lesser extent, Bill Clinton also did this. It's a pity Obama is so fixated on being the Progessive Socialist ideologue that he is instead of learning from what his two Democratic predecessors did.

Anyway, I agree with RBH that we should "leave the political debate at that, please".

John

John Kwok said: Amyc - I suggest you read your 20th Century American history and see what a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, did to spur economic growth by cutting taxes. To a lesser extent, Bill Clinton also did this. It's a pity Obama is so fixated on being the Progessive Socialist ideologue that he is instead of learning from what his two Democratic predecessors did. Anyway, I agree with RBH that we should "leave the political debate at that, please". John

Amyc said:

John Kwok said: Amyc - I suggest you read your 20th Century American history and see what a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, did to spur economic growth by cutting taxes. To a lesser extent, Bill Clinton also did this. It's a pity Obama is so fixated on being the Progessive Socialist ideologue that he is instead of learning from what his two Democratic predecessors did. Anyway, I agree with RBH that we should "leave the political debate at that, please". John

I wanted to leave the political debate at that three messages ago. I even brought up a different topic in my post that was at least somewhat related to what others were talking about, but then you kept accusing people of being socialist. This is the new era of McCarthyism. As my last point, I will say this: this country has followed the republican economic "trickle down"/deregulation strategy for decades now, and we ended up in a recession that almost turned into a depression. I just don't see why we should be so against new ideas. When Obama made the comment about "spreading the wealth around" he was not talking about socialism. He was discussing the disparities between the upper and lower classes of America--disparities so great that they almost top those of the gilded age. All he meant was that the gap between upper and lower class Americans should be bridged. He was not advocating socialism. I'll stop there because we obviously disagree on ideological levels, and neither of us is going to change the other person's mind. I respectfully disagree with you.

End of the line, kids.