Annoying the Discovery Institute at SMU

Gee, John Wise seems kind of surprised and disappointed to discover that everything the DI says is dishonest through and through, in every possible way from what is said, to how it is said, to who said it. He seems to suspect that they are doing this deliberately. Imagine that.

I think any journalist could clue Wise in to a fact of the DI's life: the lies are printed on the front page of the major media. The corrections appear, in fine print, near the back of stuff nobody reads anyway. There is a sort of Gresham's Law of deceit. Lies will drive out the truth if the lies are easy to grasp and the truth requires education to understand, if the lies are embedded in something already believed but NOT on the basis of evidence, and if the lies are backed by enough money.

And it helps if you have a staff of people gifted at making claims that create such a strong false impression that even determined skeptics armed with the actual facts have to read them twice to figure out how they were phrased, or what was omitted. Those lacking the facts, of course, don't have a chance. The distinction between "held AT" SMU and "held BY" SMU is admirably subtle.

Flint said: Gee, John Wise seems kind of surprised and disappointed to discover that everything the DI says is dishonest through and through, in every possible way from what is said, to how it is said, to who said it. He seems to suspect that they are doing this deliberately. Imagine that.

Flint said: Gee, John Wise seems kind of surprised and disappointed to discover that everything the DI says is dishonest through and through, in every possible way from what is said, to how it is said, to who said it. He seems to suspect that they are doing this deliberately. Imagine that. I think any journalist could clue Wise in to a fact of the DI's life: the lies are printed on the front page of the major media. The corrections appear, in fine print, near the back of stuff nobody reads anyway. There is a sort of Gresham's Law of deceit. Lies will drive out the truth if the lies are easy to grasp and the truth requires education to understand, if the lies are embedded in something already believed but NOT on the basis of evidence, and if the lies are backed by enough money. And it helps if you have a staff of people gifted at making claims that create such a strong false impression that even determined skeptics armed with the actual facts have to read them twice to figure out how they were phrased, or what was omitted. Those lacking the facts, of course, don't have a chance. The distinction between "held AT" SMU and "held BY" SMU is admirably subtle.

Wait! The Discovery Institute is DEDICATED to fair and balanced reporting on the Evolution Manufactuversity!

Are you telling me they are biased? Be still my heart!

Wonderful summary and rebuttal of the DI propaganda.

The dishonesty institute has always tried to insinuate that the venues where their self-promotional talks are being held is being sponsored by the venue itself. And, like the museum in California, and others, have found, the dishonesty institute will attack, even sue, if anything should be said against them or threaten their event. They really try to schedule their "events" at public venues where there is no choice but to accept anyone who wants to rent space. Up in Seattle they made it look like the Seattle Art Museum was sponsoring their movie when they really only rented the room, but they promoted otherwise.

With their updated strategy they've moved from the neighborhood church talks to more "academic" surroundings that appear to give them an air of legitimacy, but the message is always the same, filled with lies and quote-mining, etc.

As for asking questions, a standard tactic of creationists like those at the dishonesty institute is to go full speed ahead, present all information and not allow any quesitons or interruptions lest the rubes become skeptical. It's disinformation overload, with so many intentional errors that beg so many questions, but preferably their supporters are called on to ask questions. By the time you get to ask your questions, if at all, people have already forgotten the context of the issue you're questioning, but it's all part of their game plan.

Yes, this is typical behavior of the DI. The DI twice has scheduled appearances at the University of Oklahoma (OU), not sponsored by any academic unit, but by a student group from a local Baptist Church, student religious group (Pursuit Ministry) and the IDEA Club (now apparently inactive). By convening at a university, they attempt to gain status with the appearance that they are somehow vetted by the institution.

The first visit to OU was by William Dembski, who gave a public lecture that was opposed by many on the campus. A full page ad paid by many faculty and staff opponents of the visit was published in the student paper on the day of his talk that showed his true colors. Dembski spent the first 10 minutes of his talk trying to combat (poorly) the ad. Students gave handouts (an excellent article by Shalitt) to people attending that showed Dembski’s true colors. Most impressively was the way student’s laid into him during the Q and A. The day before Dembski’s talk students at the local Trinity Baptist Church service (where Dembski gave a guest sermon) were asked to kneel around him and pray for his success in the upcoming lecture!

The second visit by DI ‘big shots’ (Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer) was last year during the Darwin Year celebrations. Again, a talk by Meyer and their film on the Cambrian, and a debate with Dembski (with Michael Ruse, a favorite of the DI for so-called debates) were not sponsored by an academic unit, but by the IDEA club with support from the local Baptist church. The film presentation was at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, a venue that the DI hoped would add legitimacy to their program. The Director of the Museum issued a press release that showed clearly the opposition of the Museum to the DI’s supposed ‘science’ and that the Museum did not in any way endorse the DI program. Also, the invertebrate paleontologist on the Museum staff, and an expert on the Cambrian, gave an excellent lecture just before the DI film presentation that refuted much of what was in the DI film. And again, the DI tried to claim that their visit was a major ‘victory’ in a post by Wells on the DI blog entitled ‘Storming the Beaches in Norman,’ a ridiculous account that I countered in detail in reply (I forget which blog). The DI folks tried to manipulate the Q and A by allowing only questions, no ‘comments.’ Most of the questions were rather devastating to the DI drivel. However, it was clear that the DI ‘invasion’ of Norman was not the success that Wells tried to portray.

Truth is not something we can expect from the DI.

You can go over to the ICR website and pull up exactly the same crap they dispensed from the very beginning and for which they have had over 40 years of feedback that it is wrong.

mrg said:

Flint said: Gee, John Wise seems kind of surprised and disappointed to discover that everything the DI says is dishonest through and through, in every possible way from what is said, to how it is said, to who said it. He seems to suspect that they are doing this deliberately. Imagine that.

You have to admit, those who weren't familiar with the DI might well have reason to be startled on observing their tactics for the first time. If one is used to dealing with sensible and honest people, the likes of Casey Luskin might come as something of a shock.

There is only one way to determine if a paper meets the standards of peer reviewed literature, that is to submit it for review. If it is accepted then it was. If it is not accepted then it probably wasn't. That's like arguing that someone would have been inducted into the hall of fame, if only they had been drafted. Who cares?

"So if we haven't found the transitional or ancestral fossils, the theory predicts such fossils won't be discovered. Wait, we found some? Well, the theory predicts that, too."

If anyone reads that and thinks it was written by a two year old child with reading problems throwing a temper tantrum... no, you would be wrong. (It was actually written by the noted scholars of the Discovery Institute.)

This is a prime example of how 'moderate' religion allows for extremists to prosper. This is one of the main gripes of Sam Harris. Not so much different as Christine O'Donnell trying to pass herself off as a graduate/attendee of several well known colleges. Just make stuff up and KNOW that the vast majority of people will never hear any differently. I think it was Twain who said that a lie could made it half way around the world before the truth had the time to put it's pants on.

Enjoy.

Oh yeah, and not to go all Godwin's Law on everybody, but given the latest news about Teatard Republican candidates posed in their Nazi uniforms...... I think the quote about telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth fits Faux news perfectly.

Enjoy.

"Bio Complexity"

I thought they were still publishing their crap in Rivista Di Biologia?

*looks*

ah, it's "new" then?

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialPolicies#purposeAndScope

Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID

wide...range...of...views...

there are 2 honest views:

It's nuts.

It's lies.

I wonder which reviewers fall into which camps?

Hey, check out the new angle:

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2

translated:

"The theory of evolution can't work because organisms don't choose the best of all possible fitness pathways in culture media!"

I'm serious. Plow through the jargon, and that's what they're trying to say.

It's like they took their arguments against Dawkins Weasel program, and made a bacterial version of them.

still just as wrong, but at least they can now claim to have done "something" in a lab.

hey, at least it's "new"!

The Tim Channel said: I think it was Twain who said that a lie could made it half way around the world before the truth had the time to put it's pants on.

Maya said:

The Tim Channel said: I think it was Twain who said that a lie could made it half way around the world before the truth had the time to put it's pants on.

That's why we need the naked truth!

Get Beckwith to write the Discovery Institute a Big Texas letter of support. It will give him another chance to deny that he ever supported the intelligent design scam.

vhutchison said: Yes, this is typical behavior of the DI. The DI twice has scheduled appearances at the University of Oklahoma (OU), not sponsored by any academic unit, but by a student group from a local Baptist Church, student religious group (Pursuit Ministry) and the IDEA Club (now apparently inactive). By convening at a university, they attempt to gain status with the appearance that they are somehow vetted by the institution.

Ron Okimoto said:

vhutchison said: Yes, this is typical behavior of the DI. The DI twice has scheduled appearances at the University of Oklahoma (OU), not sponsored by any academic unit, but by a student group from a local Baptist Church, student religious group (Pursuit Ministry) and the IDEA Club (now apparently inactive). By convening at a university, they attempt to gain status with the appearance that they are somehow vetted by the institution.

Who still pays these guys to come and talk? Their fee used to be something like $3,000 before they started to run the bait and switch back in 2003. After having 100$ of the rubes that bought into the scam getting the bait and switch run on them if they popped up and claimed to want to teach the nonexistent science of ID who would still pay the scam artists to come and give a talk? Is the Discovery Institute funding their own speaking sesions now?

Ichthyic said: "Bio Complexity" I thought they were still publishing their crap in Rivista Di Biologia?

Ichthyic said: Hey, check out the new angle: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2 translated: "The theory of evolution can't work because organisms don't choose the best of all possible fitness pathways in culture media!" I'm serious. Plow through the jargon, and that's what they're trying to say. It's like they took their arguments against Dawkins Weasel program, and made a bacterial version of them. still just as wrong, but at least they can now claim to have done "something" in a lab. hey, at least it's "new"!

Arthur Hunt said:

Ichthyic said: Hey, check out the new angle: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2 translated: "The theory of evolution can't work because organisms don't choose the best of all possible fitness pathways in culture media!" I'm serious. Plow through the jargon, and that's what they're trying to say. It's like they took their arguments against Dawkins Weasel program, and made a bacterial version of them. still just as wrong, but at least they can now claim to have done "something" in a lab. hey, at least it's "new"!

Summarizing the paper by Gauger et al.: if one selects against maintenance of a plasmid in a bacterial cell, then the plasmid will be lost. The conclusions the authors draw, apart from the obvious (select against a plasmid, lose the plasmid) don't match the data. The bottom line is that they designed the experiment very poorly, were not able to make any conclusions regarding their original hypothesis (that an adaptive path involving the trpA gene multiple mutations will be beyond the reach of "Darwinian" processes), and had to state the obvious in terms that made the study acceptable to the journal. An authentic journal rejects the paper outright because the study was poorly executed, and because the (anti-"Darwinian") conclusions are not supported by their results.

The ID movement had their big chance at gaining legitimacy when they were invited to a debate at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan in April 2002. It was a controversial move, one that some feared would help the IDM gain traction. So why are the ID folks pretty much silent about this chance of a lifetime? The debate, in several parts, was recently put on YouTube by the NCSE. The Pennock vs Dembski exchange is especially interesting.

See for yourselves:
The Great Debate

Bio-Complexity editorial team:

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeam

Arthur wrote:

"Summarizing the paper by Gauger et al.: if one selects against maintenance of a plasmid in a bacterial cell, then the plasmid will be lost."

Oh man, what a great opportunity. If I do an experiment where I select against red eyes in fruit flies and red eyes disappear, can I publish a paper in their new "journal" claiming to have destroyed the basis of darwinism? I mean man, I could really use some more publications. Maybe then I could get some grant money from these jokers to prove ID wrong! I mean, they can't reject my paper, right? That would be censorship. Man, I can't wait to get published in such a prestigious "journal". I wouldn't even have to actually do the research, I could just make up some data, or get some from some old paper somewhere. This is great.

Toni M. said: Bio-Complexity editorial team: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeam

Ron Okimoto said:

vhutchison said: ... Idea Club ...

Who still pays these guys to come and talk? Their fee used to be something like $3,000 before they started to run the bait and switch back in 2003. After having 100$ of the rubes that bought into the scam getting the bait and switch run on them if they popped up and claimed to want to teach the nonexistent science of ID who would still pay the scam artists to come and give a talk? Is the Discovery Institute funding their own speaking sesions now?

Jerret Sykes, director of PULSE and Victory Campus Ministries, said he organized the event to re-connect conversation on where we came from, bringing about conversation on the meaning of life. [Link]

DavidK said: It has been reported that an insurance multi-millionaire (I don't recall his name, search PT), funds much of their endeavor.

Flint said: And even that wouldn't be nearly so effective, except for the widespread cultural (probably cross-cultural) conviction that the more urgent and necessary the cause, the more forgiveable the untruth necessary to promote it. And what could be more urgent or necessary than the salvation of your eternal soul?

The Tim Channel said: Oh yeah, and not to go all Godwin's Law on everybody, but given the latest news about Teatard Republican candidates posed in their Nazi uniforms...... I think the quote about telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth fits Faux news perfectly. Enjoy.

I don’t even give them that any longer. They don’t give a damn about anybody’s soul. It’s all about power, ego, and money.

These bastards haven’t changed their MO in nearly 50 years since the early 1960s.

mrg said:

Flint said: Gee, John Wise seems kind of surprised and disappointed to discover that everything the DI says is dishonest through and through, in every possible way from what is said, to how it is said, to who said it. He seems to suspect that they are doing this deliberately. Imagine that.

You have to admit, those who weren't familiar with the DI might well have reason to be startled on observing their tactics for the first time. If one is used to dealing with sensible and honest people, the likes of Casey Luskin might come as something of a shock.

W. H. Heydt said:

The Tim Channel said: Oh yeah, and not to go all Godwin's Law on everybody, but given the latest news about Teatard Republican candidates posed in their Nazi uniforms...... I think the quote about telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth fits Faux news perfectly. Enjoy.

From what I've read (BBC among other sources)he does military historical re-enactment. He's also done WWI and the US Civil War (Union side) as well. This stuff is pretty serious hobbies and entails a lot of research to get uniform details correct. (My own tastes run rather earlier in history.) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Roger said:

W. H. Heydt said:

The Tim Channel said: Oh yeah, and not to go all Godwin's Law on everybody, but given the latest news about Teatard Republican candidates posed in their Nazi uniforms...... I think the quote about telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth fits Faux news perfectly. Enjoy.

From what I've read (BBC among other sources)he does military historical re-enactment. He's also done WWI and the US Civil War (Union side) as well. This stuff is pretty serious hobbies and entails a lot of research to get uniform details correct. (My own tastes run rather earlier in history.) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

As someone who does medieval combat reenactment, I agree with Mr Heydt although choosing to portray an SS unit might not have been the best judgement. From a scientific POV I am far more alarmed at Christine O’Donnell's mouse with a full human brain comment. My apologies for digressing from the original subject.

Roger said: As someone who does medieval combat reenactment, I agree with Mr Heydt although choosing to portray an SS unit might not have been the best judgement. From a scientific POV I am far more alarmed at Christine O’Donnell's mouse with a full human brain comment. My apologies for digressing from the original subject.

The paper in Bio-Complexity DOES demonstrate evolution! It is just that the authors are too blinded by Jesus' Glory that they can't see it. In their Figure 5, they clear show (and admit) that over the course of about 500 generations of growth in tryptophan-free medium, the generation time decrease from about 2 hours to less than one hour. This is exactly what evolution predicts would happen.

I haven't yet read the paper closely enough to see how badly they have to twist evolutionary theory to discard a stunning result like this, but it must be a gymnastic feat of Olympic proportions.

The DI now have responded to Prof. Chancey, too. They do seem to be annoyed. The folks at SMU must be doing something right.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: They do seem to be annoyed.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: The DI now have responded to Prof. Chancey, too. They do seem to be annoyed. The folks at SMU must be doing something right.

I notice that Sykes (director of PULSE) basically says, I don't know squat about science, but I know these guys are scientists because they have all these advanced degrees. If all actual scientists not pushing a narrow religious agenda disagree, it must be a legitimate scientific agreement. How would I know? I brought these guys here so that scientists could preach the meaning of life.

Somehow, Sykes omits to mention that he, himself, just happens to reject evolution and believes that THEREFORE it must be "scientifically" wrong. And his knockout argument is, no mainstream scientist chose to stand up during the presentation and engage in a debate he believes would have solved all scientific issues!

And so, as usual, it's necessary to lie to support liars.

The DI now have responded to Prof. Chancey, too.

Juan Terrazas, a member of PULSE, a campus ministry, found the talk interesting. He said that he was in a better position to compare Darwin's evolution theory to the biblical explanation of the beginning of life.

W. H. Heydt said:

Roger said:

W. H. Heydt said:

The Tim Channel said: Oh yeah, and not to go all Godwin's Law on everybody, but given the latest news about Teatard Republican candidates posed in their Nazi uniforms...... I think the quote about telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth fits Faux news perfectly. Enjoy.

From what I've read (BBC among other sources)he does military historical re-enactment. He's also done WWI and the US Civil War (Union side) as well. This stuff is pretty serious hobbies and entails a lot of research to get uniform details correct. (My own tastes run rather earlier in history.) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

As someone who does medieval combat reenactment, I agree with Mr Heydt although choosing to portray an SS unit might not have been the best judgement. From a scientific POV I am far more alarmed at Christine O’Donnell's mouse with a full human brain comment. My apologies for digressing from the original subject.

I agree with you on all points. As for the medieval...which kingdom? --W. H. Heydt Hal Ravn West, Mists, Vinhold

This is not accurate or generous .
First a school is really about the people in it and not just the paid people.
Those attending or those who have attended and are intimate with the school body are just as worthy to claim the school academic culture as their own as they do spatial reality.
It is the school credibility , the people, which can be claimed for a I.D. gathering.
The reason for opposition from "FACULTY" is the reason for all opposition. Fear and foreboding of creationist advancement in the land.
They question I.D folk's motives, well right back at them.
All publicity is good publicity in rising, and right, causes.
So any dustup here should be welcome from creationist clans.

Yet rightfully it should be pointed out this is a lame attack against gatherings in a school that wouldn't be attacked if about other causes.
In stead why not have a series of great debates, like the Lincoln-Douglas ones, and place themselves firmly in the present history of these great clashing ideas.
Instead of silly snipers , bush- whackers, arm-chair skirmishers.
Creationism(s) today think big about great intellectual change.
Our side has passion and therefore promise.
If both did likewise the truth would quicker come to more stable conclusion for more people.

Byers, you do know, don't you, that the IDists are scrambling as fast as they can to get as far away from you as possible?

We do that, too, but in our case it's because we don't want the stupid to get all over us. In their case it's for political reasons, because unlike you, Byers, they can read a pollsheet and a court decision. That's why they deny your particular brand of bonehead Genesis-sez creationism with the vehemence of a used car salesman averring, hand on heart, that this one was only driven on Sundays by a little old lady from Wassapee Falls.

But by all means greet them as allies and comrades. They'll welcome you by shaking you warmly by the throat.

Us? We'll be eating popcorn and laughing.

Nah, they like Byers because he is all they have left. People who will unquestioningly believe anything they say.

Here is an interesting essay written by Dembski in 2002 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6300;st=8340#entry176213. It's actually a good summary on what you would expect from a real science. Unfortunately ID and Creationism fail on every point.

Karen S. said: The ID movement had their big chance at gaining legitimacy when they were invited to a debate at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan in April 2002. It was a controversial move, one that some feared would help the IDM gain traction. So why are the ID folks pretty much silent about this chance of a lifetime? The debate, in several parts, was recently put on YouTube by the NCSE. The Pennock vs Dembski exchange is especially interesting. See for yourselves: The Great Debate

mrg said:

Toni M. said: Bio-Complexity editorial team: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeam

Oh for joy ... yet another official-sounding Marvel Cosmic Crossover organization starring Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, and Jonathan Wells. The Renaissance lives on.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: The DI now have responded to Prof. Chancey, too.

ID is not creationist or conservative; it has nothing to do with either. Neither Bibles nor right-wing party alliances are necessary join the ranks of Darwin's critics

"I believe that God is the creator of life. I don't see how something can originate from cells. There has to be someone that created us, a higher power," Terrazas said.

Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

I believe the full quote is "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." and Sir Winston Churchill said it. But don't worry - Twain said some really cool things too. ;o)

Otto J. Mäkelä said:

I believe the full quote is "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." and Sir Winston Churchill said it. But don't worry - Twain said some really cool things too. ;o)

If we want to pick nits (and what's a better hobby for us hominids?), this quote has been attributed to both Twain and Churchill, but no authoritive source is known for either.

Roger said: I'm sure Mr Heydt would agree with me when I say medieval combat reenactment is a much better hobby than nit picking for some of us hominids. ;o)

Robert Byers laughably claims: Creationism(s) today think big about great intellectual change.

New! For those of you who think incorrectly that both sides of every issue should be presented just to be fair, a webpage cataloguing all of the scientific evidence in favor of Intelligent Design Creationism and a list of all the articles published by Intelligent Design Creationism proponents in peer-reviewed science journals showing that Intelligent Design Creationism is a valid research program. The Pro-ID Webpage

wamba said: The Pro-ID Web Page by the SMU physics dept. is a hoot.

mrg said:

wamba said: The Pro-ID Web Page by the SMU physics dept. is a hoot.

My first reaction was: "There's something wrong with this page." After a moment I realized: "No ... I guess there isn't."

This page intentionally left blank

This page left blank by design

Course, those design proponentists depend on the ambiguity of the word "design", cause if it wasn't ambiguous it would imply specific predictions that somebody might, uh, actually test, and what would happen if that were to happen?

W. H. Heydt said:

Roger said:

W. H. Heydt said:

The Tim Channel said: Oh yeah, and not to go all Godwin's Law on everybody, but given the latest news about Teatard Republican candidates posed in their Nazi uniforms...... I think the quote about telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth fits Faux news perfectly. Enjoy.

From what I've read (BBC among other sources)he does military historical re-enactment. He's also done WWI and the US Civil War (Union side) as well. This stuff is pretty serious hobbies and entails a lot of research to get uniform details correct. (My own tastes run rather earlier in history.) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

As someone who does medieval combat reenactment, I agree with Mr Heydt although choosing to portray an SS unit might not have been the best judgement. From a scientific POV I am far more alarmed at Christine O’Donnell's mouse with a full human brain comment. My apologies for digressing from the original subject.

I agree with you on all points. As for the medieval...which kingdom? --W. H. Heydt Hal Ravn West, Mists, Vinhold

Let's not forget the proper spelling, as evidence for an insert without a delete: cdesign proponentsists

Sorry, 'reation' was lost in my carefully designed example of an incomplete deletion.

Creationism(s) today think big about great intellectual change.

for Byers, tying his shoelaces is a great intellectual challenge, far too complex for him to have learned it himself.

Obviously, God must be tying his shoes for him, and just making it *look* like he is using his fingers.

Ichthyic said: Creationism(s) today think big about great intellectual change. for Byers, tying his shoelaces is a great intellectual challenge, far too complex for him to have learned it himself. Obviously, God must be tying his shoes for him, and just making it *look* like he is using his fingers.

What if he uses Velcro instead of laces?

He probably still uses shoe button hooks.

Last night's event, that was sponsored by SMU's Political Science Symposium, was initially supposed to cover the legal issue on whether Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in public schools. However, the exchange between respective advocates reached a deeper level, when in-depth issues of technicalities, philosophies, science and religion were brought up in the dialogue. [...] Elsberry's fifteen minute presentation was nothing but sheer rebuttal and refutation. Claming that ID "isn't even a science," the biologist stated that "anti-evolutionists have utilized political action to gain government support for teaching ID in public schools." Many people have argued that the theory of Intelligent Design is just a back door tactic for teaching â€" if not mandating - the Christian faith. Elsberry went on to claim that "Intelligent Design" is simply an evolved name, stemming from "Creation Science" and "Creationism." After claiming that the theory is merely wishful thinking, he began discussing the technical and scientific justifications that ID is not even a testable hypothesis.

Hey Wes,

Nothing has changed, has it? Dembski is still out there and you are still chuckling under your breath.

Curiously, why can't you seem to put ID away? Where's the coup-de-grace?

I'm beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions and you guys keep coming back with 'oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.'

You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

Steve P. said: Hey Wes, Nothing has changed, has it? Dembski is still out there and you are still chuckling under your breath. Curiously, why can't you seem to put ID away? Where's the coup-de-grace? I'm beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions and you guys keep coming back with 'oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.' You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: The DI now have responded to Prof. Chancey, too. They do seem to be annoyed. The folks at SMU must be doing something right.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Hey Wes, Nothing has changed, has it? Dembski is still out there and you are still chuckling under your breath. Curiously, why can't you seem to put ID away? Where's the coup-de-grace? I'm beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions and you guys keep coming back with 'oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.' You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

Indeed little has changed. Rubes like you still continue to avoid learning any science while sitting around snarking at people who have the ability to do so. In over 40 years, the “intellectual giants” of ID/creationism have been unable to come to grips with the fundamentals of science despite the fact that they are constantly cruising through scientific literature in order to put together quote-mines that misrepresent what is there. So, what has not changed is the revulsion you and your cohorts have for learning along with your utter distain for people who can get outside themselves and their egos and actually learn something. All you have learned to do is taunt scientists and throw feces. Dogs learn faster than you do.

for Byers, tying his shoelaces is a great intellectual challenge, far too complex for him to have learned it himself.

Oh, and another thing Elzinga.

Behe, Sternberg, Axe, Wells and plenty more ARE f*ckn' scientists.

But you don't want to be reminded of that, do you? There's nothing you can do to make THAT little piece of reality go away.

Meet 'em head on for cryin' out loud or stay home.

Steve P. said: You guys don't want to debate Sternberg, Wells, Axe, Myer, Behe, Dembski! You wanna debate guys like Ham. You don't want to debate ID. You wanna debate YEC.

Steve P. said: Oh, and another thing Elzinga. Behe, Sternberg, Axe, Wells and plenty more ARE f*ckn' scientists.

Uh-huh. The DI play from the Clinton book. You really want to go with that one, Steve? I mean, coming from you, that's tantamount to calling them baby-raping Satanists.

I know that the idea of actual, you know, debate is foreign to you, Steve, but, see, if you're on the negative side, your job is actually to be negative. And sound bites? Please. For you, a sound bite is defined as less than two seconds of audio, including the laugh track. Jack Benny did double-takes that lasted longer than your entire attention span.

Why won't the DI go away? Money, Steve. Howard Ahmanson's money. When that particular spigot is turned off, which it will be once ol' Howard figures out that he's not getting what he's paying for, the operation will shut down so fast you'll hear the clang in Taiwan. Luskin will go back to stringing for anyone who pays, O'Leary will find someone else who needs a tame attack dog, and Jonathan Strange, sorry, Wells, will return to sit under Smiling Kim's banyan tree. All their accumulated research will be filed in some flea's navel somewhere, and the whole operation will be buried. In a decade, the fellows of the DI will feign deafness or smile in a puzzled fashion if asked about it at all.

Until that sad day - sad, Steve, because for all their remorseless mendacity, the DI are a source of amusement for many - they'll keep on putting out their press releases, publishing their tracts, assuming their suits of armour and riding hell-for-leather at the nearest windmills, and avoiding actual science like the plague. While real scientists continue to improve everyone's lives and most people's knowledge.

Not your knowledge, of course, Steve. But, hey, horses, water, you know the gig.

Steve P. said: (emphasis added) ... Look Elzinga. Get used to it. Stop living in the past. ID has taken the debate to YOU. Roll up your sleeves and debate the evidence. The more you cry about ID being religion, the more time you give ID to knock down your own fallacious reasoning and misuse of science.

Steve P's question deserves an accurate answer though. The reason scientists can't put ID away is, science relies on evidence and ID rests on religious conviction, devoid of any connection to evidence.

The way one scientist "puts away" another scientist is by producing genuine evidence, open to everyone to observe and test and analyze. But this weapon is useless against a religious doctrine. Useless when the ID folks evaluate an evidence-based claim not on its accuracy but on its ability to trick the ignorant and perhaps make converts. I do not think that there is a single purportedly evidence-based claim that any of the ID "scientists" have ever made, that has not been resoundingly and repeatedly refuted. But so what? Religious doctrine is immune to evidence, which is used only to create false impressions.

As for the debates, it's not that actual scientists "don't want to" debate PR charlatans, it's that the charlatans simply refuse to have any debate on an even playing field. Can't bus in the audience from churches? No debate. Can't name the moderator? No debate. Can't change the subject? No debate. Creationists reflexively reject any debate format that might pin them into the position of actually defending a claim.

But in the real world of science, debate occurs in peer-reviewed research. The creationist "scientists" do not have ANY research, peer reviewed or not. They tried to fake up a "research journal" but it died for lack of submissions, EVEN THOUGH the "peer reviewers" were the very people supposed to be doing the research.

The liars saw what happened when one "ID scientist" took the witness stand and was obliged to answer questions, under cross-examination. They still have nightmares about the vivid picture of Behe sitting there, with a 3-foot-high stack of evidence in his lap, whining that while he had NONE, what was dumped on him just "wasn't good enough", and could someone please take it away, it was heavy! Even a non-scientist judge could see that Behe had no science, no methodology, no evidence, no research, no testable hypotheses. His religion was "science" only because he SAID it was.

Steve P is also correct that ID has "taken the debate to" the outside world, just as the core religion of ID has recruited, deployed, and funded missionaries for centuries. But they aren't using evidence, they're using public relations and political campaigns and lies and misdirection. Which is what missionaries do, but not scientists.

ID is like the paid-off referee of a boxing match, who scrapes the local guy off the canvas and holds his unconscious arm in the air in "victory". The local audience goes crazy with delight. After all, their guy "won", the referee said so! Nothing is quite so convincing as a lie you really want to be true. Steve P illustrates this perfectly.

Flint said: Steve P's question deserves an accurate answer though. The reason scientists can't put ID away is, science relies on evidence and ID rests on religious conviction, devoid of any connection to evidence.

386sx said:

Flint said: Steve P's question deserves an accurate answer though. The reason scientists can't put ID away is, science relies on evidence and ID rests on religious conviction, devoid of any connection to evidence.

Steve P. was demagoguing. Or at least I hope so. If Steve P. doesn't already know by now what the answer was going to be to the question, then my name is Annie Oakley G. Rockerfeller. Steve P. is full of poo-poo.

Steve P. said: Oh, and another thing Elzinga. Behe, Sternberg, Axe, Wells and plenty more ARE f*ckn' scientists.

But you don't want to be reminded of that, do you? There's nothing you can do to make THAT little piece of reality go away.

Meet 'em head on for cryin' out loud or stay home.

To tell you the truth, it makes me sad that people like Behe wasted all that money and time to get degrees, only to do absolutely nothing with them.

Steve P. isn't well-informed on his debate list. I have debated Dembski, and one can even watch the video of the Haverford debates pitting Dembski and I, Behe and Ken Miller, and Warren Nord with Genie Scott.

Further, Dr. Ray Bohlin, who I debated at SMU in 2006, is a Discovery Institute Fellow. In other words, he's a certified IDC advocate. If Steve P. wants to have him disqualified, he needs to take it up with the DI, not me.

IDC goes on after criticism because (1) criticism of IDC on empirical grounds is orthogonal to the socio-political factors that are driving the movement and (2) IDC advocates seldom even bother to alter obviously wrong stances due to accurate criticism and their credulous audience never check them on it. Steve P. could ground the discussion substantively by taking on criticism I've had a part in and making an argument addressing it. I suspect that isn't on his agenda.

Behe, Sternberg, Axe, Wells and plenty more ARE f*ckn’ scientists.

really?

what was Behe's last publication.

what about Wells?

what fields were they working in?

sorry, but even if they WERE scientists at one point (and I went to grad school with Wells, so I can tell you exactly what kind of "science" he did), nothing they have done remotely relates to their claims about mechanisms of evolution, or the veracity of the overall theory.

your attempt at authoritarianism is noted, and laughed at.

Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away?

Henry J said:

Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away?

There's a clause in our constitution that says something about freedom of speech - government isn't allowed to censor people from talking or writing in their own name on their own time. That's probably a good thing in long run, in spite of having to put up with stuff like this. Though of course that same freedom of speech also allows people with sense to debunk the nonsense, in spite of their complaints about it.

Henry J said:

Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away?

There's a clause in our constitution that says something about freedom of speech - government isn't allowed to censor people from talking or writing in their own name on their own time.

Here's a little snippet regarding John West and a talk being given at an Afro-American Museum in Detroit on 10/28. Per the DI's blog, John West is defending Darwin and evolution! From their blog:

"Four scholars with four distinct perspectives debate the link between scientific racism throughout history and the advancement of Darwinian evolution. Speakers include author, Discovery Institute senior fellow and Intelligent Design proponent, Dr. John West; in defense of Darwinian evolution from a biological perspective ..."

Imagine that? I've sent off a note to the museum asking about that - we'll see what they think, or has the dishonesty institute found another sucker venue?

Steve P. said: As usual Elzinga, you keep skirting the question and fling the same, tired, old rhetoric back. Do something for a change and answer the question. Why can't you put ID away? Where's YOUR devastating argument to put the matter to rest? Myer, Sternberg, Wells, Axe are in YOUR territory, bub. You should be vaporizing them will the overwhelming evidence at your disposal. They keep coming back at you with evidence and what do YOU(pl) do? Snipe and gripe. You guys don't want to debate Sternberg, Wells, Axe, Myer, Behe, Dembski! You wanna debate guys like Ham. You don't want to debate ID. You wanna debate YEC. Look Elzinga. Get used to it. Stop living in the past. ID has taken the debate to YOU. Roll up your sleeves and debate the evidence. The more you cry about ID being religion, the more time you give ID to knock down your own fallacious reasoning and misuse of science.

Do something for a change and answer the question. Why can’t you put ID away? Where’s YOUR devastating argument to put the matter to rest?

it's always interesting to see godbots continue to project as a psychological defense mechanism.

In this case, it takes the very clear form of burden shifting.

pathetic.

why can’t you seem to put ID away?

f you want the truth to go round the world you must hire an express train to pull it; but if you want a lie to go round the world. it will fly; it is as light as a feather, and a breath will carry it. It is well said in the old proverb, 'a lie will go round the world while truth is putting its boots on.

Ken said: My apologies for one added comment, but as a long-time wargamer and re-enactor, virtually NOBODY chooses SS uniforms - regular grenadiers or Fallschenjagers are most common. Most aviod SS uniforms because of the incredibly unsavory associations; and most of the many gamers and re-enactors I know would consider an SS uniform to be very, very poor judgement. But this is off-topic, so this will be my only comment. Oh, and I do Renaissance myself. ;-) - Ken

ben said: In fact, they refuse to state any testable, predictive, falsifiable scientific hypothesis whatsoever.

Steve P. said: Hey Wes, Nothing has changed, has it? Dembski is still out there and you are still chuckling under your breath. Curiously, why can't you seem to put ID away? Where's the coup-de-grace? I'm beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions and you guys keep coming back with 'oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.' You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

Ichthyic said: Do something for a change and answer the question. Why can’t you put ID away? Where’s YOUR devastating argument to put the matter to rest? it's always interesting to see godbots continue to project as a psychological defense mechanism. In this case, it takes the very clear form of burden shifting. pathetic.

Unfortunately for you Wes, the DI are not so much annoyed as simply taking a page from a Clinton playbook...

— Steve P.

SWT said: Do my eyes deceive me? [snip] Evidence? This is exciting!

Ron Okimoto said: Have you ever wondered why the ID perp book Explore Evoultion seems to have forgotten about the existence of intelligent design?

As for the ‘why can’t we put ID away,’ my own answer is: as long as a significant % of the population thinks creationism is scientific or equal in some scientific way to evolution, we scientists still have education work to do.

— eric

"Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away?"

Ignorance can be cured.

Stupid is forever.

Well, like polio, ID seems to be hanging around. But, fortunately, like polio, we have developed an effective vaccine for this particular disease. In this case it is called evidence. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution and no evidence that falsifies it. Anyone who wants to can learn enough to determine that ID is completely wrong and worthless and contrary to all of the evidence. Now just like any vaccine, people have to take it in order for it to be effective. Sooner or later everyone will get the idea and take the vaccine, that will be the end of ID. Until then, people who refuse to take the vaccine will continue to pay the price for their ignorance. Unfortunately, they will also try to infect as many people as possible in the meantime.

Nothing has changed, has it? Dembski is still out there and you are still chuckling under your breath. Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away? Where’s the coup-de-grace?

I’m beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions

and you guys keep coming back with ‘oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.’

You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away? Where’s the coup-de-grace?

I honestly wonder that myself. Why do people continue to insist that astronauts never landed on the Moon? Why, after 50 years, do JFK assassination theories persist? Why, after 70 years, do people
keep claiming that Pearl Harbor was an "inside job"?
Why do people continue to insist that vaccines are dangerous even when the evidence is that they are, if not hazard-free, much better than the alternative? Why do people claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and even tell people that anti-HIV drugs are the actual cause of the disease?

I don't understand these things, and I'm not kidding, I really want to know why people persist in these beliefs.

mrg said: Why do people continue to insist that vaccines are dangerous even when the evidence is that they are, if not hazard-free, much better than the alternative?

Anyone who wants to can learn enough to determine that ID is completely wrong and worthless and contrary to all of the evidence. Now just like any vaccine, people have to take it in order for it to be effective. Sooner or later everyone will get the idea and take the vaccine, that will be the end of ID. Until then, people who refuse to take the vaccine will continue to pay the price for their ignorance. Unfortunately, they will also try to infect as many people as possible in the meantime.

— DS

Just Bob said: Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.

And there's also

"Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure of the former."

Nothing has changed, has it? Dembski is still out there and you are still chuckling under your breath. Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away? Where’s the coup-de-grace?

I’m beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions

and you guys keep coming back with ‘oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.’

You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

His failure to answer these questions in a civil, coherent and informative way will be evidence of his own personal shortcomings. His inability to actually cite any real evidence will be proof that he was lying. The inability of any ID advocate to provided any evidence is evidence that ID is not science. The failure of any ID proponent to do any experiments is evidence that they know that ID is not science.

Sure, but readers who are objective about it already know all that, and the anti-evolution side won't admit it anyway.

Henry J said: And there's also "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure of the former."

mrg said: Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away? Where’s the coup-de-grace? I honestly wonder that myself. Why do people continue to insist that astronauts never landed on the Moon? Why, after 50 years, do JFK assassination theories persist? Why, after 70 years, do people keep claiming that Pearl Harbor was an "inside job"? Why do people continue to insist that vaccines are dangerous even when the evidence is that they are, if not hazard-free, much better than the alternative? Why do people claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and even tell people that anti-HIV drugs are the actual cause of the disease? I don't understand these things, and I'm not kidding, I really want to know why people persist in these beliefs.

eric said:

Ron Okimoto said: Have you ever wondered why the ID perp book Explore Evoultion seems to have forgotten about the existence of intelligent design?

So, they now teach icritical analysisgn?

My reading of history is that it was politically difficult for the US to get involved in WWII, because the number of German-Americans was large and politically significant, and because Germans were regarded as Europeans and therefore fully human, while the Japanese weren't. Nor is it surprising that the A-bomb was deployed against Japan and not dropped in Europe. And I think it's pretty well established that the Tonkin Gulf incident was engineered for political leverage as well.

When incidents like that happen, the question "who benefits?" is generally meaningful. The HIV-AIDS denial seems to have taken root after HIV escaped the homosexual reservation. Global warming amelioration threatens big money. Why some people think the moon landing were all staged is beyond me. But here, the question "what else do these people have in common?" might be helpful.

In any case, as creationism demonstrates so ably, the Will To Believe trumps mere evidence and logic without even breathing hard.

Flint said: Nor is it surprising that the A-bomb was deployed against Japan and not dropped in Europe.

Klaus Hellnick said: Well, on the JFK thing, there clearly was a coverup, apparently run largely by LBJ, and the Warren commission report was goofy.

There may have been, uh, ethnically motivated reasons behind that decision

What’s the difference between a fairy tale and a conspiracy theory?

Flint said: Yes, I think it's possible. If the US rounded up German-Americans and stuck them in concentration camps, confiscating all their possessions and not returning them for 50 years, I haven't heard about it. Tactically, there really wasn't any compelling reason to drop the bomb.

I can’t think of a single reason for me to bother arguing the matter.

Flint said: The question you raised was, why do people persist in being convinced of incredible or nonsensical things, against any amount of evidence. And what's been pointed out here is, some of these things are a lot more plausible than others based on the available (and very incomplete) evidence. I think this is important; I think there's a qualitative difference between convictions that are prima facie stupid or unsupportable, and convictions where reasonable and informed people might legitimately disagree. Political decisions have many inputs, not all of them visible. Creationism, now, is flat insane.

I don't propose any particular conspiracy, but I don't think that the JFK assassination forensic investigation conclusions can be said to be as satisfying as clear cut scientific advances.

The after-the-fact involvement of Jack Ruby is one very odd thing. It is an undeniably odd coincidence that Oswald (who was obviously a or the shooter) was rather pointlessly killed, while already in custody and facing severe punishment and infamy, by an organized crime figure, who just happened to be on his death bed. It's also worth noting that Oswald was an almost perfect "patsy" figure - a not-very-bright loser involved with Soviet communism, the most disliked and controversial thing at that time.

It could be just that - coincidence. And the more elaborate conspiracy ravings are clearly fiction.

But I won't deny that something smells wrong to me.

Forensic science was very, very different in 1960. Pre-Miranda law enforcement were generally urged to emphasize the "order" part of "law and order". Wrapping up the most controversial possible case before public outrage became a problem was almost certainly a huge motivation.

Lone nuts do plenty of damage, so I won't rule that out, but given Oswald's death before testimony, the case is not 100% satisfying.

harold said: ... by an organized crime figure, who just happened to be on his death bed.

Something smells wrong to me.

Do some homework and you’ll find out the conspiracy theories smell a lot worse.

harold said: Well, you're probably right. My point of view may well have been biased by the background noise of conspiracy theories.

harold said: The after-the-fact involvement of Jack Ruby is one very odd thing.

harold said: I'm so skeptical, I generally like to see even correct conclusions very well documented. I may well be ignorantly underestimating the level of evidence that confirms the lone Oswald case.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: It does look odd until one learns that the only reason that Oswald and Ruby crossed paths was that Oswald wanted to wear a sweater, so his being brought out was delayed.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History."

Unlike creationists and conspiracy theorists, I take great pride in my ability to eventually admit that I have been wrong.

That may be relatively easy, or difficult, depending on the circumstances. In this case it's extremely easy, as I am clearly dealing with people who know more about the subject than I do.

One thing that makes giving up on conspiracy ravings or science denial hard for some people, is that adopting such may serve as a proxy for some underlying position that they do not wish to openly admit. By stating that they believe in a "literal interpretation of Genesis", for example, people are actually stating a great deal about their political and social agenda. Yet the creationist claim serves as a less inflammatory way to communicate such an agenda to the like-minded, especially when members of the general public may also be present.

harold said: (I wonder why Steve P. has been so mysterious about all of that "more and more" scientific evidence for ID. You'd think he'd be dying to point it out.)

To return to the original topic. Wesley Elsberry mentioned a "debate" at SMU in 2006, I think I was at that one and asked the ID "scientist" to explain in terms of ID science why birds still had genes for teeth when they don't even have jaws to grow them in. The answer from this so called scientist was a complete misunderstanding (ignorance of?) evolution. He said the continued existence of the gene proves that natural selection doesn't work because otherwise the gene would have disappeared. Totally missing the fact that once a gene is no longer expressed it is effectively invisible to natural selection. The only surprise to the scientists was that it was still intact enough to get it to function in culture where the embryonic tissue began to form reptilian style teeth. Imagine that!! This kind of ignorance from one of their scientific supporters is scary. If the IDers don't even understand the science they oppose how do they ever intend to defeat it.
At another one of these "debates" I asked the ID scientist to please describe for me an experiment designed using ID. I was open about it asking for anything that had been done, was being worked on presently, or was planned for the future. His answer was that the Discovery Institute didn't have enough money to finance research. A 4 million plus yearly budget and they can't find even a little of that to finance a single experiment, nor can they even describe what such an experiment would look like.
The way we will defeat ID is to keep hammering on this point in every venue. There is NO EVIDENCE and they don't even know how to find any. At every event you attend demand to know the evidence or at least to describe what an ID experiment would look like. Every time you do that somebody wakes up and realizes the emperor really is naked.

If the IDers don’t even understand the science they oppose how do they ever intend to defeat it.

Yes, there is a lack of evidence, but I think that it is more telling that there is no substance to ID. Nothing other than that there is something wrong with evolutionary biology. Even if any of the complaints about evolution had something to them, ID doesn't have any alternative. Let's suppose that they show that evolution has a problem with such-and-such, how does ID handle it? If it is vastly improbable that evolution would end up with something-or-other, how probable is it that intelligent designer(s) would design that?

Or how about this: Is there an example of something which is not intelligently designed? Something which is unlikely to be designed? A centaur - could that not be intelligently designed?

A centaur - could that not be intelligently designed?

TomS said: A centaur - could that not be intelligently designed?

SWT said: The Centaur was intelligently designed. If I recall correctly, we moved to southern California in the 1960's because my father was involved with the project.

Mary H said: His answer was that the Discovery Institute didn't have enough money to finance research. A 4 million plus yearly budget and they can't find even a little of that to finance a single experiment, nor can they even describe what such an experiment would look like.

To return to the original topic. Wesley Elsberry mentioned a “debate” at SMU in 2006, I think I was at that one and asked the ID “scientist” to explain in terms of ID science why birds still had genes for teeth when they don’t even have jaws to grow them in. The answer from this so called scientist was a complete misunderstanding (ignorance of?) evolution. He said the continued existence of the gene proves that natural selection doesn’t work because otherwise the gene would have disappeared.

We ID theorists have moved on since then and the work of some of our leading scientists, W. Jon, S. Ralph and M. Stephen leads us to conclude that this is an example of microevolution, or small changes within baramins - you see, having the genes for teeth and not erupting them as with birds is a case of loss of function! When the reptiles evolved into birds, they experienced a loss of function, but then they sprouted wings...wait I will get back to you with our latest theory.

Mike Elzinga said: Take any concept from ID/creationist “science” and attempt to formulate a research proposal to be submitted for peer review and approval by a funding agency. The mind goes blank immediately. You can’t even come up with a technique. You cannot conceive of a way to build any kind of apparatus to detect a deity.

Ah, but what if one of them then says that only some things were front loaded, and that may have been one of the things that wasn't? ;)

mrg said:

SWT said: The Centaur was intelligently designed. If I recall correctly, we moved to southern California in the 1960's because my father was involved with the project.

Not COMPLETELY intelligently. LOX-LH2 propulsion is tricky and some of the early Atlas-Centaur shots produced some REALLY spectacular launchpad explosions.

Mike Elzinga -

Even the whole "front-loading" thing is largely weasel words.

If it's a claim that ancestral life is "loaded" with genetic material that is sufficiently variable upon reproduction to give rise to descendant life that is different from ancestral life, then that would be trivially true.

If it's a claim that every gene in every organism on earth was present in every ancestor of that organism, it's trivially false - even under YEC assumptions, because that wouldn't even be true over the last 6000 year.

Meanwhile, Steve P. was invited to discuss the positive evidence for magical intelligent design of living organisms in a coherent, informative, and civil way.

He failed in the most extreme way possible - lifted his skirts and ran off in panic the moment his internet macho man bluster was challenged.

eric said: *I'm thinking of frontloading, which is pretty simple to test. Identify new trait. Identify DNA strings involved with trait (don't worry, you don't have to identify them all, just as many as you can). Take DNA of parents, which don't express trait. If any of the DNA strings involved in expressing the trait do not exist in either parent, it was not frontloaded; that string is a mutation. Of course i think this has already been done, for example with nylon eating bacteria and citrate eating e coli. So frontloading is not so much testable as already disproven. We know it is falsifiable from the fact that it has been falsified. :)

harold said: He failed in the most extreme way possible - lifted his skirts and ran off in panic the moment his internet macho man bluster was challenged.

FYI - The correct terminology for "front-loaded" is now "pants-loaded" as it more accurately decribes the end result of the process.*

* Brought to you by your friends at ATBC

mrg said:

harold said: ... by an organized crime figure, who just happened to be on his death bed.

Guy ... NOBODY has ever established a connection between Ruby and the Mob other than mobsters occasionally came to his nightclub. Everybody who knew Ruby, including his rabbi, said he was much too unstable and too loudmouthed to be trusted to do anything. All investigations of "suspicious" contacts between Ruby and supposed Mob figures came up zero. Ruby denied to his very last day that he was part of a conspiracy. He died in early 1967, over three years after he shot Oswald. He wasn't diagnosed with cancer until late 1966, and there wasn't any indication he had a health problem until a few months before that. Conspiracy theorists have been exploiting selective use of evidence, misinformation, and outright fabrications and have succeeded in convincing the bulk of the public that something fishy was going on. Those who actually do some homework find out that JFK conspiracy theories make Intelligent Design seem plausible by comparison.

Something smells wrong to me.

Do some homework and you'll find out the conspiracy theories smell a lot worse.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: It does look odd until one learns that the only reason that Oswald and Ruby crossed paths was that Oswald wanted to wear a sweater, so his being brought out was delayed.

mrg said: Yeah, Ruby got a money order at Western Union near police headquarters and it was timestamped only a short time before he shot Oswald. Ruby snuck into the basement through the garage door and arrived just as Oswald was being brought out. Actually, Oswald would have been gone well before that, except for the fact that the postal inspector dropped by police HQ and was invited to sit in on the interrogation of Oswald that morning. The postal inspector grilled him for an extended period of time -- about the shipment of the Carcano rifle to the PO box and the "Hidell" alias it was registered to -- and the interrogation went on for well longer than scheduled. The Dallas police badly dropped the ball and it does seem suspicious for Ruby to have shot Oswald -- but the number one problem is: Why eliminate ONE loose cannon who might talk and replace him with ANOTHER loose cannon who might talk?

J-Dog said: FYI - The correct terminology for "front-loaded" is now "pants-loaded" as it more accurately decribes the end result of the process.* * Brought to you by your friends at ATBC

Steve P taunting: Curiously, why can’t you seem to put ID away? Where’s the coup-de-grace?

Steve P. delusional: I’m beginning to think ID is becoming rather formidable in that Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, et al keep coming back to you all with more and more scientific evidence for their positions and you guys keep coming back with ‘oh, the lies. oh, the misrepresentations.’

You are gonna definitely have to do better than that if you plan to put a wrench in the ID juggernaut. There are only so many rhetorical tools in the bag.

Wiki has an informative page on the Dishonesty Institute:

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

There is the claim that Guys like Dembski used to get a stipend every year up to $60,000. You have to wonder how much they have paid a total loser like Wells over the years. It has to be sad when the guys books should have stickers in them that say "For propaganda purposes only. Not for educational use." so that rubes like the Ohio State board won't try to use the books as references.

These guys didn't use the money for research. Minnich claimed that he hadn't gotten around to doing any and Behe claimed that he didn't have to test his ID claptrap. You have to wonder what the standards are for continuing to get the money. How many lies have you gotten away with? Any useful bogus propaganda that you have generated? Meyer got promoted after he ran the bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes. What does he get paid? According to Behe and Minnich both claimed under oath that they nor no one that they knew of had published any scientific support for intelligent design, so you know they didn't get the money for honest and effective research. That has to be sad in anyone's book.

There is the claim that Guys like Dembski used to get a stipend every year up to $60,000. You have to wonder how much they have paid a total loser like Wells over the years.

Dale Husband said: I do suspect Ruby was ordered to kill Osward by someone, but we may never know who because he never told who sent him.

tomh said:

Dale Husband said: I do suspect Ruby was ordered to kill Osward by someone, but we may never know who because he never told who sent him.

We may never know who because it unlikely in the extreme that there ever was a shadowy "someone" who sent him to do it. Why would you suspect such a thing? There has never been a shred of evidence to suggest it.

Speaking of salaries, John West used to be a professor at Seattle Pacific University. For about a year he was actually head of the political science & geography department (temporary appt I think), then he left for full-time work(?) at the dishonesty institute. Word on the street has it that he kept feeding his classes ID jibberish as well as the supposed Nazi link to evolution and his students complained up the chain. It's strange that they crave academic positions, yet for some reason he no longer is associated with SPU. He was probably taking home a pretty good salary, too.

tomh said:

Dale Husband said: I do suspect Ruby was ordered to kill Osward by someone, but we may never know who because he never told who sent him.

We may never know who because it unlikely in the extreme that there ever was a shadowy "someone" who sent him to do it. Why would you suspect such a thing? There has never been a shred of evidence to suggest it.

Dale Husband said: I know there is no evidence to suggest it, nor would I claim there was. But why else would Ruby kill Oswald?

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: I know there is no evidence to suggest it, nor would I claim there was. But why else would Ruby kill Oswald?

Ruby shot Oswald while he was being transferred from police headquarters to the county jail. Oswald was being transferred because people were phoning in threats against his life and the police wanted to get him in a more secure establishment. They had been keeping him by himself since they feared other prisoners might try to kill him. Ruby was an unstable and violent sort who was known as a brawler and who, on occasion, would punch people out for trivial provocations. He was volatile to begin with, and in the days following the assassination of JFK everybody found him off his head, even weeping, something a tough guy like Ruby was never seen to do at other times. When he shot Oswald he shouted: "YOU KILLED MY PRESIDENT, YOU RAT!" Apparently a lot of telegrams were sent to Ruby in jail congratulating him. It would have been better to get Oswald on the witness stand so everybody could have heard the same easily detected lies that he told the cops in interrogation: "Here's a picture of you posturing with your pistol and rifle that we got from the Paine's house." "That's not me!" Again ... if Oswald had been killed by a professional assassin who had then disappeared, that would have been very suspicious. But it would have made no sense to simply kill off one loose cannon who might betray the "conspiracy" and then hand the authorities ANOTHER loose cannon who might betray the "conspiracy". Indeed, it would have made matters WORSE for the "conspiracy" because it would have indicated more links to them.

Mary H said: To return to the original topic. Wesley Elsberry mentioned a “debate” at SMU in 2006, I think I was at that one and asked the ID “scientist” to explain in terms of ID science why birds still had genes for teeth when they don’t even have jaws to grow them in. The answer from this so called scientist was a complete misunderstanding (ignorance of?) evolution. He said the continued existence of the gene proves that natural selection doesn’t work because otherwise the gene would have disappeared.

I thought this cartoon was intersting:

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur

sorry, it's the sunday 10/18 comic that I was pointing to.

DavidK said: Speaking of salaries, John West used to be a professor at Seattle Pacific University. For about a year he was actually head of the political science & geography department (temporary appt I think), then he left for full-time work(?) at the dishonesty institute. Word on the street has it that he kept feeding his classes ID jibberish as well as the supposed Nazi link to evolution and his students complained up the chain. It's strange that they crave academic positions, yet for some reason he no longer is associated with SPU. He was probably taking home a pretty good salary, too.

We must go out of our way to censor and expell all nonEvolutionary claims, so that we are not contaminated with the divine foot. We must keep the divine foot out of the door and not let the 40% of history deniers have a say on Science. Let us no longer promote propaganda, but yet go strongly with as Stephen Jay Gould puts it, the strong imagination of Charles Lyell, and demonstrate true Science out of it!

A little early in the day to be that high and/or drunk Faith.

tresmal said: A little early in the day to be that high and/or drunk Faith.

mrg said:

tresmal said: A little early in the day to be that high and/or drunk Faith.

He was here a few days ago. I get the impression he's cycling through the blogosphere and leaving his mark.

Mike Elzinga said: A lot of animals do that (this is mine).

Hey, all I want is for honest inquiry in Science. If I have further evidential support that I've found for Evolution, I think I should be more than entitled to share it.

Write it up for a peer-reviewed journal.