An ID anniversary missed

Well if you want to go into that pathetic level of detail then maybe they have missed a few anniversaries but it was don intelligently and by design.

tsig said: Well if you want to go into that pathetic level of detail then maybe they have missed a few anniversaries but it was don intelligently and by design.

This seems to be what happens when one resorts to casting Bones of Contention.

Their predictions are no better than those of astrologers. Behe can tell you about that.

Mike Elzinga said: Their predictions are no better than those of astrologers. Behe can tell you about that.

I just started reading Lane's book as well. I'm enjoying it so far.

However, the cover on the paperback edition is unfortunate. It looks like the monkey is boning the anteater from behind. Is that intelligent design?

Damn, that's funny; plus the anteater looks like it's "probing" the frog...

A few years ago they didn't realize how wrong they were. Now they know, but they keep chugging along. Creationists can never be wrong about "something was poofed somewhere along the line dang it". They're vaguely right about everything but the arguments aren't in yet. They thought some of the arguments were in, but they all got squashed. But they're still vaguely right somehow. (I'm of course referring to the ones who aren't outright frauds/hucksters etc.)

I know how frustrating that must be for Dembski, because I too have a prediction -- well, it's more of an expectation: One day the big money contributors to the Discovery Institute will wake up realize that they've been conned and it's time to shut the joint down. But that never seems to happen, so I'm not a very good prognosticator.

Wasn't Nelson's On Common Descent book allegedly going to be published as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series edited by Leigh van Valen? Given that van Valen died recently, it would seem even more unlikely that this will ever happen.

And the Taliban haven't exactly collapsed either. Not only did his prediction fail, his analogy did as well.

The ID movement turned into a Taliban bowel movement. All they are stuck with doing is remote detinating their car bombs. They also have some true believers willing to go for the suicide attacks (I think Luskin went to Florida to run the bait and switch on the Florida rubes that wanted to teach the science of intelligent design a couple of years ago), but the ID perps are too incomptent to successfully martyr themselves. Luskin should have at least been tarred and feathered in Florida, but all he likely got was a raise. No virgins, valhalla or whatever for him.

G. R. Morton (of Morton's Demon fame) has a long-standing page The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.

You guys are so mean to Paul Nelson! Just think how far behind he would be if he actually had a job and worked for a living! Cut the guy some slack, OK?

The Curmudgeon said: I know how frustrating that must be for Dembski, because I too have a prediction -- well, it's more of an expectation: One day the big money contributors to the Discovery Institute will wake up realize that they've been conned and it's time to shut the joint down. But that never seems to happen, so I'm not a very good prognosticator.

SteveF said: Wasn't Nelson's On Common Descent book allegedly going to be published as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series edited by Leigh van Valen? Given that van Valen died recently, it would seem even more unlikely that this will ever happen.

Doc Bill said: You guys are so mean to Paul Nelson! Just think how far behind he would be if he actually had a job and worked for a living! Cut the guy some slack, OK?

Hadn't realized this was Morton of Morton's demon. I see his predictions are pretty iffy too. In April he said cosmic ray flux hit an all-time high so therefore, more clouds which will result in a cooling earth: Just in time for a series of the hottest 12-month periods on record from May to September (May09-May10, June09-June10 etc). Seldom does a prediction fail on such a spectacular level.

Maybe he's changed now, but up to April his demon was still pretty busy. Because of his blindness in that area, I'd want to double-check references/sources for anything else he's written no matter how much I agree with it.
--dan

Aagcobb said:

Doc Bill said: You guys are so mean to Paul Nelson! Just think how far behind he would be if he actually had a job and worked for a living! Cut the guy some slack, OK?

Just remember, it took Darwin took twenty years before he published his book on common descent!

Another tactic of the ID creationist is to declare that neo-Darwinism is already dead. (Somehow working scientists missed this fact and weren't even invited to the funeral.)

The name Lynn Margulis is bandied about in this context, as well as the "Atenberg 16". The purpose is to make us believe that the growth and development of evolutionary theory somehow props up ID. But then again, when the host eats the parasite gets fatter.

I also want to mention how grateful I am when scientists from PT visit BioLogos and offer their much-needed input. Often their leadership posts and runs, leaving the creationists to have a field day. Sanity checks are often lacking.

Karen S. said: The name Lynn Margulis is bandied about in this context, as well as the "Atenberg 16". The purpose is to make us believe that the growth and development of evolutionary theory somehow props up ID. But then again, when the host eats the parasite gets fatter. I also want to mention how grateful I am when scientists from PT visit BioLogos and offer their much-needed input. Often their leadership posts and runs, leaving the creationists to have a field day. Sanity checks are often lacking.

Uh, I suppose it's pretty obvious to everyone that the DI's predictions are no such thing. They are public relations, claims made to create the desired (false) impressions in the target audience at the time they are made. They have nothing to do with any future events. The DI will say anything they think people want to hear, which is their Official Position only until the next time they say anything.

I think their goal is to expand that population that (as Lincoln observed) they can fool all of the time. But it doesn't hurt to keep stroking those who are permanently pre-fooled. The "death of evolution" still sells, and announcing or predicting it still gets those juices flowing. These pronouncements aren't predictions, they are refresh cycles.

SWT said: Of course, Darwin was thoughtful and dealt with actual data; both of these factors might have slowed the process a bit.

John Kwok said: Compared to Van Valen - who died on October 16th - Dembski was - and will always remain - an intellectual pygmy, whose "intelligence" isn't worthy of Van Valen's favorite fictional creature, a Hobbit:

SteveF said: Wasn't Nelson's On Common Descent book allegedly going to be published as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series edited by Leigh van Valen? Given that van Valen died recently, it would seem even more unlikely that this will ever happen.

The quote from Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, should be framed and hung on the wall: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review." (And that's from a December 2005 news article...nothing's changed since.)

William Dembski: The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt.

jasonmitchell said:

John Kwok said: Compared to Van Valen - who died on October 16th - Dembski was - and will always remain - an intellectual pygmy, whose "intelligence" isn't worthy of Van Valen's favorite fictional creature, a Hobbit:

SteveF said: Wasn't Nelson's On Common Descent book allegedly going to be published as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series edited by Leigh van Valen? Given that van Valen died recently, it would seem even more unlikely that this will ever happen.

that is not a nice thing to say about Hobbits.

Both Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson from BioLogos ought to come to their senses now, realizing that no one from the DI can be trusted simply for being fellow “Brothers in Christ”, but I strongly doubt that they will ever join Steve Matheson in condemning the DI for being the intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible entity that it is.

Five Year Goals: To see Intelligent Design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory... FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES [skipped 1 and 2] 3. One hundred scientific, academic, and technical articles by our fellows

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise. Many books and articles are in the pipeline. I predict that in the next five years intelligent design will be sufficiently developed to deserve funding from the National Science Foundation. (p29)

Although these predictions haven't come true, the DI does seem to have achieved its applied goals.

There are few or no barriers to entry in the lucrative creationism industry, but the undeniable fact is that circa 1995, just as the new medium of internet was coming into its own, the market was dominated by the old blue chip firms like ICR, which had established themselves in the 1960's. (In fact, years ago in a university library basement, I saw a book published in the 1950's, with an author from a seminary in Nebraska, and it already contained many of the standard "creation science" argument - the author claimed the 100th anniversary of Origin of Species as a motivation - I didn't know enough to take it seriously at the time.)

Anyone can write a copycat book going on about the second law of thermodynamics and dust on the moon, and many do, but to capture market share from the established players, some new bafflegab was needed.

After twenty to thirty years of stasis, and after a decade of surly relative silence due to the lawsuits of the seventies and eighties, the DI produced some slightly different bafflegab, and doing so paid off handsomely.

At this point, "ID" arguments have been accepted by creationists as unqualified creationist arguments. The same person who argues that there are "no transitional fossils" or mentions "Piltdown Man" is likey to make reference to "irreducible complexity".

Now, I offer a prediction, but in the form of an "If...then..." statement.

If evolution deniers come up with some relatively original bafflegab again, THEN the US media will go through a spasm of touting it as "ground breaking", claiming that the theory of evolution has been "seriously challenged", and accusing skeptical, rational scientists of being "hidebound dogmatists".

Henry J said: Yet the anti-evolutionists keep claiming that Darwin had lots of power over people; it's like they worship him or something.

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise.

Karen S. said:

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise.

Naw, it's more like a bird with broken wings. Just try to get an explanation of what they would do with research money, or a description of their research program in general.

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise.

Naw, it's more like a bird with broken wings. Just try to get an explanation of what they would do with research money, or a description of their research program in general.

More like a chicken with its head cut off.

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise.

Naw, it's more like a bird with broken wings. Just try to get an explanation of what they would do with research money, or a description of their research program in general.

More like a chicken with its head cut off.

Dembski prediction quantitated

Flint said: Uh, I suppose it's pretty obvious to everyone that the DI's predictions are no such thing. They are public relations, claims made to create the desired (false) impressions in the target audience at the time they are made. They have nothing to do with any future events. The DI will say anything they think people want to hear, which is their Official Position only until the next time they say anything.

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise.

Naw, it's more like a bird with broken wings. Just try to get an explanation of what they would do with research money, or a description of their research program in general.

More like a chicken with its head cut off.

Books? Articles?

Never mind the books and articles; have them just start by describing the consistently observed pattern of evidence that your "hypothesis" is purported to explain, and then explaining the (fallacy-free) deductive logic by which the observed patterns follow from the hypothesis. That much would get them to the starting gate.

Or is that asking too much?

Many books and articles are in the pipeline. I predict that in the next five years intelligent design will be sufficiently developed to deserve funding from the National Science Foundation. (p29)

jasonmitchell said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Intelligent design is a fledgling science. Even so, intelligent design is a fledgling of enormous promise.

Naw, it's more like a bird with broken wings. Just try to get an explanation of what they would do with research money, or a description of their research program in general.

More like a chicken with its head cut off.

both analogies are imperfect - as ID is so far off "as to not even be wrong" ID is as much a fledgling as a dead platypus

Henry J said:

SWT said: Of course, Darwin was thoughtful and dealt with actual data; both of these factors might have slowed the process a bit.

Also he didn't have any more power to win friends or influence people than did lots of other scientists; he just happened to be the one who first hit on something that worked quite well (and that somebody else would have hit on sooner or later if he hadn't; once DNA was understood the conclusions would have been obvious to all scientists anyway).

Matt G said:

Henry J said:

SWT said: Of course, Darwin was thoughtful and dealt with actual data; both of these factors might have slowed the process a bit.

Also he didn't have any more power to win friends or influence people than did lots of other scientists; he just happened to be the one who first hit on something that worked quite well (and that somebody else would have hit on sooner or later if he hadn't; once DNA was understood the conclusions would have been obvious to all scientists anyway).

When Darwin published, somebody else already HAD happened upon it: Alfred Russel Wallace.

What is a "Darwinian-process"?
What is Darwinism?

Note that most, if not all of the predictions were made pre-Dover. Since then there has been no real progress. Has there been a new face in the ID pack since then?

The number of books and papers produced each year gets less. It is late 2010 and there hasn't been a book since "Signature in the Cell". Dembski seems to publish the same paper over and over again.

Luckily for them most of these guys have day jobs and the church talk circuit must bring in some money. I wonder how people like Paul Nelson who doesn't seem to have any means of support survive.

Droopy, A Darwinian process can be taken to mean small variability over successive generations of living things, attended by selection of the variations by the relative reproductive success of the progeny in the natural environment.

I think it is legitimate enough to call that process "Darwinian" because Charles Darwin first described it in detail, in publication. Alfred Russell Wallace deserves equal credit for the inspiration.

Hence, "Darwinism" need not mean more than the idea that such a process takes place and accounts for the diversity of living things. However, "Darwinism" has been used by the creationist noise machine to mean the same thing as "atheism" or "materialism". This is not only wrong, it misconstrues Darwin's theory as a political or philosophical idea, which it is not.

The word "Darwinism" is therefore best avoided, not because it is intrinsically wrong, but because it carries irrelevant and erroneous connotations that are exploited by shysters and con merchants.

Dave Luckett said: Droopy, A Darwinian process can be taken to mean small variability over successive generations of living things, attended by selection of the variations by the relative reproductive success of the progeny in the natural environment. I think it is legitimate enough to call that process "Darwinian" because Charles Darwin first described it in detail, in publication. Alfred Russell Wallace deserves equal credit for the inspiration. Hence, "Darwinism" need not mean more than the idea that such a process takes place and accounts for the diversity of living things. However, "Darwinism" has been used by the creationist noise machine to mean the same thing as "atheism" or "materialism". This is not only wrong, it misconstrues Darwin's theory as a political or philosophical idea, which it is not. The word "Darwinism" is therefore best avoided, not because it is intrinsically wrong, but because it carries irrelevant and erroneous connotations that are exploited by shysters and con merchants.

Droopy said: What is a "Darwinian-process"? What is Darwinism?

RBH said:

Flint said: Uh, I suppose it's pretty obvious to everyone that the DI's predictions are no such thing. They are public relations, claims made to create the desired (false) impressions in the target audience at the time they are made. They have nothing to do with any future events. The DI will say anything they think people want to hear, which is their Official Position only until the next time they say anything.

Sure. All the more reason to mock and ridicule them for their self-styled "predictions." Their target audience is not the same as mine.

You aren’t going to develop a scientific theory unless you are willing to get off your butt and do the work to validate your notions.

Karen S. said:

You aren’t going to develop a scientific theory unless you are willing to get off your butt and do the work to validate your notions.

But they whine about not getting funding. Of course, when you ask about what they are requesting funding for and how ID research is done you don't get an answer.

Karen S. said: ...they whine about not getting funding. Of course, when you ask about what they are requesting funding for and how ID research is done you don't get an answer.

Mike Elzinga said: It is an interesting exercise to sit down and attempt to write a research proposal using ID/creationist “scientific” concepts; I’ve actually tried this. The mind goes blank.

Les Lane said: Dembski prediction quantitated

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: It is an interesting exercise to sit down and attempt to write a research proposal using ID/creationist “scientific” concepts; I’ve actually tried this. The mind goes blank.

Actually its quite easy to test some of their concepts...so easy, in fact, that the reason creos don't do it is because they'd quickly be proven wrong. Or someone's done it, and proven them wrong already. Consider: Various designers: propose a time, location, and expected evidence for their existence. Dig for it. Creos avoid this one for the simple reason that if they were to put their real hypothetical designer down on paper, the religious nature of the idea would be transparently obvious. "He didn't leave equipment behind in any place or time; he's God." Frontloading: look in a parent genome for a duplicate but 'turned-off' version of some new trait that appears in the child. Like, say, citrate-eating in e coli. CSI: many many useful "knockout" studies could be performed with the legimate purpose of determining how various genes affect some developmental process. But these will almost certainly demonstrate some level of robustness in development and that CSI claims cannot possibly exist.

Mike Elzinga said: I have also done this for creationist “thermodynamics” in attempting to take their concepts and bring them to bear on experimental techniques in the lab. For real thermodynamics one can do this routinely. But for creationist “thermodynamics” there are no handles to grab. When it comes to Dembski’s “explanatory filter,” you run immediately into issues of the probabilities of assemblies of atoms and molecules. Now those kinds of things are measurable. But when it comes to showing that assemblies beyond a specified level of complexity are impossible, try to imagine how you would show this; and in a repeatable fashion no less. ...You mentioned turned-off genes, but other creationists say it is loaded into the laws of the universe. If it is the latter, try to think of an experiment that would demonstrate this...

But primarily they have learned the skills of marketing and the gift of gab. They don’t know how to take the universe apart and study it.

eric said: So perhaps its better to say that one could fashion a subset of testable claims from ID concepts, and then go out and test those claims, but no IDers do that.

Mike Elzinga said: When it comes to Dembski’s “explanatory filter,” you run immediately into issues of the probabilities of assemblies of atoms and molecules. Now those kinds of things are measurable. But when it comes to showing that assemblies beyond a specified level of complexity are impossible, try to imagine how you would show this; and in a repeatable fashion no less. There are billions of routes to assembly at every level. And billions of complex assemblies already exist as glaring counterexamples.

The front loading issue is ambiguous at best. I have not seen a clear definition of front loading. You mentioned turned-off genes, but other creationists say it is loaded into the laws of the universe.

Joe Felsenstein said: The theorem has problems. Jeffrey Shallit (in a paper by he and Wesley Elsberry) found a hole in it where Dembski uses the definition of his Specification when he has said we weren't supposed to use it. I think I found a bigger problem in my article on Dembski's arguments. He finds it necessary to change the specification in midstream. But to prove that you can't get better adapted, you need to use the same definition of fitness before and after. Dembski does not do that. If you keep the specification the same (the definition of fitness, in effect), you can immediately see that Dembski's theorem is not true.

The front-loading argument is, in effect, that fitness surfaces are far smoother than you would get if each genotype had a randomly different fitness. (The argument concedes that natural selection will then work to make the genome well-adapted, contrary to what Dembski thinks his LCCSI shows). That is true, but does it mean that someone “front-loaded” the universe to make that happen?

Mike Elzinga said: Back when I first encountered it a number of years ago, I didn’t need to even consider the “information” part of Dembski’s argument in order to recognize that his reason, whatever name he wanted to give it, was complete gibberish. There are billions of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules – many of them living organisms - that are viable in some environment. If some of these “relax into adjacent forms” due to a shift in that environment, then physics and chemistry give enough insight into how that can happen. To imply that this cannot happen in the face of the fact that it does happen – no matter what “high sounding” idea you introduce – already tells me that Dembski doesn’t understand how things evolve; no matter what they are.

One is simply quantifying changes in terms of mathematical quantities to which the name “information” has been applied.

[on my statement about "front-loading"] Again, physics and chemistry are sufficient here. Of course macroscopic systems don’t make quantum jumps to adjacent wells. There may be some quantum jumping at the molecular level, but the resulting modified system still has to be viable in its new environment. If that environment is too different for viability, then extinction occurs for that line. Any “adjacent” lines that still have a chance will get another shot at adjusting.

Joe Felsenstein said: I don't see how Dembski's argument implies that.

I don’t see why we have to talk about potential wells in order to discuss fitness of genotypes.

Karen S. said:

You aren’t going to develop a scientific theory unless you are willing to get off your butt and do the work to validate your notions.

But they whine about not getting funding. Of course, when you ask about what they are requesting funding for and how ID research is done you don't get an answer.

By the way; if anyone doubt’s that there are still conflations among entropy, information, and disorder, as well as the continued misuse of the laws of thermodynamics that led to Dembski’s stuff, take a look at today’s latest AiG “warnings” about misuse of the second law of thermodynamics.

Then take a look at the link offered in footnote 2 in which one is advised to use thermodynamics arguments carefully and then pointed to this “more advanced” perspective.

I'm probably one of the few old geezers left who is thoroughly familiar with this conceptual link between Morris and Dembski. But I would suggest that it is important to understand. A lot of peripheral damage has been done by this meme.

Well, by coincidence, here is another generic misconception about “information” that relates to this conversation.

I guess halloween is not over yet.

Mike Elzinga said: I guess halloween is not over yet.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Mike Elzinga said: I guess halloween is not over yet.

Au contraire! Halloween is over. The three-ring circus run by the clowns is a year-round event. The MadPanda, FCD

John Kwok said: Actually it's not Halloween but April Fool's Day that's celebrated year round by the Dishonesty Institute:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Mike Elzinga said: I guess halloween is not over yet.

Au contraire! Halloween is over. The three-ring circus run by the clowns is a year-round event. The MadPanda, FCD

Mike Elzinga said: By the way; if anyone doubt’s that there are still conflations among entropy, information, and disorder, as well as the continued misuse of the laws of thermodynamics that led to Dembski’s stuff, take a look at today’s latest AiG “warnings” about misuse of the second law of thermodynamics. Then take a look at the link offered in footnote 2 in which one is advised to use thermodynamics arguments carefully and then pointed to this “more advanced” perspective. I'm probably one of the few old geezers left who is thoroughly familiar with this conceptual link between Morris and Dembski. But I would suggest that it is important to understand. A lot of peripheral damage has been done by this meme.

Ron wrote:

"I wonder how long the list of arguments to never use would be if someone went back through their old web pages and looked them up? Likely at least twice as long as the current list. Just think how many arguments the honest creationists want to add to the list."

Well first of all, I'm sure that the list of "honest creationists" is much shorter than the list of debunked arguments. Second of all, if "honest creationists" did create such a list, it would include all arguments ever used by creationists.

What these yahoos should be doing is trying to come up with an alternative explanation for all of the evidence that has better predictive and explanatory power than the e=theory of evolution. That is the only thing that is going to convince any scientist and it is the only thing that should convince anyone. Now you can't do that by ignoring the evidence. You can't do that by hoping that people are ignorant of the evidence. And you can't do that by refusing to propose any alternative.

Arguments against evolution can only fool those who are ignorant enough to fall for them. That's why the Talk Origins archive is such a valuable resource. At the very least, creationists have to admit that they don't have any original ideas, since all of the arguments they use have already been debunked.

DS said: What these yahoos should be doing is trying to come up with an alternative explanation for all of the evidence that has better predictive and explanatory power than the e=theory of evolution. That is the only thing that is going to convince any scientist and it is the only thing that should convince anyone. Now you can't do that by ignoring the evidence. You can't do that by hoping that people are ignorant of the evidence. And you can't do that by refusing to propose any alternative.

John Kwok said: I raised that very point in private e-mail correspondence with both Behe and Dembski three years ago. Neither one offered an answer explaining how and why ID is a more viable alternative than the Modern Synthesis in offering "better predictive and explanatory power":

DS said: What these yahoos should be doing is trying to come up with an alternative explanation for all of the evidence that has better predictive and explanatory power than the e=theory of evolution. That is the only thing that is going to convince any scientist and it is the only thing that should convince anyone. Now you can't do that by ignoring the evidence. You can't do that by hoping that people are ignorant of the evidence. And you can't do that by refusing to propose any alternative.

Now remember folks, that in pure ID theory, the designer is not necessarily supernatural! He's just some guy who's been alive for over 13 billion years. ID is not necessarily religious at all!

Karen S. said: Now remember folks, that in pure ID theory, the designer is not necessarily supernatural! He's just some guy who's been alive for over 13 billion years. ID is not necessarily religious at all!

Ron Okimoto said: Philip Johnson has said it as well as any ID perp could: "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." http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution This is the Philip Johnson that other ID perps like Dembski called the "godfather" of the ID scam movement after the Dover decision. After ID lost in court Johnson decided to come as clean as any of the ID perps can manage. He is admitting that he knew that teaching ID was just a scam, but he is point the finger of blame at the "science" ID perps like Dembski and Behe for never coming up with anything worth teaching. This is one of the ID scam leaders admitting that they never had the science. Why are there still ID scam supporters? Do they think that Johnson was just joking?

John Kwok said: As I am sure you are well aware Ron, the Dishonesty Institute remains in utter denial. Johnson had no choice but to state the obvious in light of Judge John R. Jones's extensive, well-reasoned ruling issued on December 20, 2005 at the end of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial:

John Kwok said: Of course:

Karen S. said: Now remember folks, that in pure ID theory, the designer is not necessarily supernatural! He's just some guy who's been alive for over 13 billion years. ID is not necessarily religious at all!

Qap'la!!! Contrary to the delusional humans Behe and Dembski (Indeed that wise human Ken Miller has suggested that Behe write a textbook on our biochemistry.), we, the inhabitants of Qo'nos, know who the Intelligent Designer(s) were. Some time-traveling brothers and sisters aboard Klingon battlecruisers sent backward through time via the Kirk Effect to the primordial Earth... where we designed the microbes that, over the untold millions and millions of millenia, led eventually to both intelligent humans like most of those reading PT as well as delusional ones like Behe and Dembski.

“Freud, Marx, and Darwin were all revered as major scientific heroes throughout the twentieth century. Of the three, only Darwin retains any scientific standing.” --Philip Johnson

Gotta love that. Bubbles, Bozo, Darwin. Of the three, only Darwin retains not being a clown yet. Hitler, Hitler, Darwin. Of the three, only Darwin retains not being Hitler yet.

Behe also admitted under oath that the designer might be dead.

Ron Okimoto said:

John Kwok said: Of course:

Karen S. said: Now remember folks, that in pure ID theory, the designer is not necessarily supernatural! He's just some guy who's been alive for over 13 billion years. ID is not necessarily religious at all!

Qap'la!!! Contrary to the delusional humans Behe and Dembski (Indeed that wise human Ken Miller has suggested that Behe write a textbook on our biochemistry.), we, the inhabitants of Qo'nos, know who the Intelligent Designer(s) were. Some time-traveling brothers and sisters aboard Klingon battlecruisers sent backward through time via the Kirk Effect to the primordial Earth... where we designed the microbes that, over the untold millions and millions of millenia, led eventually to both intelligent humans like most of those reading PT as well as delusional ones like Behe and Dembski.

You missed the Next Generation episode where Picard discovers that there had been a progenitor race that seeded the galaxy with life and left a message in all the DNA to tell their "offspring" their true origins. The Klingons were not happy and went into denial over the fact that they could be related to Romulans. Sort of explains how Vulcan and human DNA can be compatible. Behe also admitted under oath that the designer might be dead. The ID perps haven't come up with any niffty designs to blame on the designer that have occurred within the last couple hundred million years. That seems like a pretty long vacation. The flagellum evolved around 2 billion years ago and the blood clotting system and immune system evolved among early vertebrates several hundred million years ago.

On a more serious note, Philip Johnson is the "GODFATHER" of the Intelligent Design movement. The Dishonesty Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture couldn't remove him as an advisor as much as a diehard Communist couldn't reject Marx and Lenin as the intellectual "fathers" of Communism. What would good God-fearing Christian people think of the Dishonesty Institute repudiated its "GODFATHER"? Heaven forbid.

Karen S. said:

Behe also admitted under oath that the designer might be dead.

True, and he also admitted there might be multiple competing designers.

Henry J said:

Karen S. said:

Behe also admitted under oath that the designer might be dead.

True, and he also admitted there might be multiple competing designers.

There are. Those competing "designers" are called gene pools. :p

Ron Okimoto said: You missed the Next Generation episode where Picard discovers that there had been a progenitor race that seeded the galaxy with life and left a message in all the DNA to tell their "offspring" their true origins. The Klingons were not happy and went into denial over the fact that they could be related to Romulans. Sort of explains how Vulcan and human DNA can be compatible.

W. H. Heydt said: As any active reader knows, the seeding was done by the Arisians and we'd be on an uninterrupted upward path if not for the intervention of the Eddorians.

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: As any active reader knows, the seeding was done by the Arisians and we'd be on an uninterrupted upward path if not for the intervention of the Eddorians.

E.E. Doc Smith! Great use of the old 'kill grendel, get grendel's mom' device. He ratcheted up the enemies for, what, 7 books?

You missed the Next Generation episode where Picard discovers that there had been a progenitor race that seeded the galaxy with life and left a message in all the DNA to tell their “offspring” their true origins.

Karen S. said:

You missed the Next Generation episode where Picard discovers that there had been a progenitor race that seeded the galaxy with life and left a message in all the DNA to tell their “offspring” their true origins.

Ah, so that's the signature in the cell?

JoeBuddha said:

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: As any active reader knows, the seeding was done by the Arisians and we'd be on an uninterrupted upward path if not for the intervention of the Eddorians.

E.E. Doc Smith! Great use of the old 'kill grendel, get grendel's mom' device. He ratcheted up the enemies for, what, 7 books?

6, but who's counting...

John Kwok said: On a more serious note, Philip Johnson is the "GODFATHER" of the Intelligent Design movement. The Dishonesty Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture couldn't remove him as an advisor as much as a diehard Communist couldn't reject Marx and Lenin as the intellectual "fathers" of Communism. What would good God-fearing Christian people think of the Dishonesty Institute repudiated its "GODFATHER"? Heaven forbid.

Karen S. said:

You missed the Next Generation episode where Picard discovers that there had been a progenitor race that seeded the galaxy with life and left a message in all the DNA to tell their “offspring” their true origins.

Ah, so that's the signature in the cell?

JoeBuddha said:

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: As any active reader knows, the seeding was done by the Arisians and we'd be on an uninterrupted upward path if not for the intervention of the Eddorians.

E.E. Doc Smith! Great use of the old 'kill grendel, get grendel's mom' device. He ratcheted up the enemies for, what, 7 books?

6, but who's counting...

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

Ron Okimoto said:

John Kwok said: On a more serious note, Philip Johnson is the "GODFATHER" of the Intelligent Design movement. The Dishonesty Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture couldn't remove him as an advisor as much as a diehard Communist couldn't reject Marx and Lenin as the intellectual "fathers" of Communism. What would good God-fearing Christian people think of the Dishonesty Institute repudiated its "GODFATHER"? Heaven forbid.

Even after he decapoed his capos?

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

If memory serves me correctly, isn’t a panda on Qo’noS called a targ?

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

John Kwok said: Not quite:

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

Mike has the right idea: "Of Targs and Pandas" Though my favorite might be: "The Privileged Planet: Qo'noS"

John Kwok said: No, a targ is a ferocious Klingon boar with the temperment of a Doberman pinscher:

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

If memory serves me correctly, isn’t a panda on Qo’noS called a targ?

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: No, a targ is a ferocious Klingon boar with the temperment of a Doberman pinscher:

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

If memory serves me correctly, isn’t a panda on Qo’noS called a targ?

So what toy is the stuffed teddy bear equivalent for a Klingon kid?

John Kwok said: No, Ron, I didn't miss that Next Generation episode. That was one of the best ones in the latter seasons of ST:TNG IMHO:

Ron Okimoto said:

John Kwok said: No, Ron, I didn't miss that Next Generation episode. That was one of the best ones in the latter seasons of ST:TNG IMHO:

It doesn't matter they weren't very consistent. Q took Picard back to the primordial earth and life failed to evolve in the slime puddle. The number of bacteria Picard shed on the primordial earth should have been sufficient to start a new biosphere. The last Star Trek movie solved all the problems and blatant inconsistencies of Enterprise by letting us all know that whole new realities are spawned with every new episode. To bad that we don't seem to be in a reality where intelligent design isn't a scam.

I hated the last "Star Trek" film merely because they played too fast and too loose with the well-established canon. Wished Warner Brothers might opt to revive "Babylon 5", though since several of the original cast have died, I strongly doubt it would be the same show (or cinematic adaptation).

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: No, a targ is a ferocious Klingon boar with the temperment of a Doberman pinscher:

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

Indeed. I believe that’s why Ken Miller thinks Mike Behe should be writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

Yes, called Of Pandas and Klingons

If memory serves me correctly, isn’t a panda on Qo’noS called a targ?

So what toy is the stuffed teddy bear equivalent for a Klingon kid?

The targ's heart. Also doubles as a chewtoy.

W. H. Heydt said:

JoeBuddha said:

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: As any active reader knows, the seeding was done by the Arisians and we'd be on an uninterrupted upward path if not for the intervention of the Eddorians.

E.E. Doc Smith! Great use of the old 'kill grendel, get grendel's mom' device. He ratcheted up the enemies for, what, 7 books?

6, but who's counting...

Depends on how you count _The Vortex Blaster_. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer