Merry Kitzmas +5!!

(Behe) “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

“It didn’t seem to me the judge understood any of the scientific evidence anyway,”

“But it doesn’t affect the science. The scientific case for intelligent design keeps getting stronger.”

I'm re-posting this screed of mine from Summer 2010, it's kind of an omnibus response to much of what has passed for response from the ID side to the Kitzmiller decision science issues over the years...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/random-response.html

[edited to fix typos-Nick]

stevaroni said: Otherwise, please, please, please be so kind as to shut up and quit soiling the name of my alma mater.

Poor Mikey Behe, he's so misunderstood. Wonder whether he'll consider Ken Miller's most excellent advice for Mikey to write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry, especially when Mikey's American publisher also publishes the "Star Trek" books (EDITORIAL NOTE: It was after dinner I had with Ken a few years ago here in New York City, that, out of the blue, he suggested that Behe write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry. Wish I could claim credit for this, but I can't.).

stevaroni said:

(Behe) “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

That losers "not talking about it" might have something to do with it being so magnificently devastating to their case , Mikey.

Results of a google search for "Judge Jones" site:www.evolutionnews.org restricted to last year.

John Kwok said: I hope you didn't major in biological sciences there. That departmental disclaimer regarding Mikey's "peculiar" interest is embarassing to say the least.

JLT said: Results of a google search for "Judge Jones" site:www.evolutionnews.org restricted to last year.

Read through the article and over 100 comments at the York Dispatch.

Sorry the article didn't call Behe on his lies and Bill Buckingham on his $100 offer to show him the words 'Separation of church and state' in the constitution.

The comment were surprisingly strong in support of the decision. A few fundie nuts babbling bible verses and tired DI canards. Not bad for the heart of Pennsyltucky.

JLT said: Results of a google search for "Judge Jones" site:www.evolutionnews.org restricted to last year.

I liked the bit where Jen Miller says she moved evolution front and center in her biology class.

Also (for amusement value) Buckingham complaining how the board was shafted. Bill, when you lie to the judge in a bench trial, and then get caught via a whole series of videotape and written evidence of your lying, that's a self-shafting.

You know, Behe has all that time that he's not teaching (Thank Dog for that)... maybe he should have spent the last five years reading those 50+ books and journal articles that he admited to never having read... then said that they don't say he's wrong though. (I'm sorry, that's my favorite line from the whole trial.)

Merry Kitzmas... when my son is a few years older, I'll make it a tradition that he gets a science tool on this day... so he can use it before it gets lost in the 8000 toys he gets from his grandmother on Christmas.

aybe he should have spent the last five years reading those 50+ books and journal articles that he admited to never having read…

strangely enough, it looks like he has finally gotten that message.

did you read his last published paper?

no, I didn't either, but evidently while some of his conclusions, of course, are entirely delusional, people involved with microbial genetics and evolution feel he was indeed spot on in calling for more research looking into the evolution of novel traits.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/an-experimental-evolutionist-replies-to-behe/

so, this time at least, Behe DID take the time out to peruse the lit, DID notice some areas that needed more research, and only then tried to stuff his god into those gaps.

Is that progress?

maybe he's trying to actually get interested in doing real science again.

We'll see if his religious delusions keep getting in the way.

My own view of the MB paper is that it has done a service to the study of evolution by pointing out where the next generation of experients[sic] should focus. We don’t yet have many studies on the long term evolution of protein novelty (to get extreme divergence), and the types of selection used are typically extreme. Answers to these problems aren’t yet available simply because we simply have not applied much effort. Indeed, there is still much we have yet to understand about the seemingly more mundane process of point mutation evolution in the simplest environments. As I noted above, we do have many dozens of ‘directed evolution” studies in which various functions and activities haven been evolved from random libraries of RNA molecules, and those studies have shown that selection can be a powerful and creative force.

Wow, if he's honest--and I really don't have any reason to think that he isn't (except intellectually)--he sure is delusional.

I especially like that ID case is "getting stronger." I suppose when your reference point is zero evidence it's easy to believe that you're getting stronger, and yet the evolutionary approach just explains more and more (yes, there are a huge number of details that remain to be answered, and many may never have more than plausible answers), while ID stays at peg zero.

Here's a thought Behe--look for evidence of design, not delusional BS that you people put forth as if it were evidence for design (like, 'gee, it's so complex'). You won't find it, as you already know, but at least you'd be doing something that is at least science-like, as opposed to what IDiots usually do.

Glen Davidson

JLT said:

stevaroni said:

(Behe) “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

That losers "not talking about it" might have something to do with it being so magnificently devastating to their case , Mikey.

At least Casey Luskin can't stop talking about it (2 more parts are linked to at the bottom).

'Tis Kitzmas! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

Many thanks to those who were in the front lines of that particular outbreak of Teh Stoopidz. Your sacrifice and toil are remembered and appreciated.

The MadPanda, FCD

Ichthyic said: aybe he should have spent the last five years reading those 50+ books and journal articles that he admited to never having read… strangely enough, it looks like he has finally gotten that message. did you read his last published paper? no, I didn't either, but evidently while some of his conclusions, of course, are entirely delusional, people involved with microbial genetics and evolution feel he was indeed spot on in calling for more research looking into the evolution of novel traits. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/an-experimental-evolutionist-replies-to-behe/ so, this time at least, Behe DID take the time out to peruse the lit, DID notice some areas that needed more research, and only then tried to stuff his god into those gaps. Is that progress? maybe he's trying to actually get interested in doing real science again. We'll see if his religious delusions keep getting in the way.

SOB is to lazy to do any, you know, science.

hmm, paper suggests he did try to replicate some of the experiments, if poorly.

look, what he's finding out is that when he actually DOES read or, you know, do science, the results don't agree with his preconceptions, but he either spins the conclusions or outright denies them.

It's really sad watching a person deal with such cognitive dissonance.

it's cases just like Behe that make me actually angry that so many appear to think accomodationism is the way to go.

would you accomodate a schizophrenic, simply because there were a lot of them? Or would you feel obligated to point out that a large part of what is shaping their perception of reality is delusion?

Yeah well "accomodationists" were running the Kitzmiller case through-and-through and we did alright. It was the other side that couldn't keep their eye on the ball (the ball was science education), and kept dragging apologetics for their preferred religious view into it.

If I didn't think it would be a total disaster, it would be fun to see a bunch of obsessed-go-after-religion-at-all-costs, all-theists-are-dumb-creationists types attempt a court case like this. They sometimes seem to think they would get a judge to rule "science has disproved religion, everyone should be an atheist and this should be taught in schools." Such an attempt would be an IDists/fundamentalists dream come true...

Nick (Matzke) said: Yeah well "accomodationists" were running the Kitzmiller case through-and-through and we did alright.

If it is ID it can't be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can't be taught in school, then it is creation, that can't be taught in school, what is 'it' well it is 'life' and if it is not evolution and science, then it is creation so 'give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's'. If 'it' is ID it should be taught in school for what it is, the explanation of how things are. Plus, it is a phenomena all of it's own anyway, and should be taught as a subject in it's own category. The story of how life begins. The process creates one species and another, weather it did it that way in the beginning of life or not it does it that way now.

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school ...

Yeah well “accomodationists” were running the Kitzmiller case through-and-through and we did alright

post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

M.W. said: If 'it' is ID it should be taught in school for what it is, the explanation of how things are. Plus, it is a phenomena all of it's own anyway, and should be taught as a subject in it's own category. The story of how life begins. The process creates one species and another, weather it did it that way in the beginning of life or not it does it that way now.

If I didn't think it would be a total disaster, it would be fun to see a bunch of obsessed-go-after-religion-at-all-costs, all-theists-are-dumb-creationists types attempt a court case like this.

If that wasn't such a fucking HUGE strawman, I'm sure someone would take you up on it.

for someone with such keen intellect, you sure abuse it often enough.

If it is ID it can’t be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can’t be taught in school, then it is creation, that can’t be taught in school, ...

Now why did that scene with Kirk confusing the M5 computer come back to me all of a sudden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMRzZpQ8q0

Dover Area Senior High School biology teacher Jennifer Miller doesn't hear her students talking about the Kitzmiller decision in the halls. Teachers don't talk about it, either. But its impact is evident in her classroom. Evolution used to be the last unit she taught each semester. "Now I teach it first and make sure I emphasize it. And I keep referring to it, to show them how important evolution is to biology," said Miller, who testified at the trial.

Ichthyic said: it's cases just like Behe that make me actually angry that so many appear to think accomodationism is the way to go.

Wheels said: I really, reeeeaaaally don't want to see this turn into another ACCOMODATIONALISM argument ...

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school as science...

If 'it' is ID it should be taught in school for what it is, the explanation of how things are.

I really, reeeeaaaally don’t want to see this turn into another ACCOMODATIONALISM argument,

fair enough.

but would you mind outlining what it did wrong and what your alternative suggestion would be?

based on your first response, the answer would be:

no.

In fact, what does this even have to do with the subject of the post?

It relates to the ongoing discussion of Michael Behe, who is quoted in the OP.

This is Nick's turf, so I'll turn off the music.

everything that needed to be said has actually been said, many times before, and if you're really curious, it's not hard to follow the lines of reasoning cross-blogs.

I think Jerry did a nice job of tying together some of the debate from last year and the year before.

there was a post that contained cross links to many of the specific debates where the issues were hashed out.

now, if I can just find the link to it.

I really, reeeeaaaally don’t want to see this turn into another ACCOMODATIONALISM argument,

fair enough.

but would you mind outlining what it did wrong and what your alternative suggestion would be?

based on your first response, the answer would be:

no.

In fact, what does this even have to do with the subject of the post?

It relates to the ongoing discussion of Michael Behe, who is quoted in the OP.

This is Nick's turf, so I'll turn off the music.

everything that needed to be said has actually been said, many times before, and if you're really curious, it's not hard to follow the lines of reasoning cross-blogs.

I think Jerry did a nice job of tying together some of the debate from last year and the year before.

there was a post that contained cross links to many of the specific debates where the issues were hashed out.

now, if I can just find the link to it.

ah, here 'tis:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-big-accommodatinism-debate-all-relevant-posts/

obviously, many of the points have been rehashed since, but that's a great place to pick up the gist of things, if you're really curious.

Hell, I could write review papers and I don’t even have a masters degree.

A review paper is different than just cobbling together brief descriptions of a bunch of studies.

there's an onus on the person doing the review to provide a comprehensive overview of the entire subject, as well as being able to correctly point out where the strengths and weakness are in specific included papers, and the field as a whole.

coincidentally, I know many Master's theses that are, in fact, composed of essentially a review paper of a particular field!

... several PhD theses that have relied in large part on reviews as well, for that matter.

There are no "accommodationists" here.

The "accomodationist" position in context would be to say that some aspects of ID are less than laughable. Nobody is doing that.

ID is basically a few illogical and/or factually false arguments. There's "irreducible complexity" (argument from incredulity), "complex specified information" (pure meaningless term), the "design filter" (false dichotomy/premature rejection of alternate possibilities), and false analogy to human design (false analogy, also false conclusion, since if the analogy was apt it would mean that humans created life).

That's all there is to it.

It's perfectly possible to be religious, yet see that this is a pile of crap.

The motivation is an attempt to disguise the dogma of one particular cult as science, yes, but that doesn't mean that plenty of religious people can't see what a load of crap it is.

The trial was about whether ID is suitable for a public school science curriculum, and nobody on the right side "accommodated" that.

Incidentally, I think Behe is making progress.

"God of the gaps" is a huge improvement over "IRC". Especially if you use real gaps.

If he makes this much progress every five years and lives an extremely long life, he might be rational some day.

Nick,

Out of curiosity, do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? How 'bout a tantalizing hint of a preview of your contemplation of a potential date?

ID is publishing and what do you do? Snark, condescension, ridicule. Sheesh.

Er, on second thought. I rather like that strategy.

As you were.

Ichthyic said: In fact, what does this even have to do with the subject of the post? It relates to the ongoing discussion of Michael Behe, who is quoted in the OP. ...I think Jerry did a nice job of tying together some of the debate from last year and the year before.

do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon?

I'm pretty sure he's already been involved in publishing some excellent articles on the evolution of flagella, like this one:

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html

Behe, a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University, testified as an expert witness in support of intelligent design. “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

Steve P. said: ID is publishing...

harold said: Incidentally, I think Behe is making progress. "God of the gaps" is a huge improvement over "IRC". Especially if you use real gaps. If he makes this much progress every five years and lives an extremely long life, he might be rational some day.

Ichthyic said: do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? I'm pretty sure he's already been involved in publishing some excellent articles on the evolution of flagella, like this one: http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html

Ichthyic said: are you blind? Did you entirely miss the quote from the Phil. Inquirer Nick posted in his OP? excerpt:

Behe, a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University, testified as an expert witness in support of intelligent design. “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

use your eyes instead of your keyboard?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Steve P. said: ID is publishing...

So did the hack writers who churned out Harlequin Romances. Your point? ID has nothing to bring to the table but, as you say, snark, condescension, ridicule, lies, and word games. And you, sirrah, seem to have little to add to the discussion beyond that list. You certainly have no actual evidence or you'd present it. It'd save everyone a lot of trouble if you'd just own up to the fact now instead of doing all that song-and-dance stuff. The MadPanda, FCD

Wheels said:I’m ctrl+f’ing “Behe” around the links but I still don’t see anything that relates even tangentially to this PT post. Would you mind a quick summary of the connection?

Wheels said: Maybe my mind's eye is the problem because I still don't see what that quote has to do with "accommodationism." I'm not seeing the connection, the one that's making you so mad at accommodationists. What'd they do/not do here?

Steve P. said: MadPanda chimes in irritably.

Maybe my mind's eye is the problem because I still don't see what that quote has to do with "accommodationism."

Oh, I thought you meant Behe, since that's what you searched on.

as to accomodationism, if you don't understand why I made mention of it, you might want to read the link list I posted.

or ask again sometime at another time and place.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Steve P. said: MadPanda chimes in irritably.

I'm sorry, was that supposed to make me take you seriously? Go to your room, young man. The adults are talking. The MadPanda, FCD

Ooh, I guess that immune system stuff *still* burns. They're trying a refutation 5 years later!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/five_years_later_evolutionary_042001.html

The MadPanda, FCD said: Wheels, you seem to have moved your goalposts a wee bit. Icthyic answered your first question, which has little to do with the second. The word 'accomodationism" is distinctly lacking, y'see.

Nick (Matzke) said: Ooh, I guess that immune system stuff *still* burns. They're trying a refutation 5 years later! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/five_years_later_evolutionary_042001.html

Meyer SC; Behe MJ.; Lamantia P; Dembski WA (2000). Science and evidence for design in the universe: papers presented at a conference sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN 0-89870-809-5.

Wethersfield Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Wethersfield Institute is an organization which supports the Roman Catholic Church in the United States through the study of Christian culture. ...

Meyer SC; Behe MJ.; Lamantia P; Dembski WA (2000). Science and evidence for design in the universe: papers presented at a conference sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN 0-89870-809-5.

Wethersfield Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Wethersfield Institute is an organization which supports the Roman Catholic Church in the United States through the study of Christian culture. ...

Steve P. said: And you, er.. how shall I retort, ah...old man. And you, old man. Back to your magnifying glass. Geez, just can't seem to compete with your dazzling rhetoric. How do you do it? Bring me to your teacher.

The Dishonesty Institute has left a huge trail of god babble behind. They mostly speak at and to fundie xian churches and related events. They aren't at all reluctant to cliam to be fundie xians and that god/jesus is the designer when they are among their own kind.* Their funding is known to come from extremist xian Dominionist sources, mostly Howard Ahmanson.

By now it is impossible for them to claim that ID isn't a cult religious doctrine.

They act consistently like the last thing they want is to end up in court again.

ID is over 2,000 years old and has gone nowhere and added nothing to science. Every year, real evolutionary biology finds out more and more interesting and worthwhile things.

*I dealt a while ago with a DI fellow. He was a nutcase, a wild eyed religious extremist, and his main acomplishment was to tell me to repent, accept jesus, or I was bound for hell. Doesn't sound like science to me.

Wheels said: My question was what accommodationism had to do with Behe's ranting and its coverage in this PT post, i.e. why Ichthyic brought it up here. Anyway, looks like I'm not going to get a quick answer.

raven said: ID is over 2,000 years old and has gone nowhere and added nothing to science. Every year, real evolutionary biology finds out more and more interesting and worthwhile things.

The MadPanda, FCD said: Ah, apologies for my misunderstanding. That was not clear from your first question, as Icthyic has already noted. The MadPanda, FCD

I really, reeeeaaaally don’t want to see this turn into another ACCOMODATIONALISM argument, but would you mind outlining what it did wrong and what your alternative suggestion would be? In fact, what does this even have to do with the subject of the post? Just curious more than anything, it seemed to come out of the blue.

Steve P. said:

Ichthyic said: do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? I'm pretty sure he's already been involved in publishing some excellent articles on the evolution of flagella, like this one: http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html

I see. So Nick's on a 4 year sabbatical. Or is it siesta. Nick? So, what's in the pipeline?

Steve P. said: Nick, Out of curiosity, do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? How 'bout a tantalizing hint of a preview of your contemplation of a potential date? ID is publishing and what do you do? Snark, condescension, ridicule. Sheesh. Er, on second thought. I rather like that strategy. As you were.

Well, it wouldn’t be a real Kitzmiller v Dover anniversary without an appearance by breathtaking inanity.

Cases like this are a gain for creationism. Publicity. Decisions from these judges about whats true or not in origins is understood to be silly.
It all comes down to attempts to deny conclusions on origins are not legal if God or Genesis is involved. Further judgement is made that investigation of origins only counts as legitimate if someone else decides the investigation is well done.

The judge here was incompetent . censoring conclusions about origins is silly in a free nation. There is no law from America backing this up.

If conclusions in origins, for schools, is a legal matter then its up to the cansors to prove its legal foundation.
It also ashould of been the duty of the judge to prove the investigative ability of the I.D folk was not good enough to declare conclusions. not have the i.D folk prove they are doing the obscure concept called science.
Its great for creationist agitation but an embarrasment tp sincere believers in evolutionism and company.
Mr Behe is doing gangbusters with the trial as a refferral.

Robert Byers said: Cases like this are a gain for creationism. Publicity.

Telegram For Mr Byers

Please, please don't.

STOP.

mrg said:

Robert Byers said: Cases like this are a gain for creationism. Publicity.

RB, I have to tell you how delighted I am that you're a creationist. I hope you never come over to our side of the fence, because you're doing us much more good where you are.

Robert Byers said: Cases like this are a gain for creationism. Publicity. Decisions from these judges about whats true or not in origins is understood to be silly. It all comes down to attempts to deny conclusions on origins are not legal if God or Genesis is involved. Further judgement is made that investigation of origins only counts as legitimate if someone else decides the investigation is well done. The judge here was incompetent . censoring conclusions about origins is silly in a free nation. There is no law from America backing this up. If conclusions in origins, for schools, is a legal matter then its up to the cansors to prove its legal foundation. It also ashould of been the duty of the judge to prove the investigative ability of the I.D folk was not good enough to declare conclusions. not have the i.D folk prove they are doing the obscure concept called science. Its great for creationist agitation but an embarrasment tp sincere believers in evolutionism and company. Mr Behe is doing gangbusters with the trial as a refferral.

raven,

do you happen to have a link or reference to where Meyer talks about ID and God? Some people at Amazon don't seem to understand that ID is fundamentally relgious and I feel the need for another carpet bombing run.

Thanks

Icthyic (sp?),

I'm not degrading review papers. I think I could actually do one, in all the particulars. The point is, that I don't have a university with access to a lab or any equipment, etc. I can't do genetic or cellular or biomolecular research. Behe can and all he's doing is writing review papers.

Merry Kitzmas Robert.

And a Festuvus for the rest of us.

Steve P -

I've asked you at least three times now.

1) Who is the designer?

2) What did the designer design?

3) How did the designer do it?

4) When did the designer do it?

5) What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

Steve P. said: Out of curiosity, do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? How 'bout a tantalizing hint of a preview of your contemplation of a potential date?

Steve,

Out of curiosity, do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? How ‘bout a tantalizing hint of a preview of your contemplation of a potential date?

Merry Kitzmas! The trial was going on during my first year at the job I am working at now. Unfortunately, I had no time to visit the trial just a few doors down. I am always amused how creationists do insist on lying continuously. I guess when you start, you just can't stop.

eric said: Nick's in graduate school getting his Ph.D.

vel said: I guess when you start, you just can’t stop.

DS said: Steve, Out of curiosity, do you have any plans to publish a peer-reviewed article any time soon? How ‘bout a tantalizing hint of a preview of your contemplation of a potential date?

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can't be taught in school, then it is creation, that can't be taught in school, what is 'it' well it is 'life' and if it is not evolution and science, then it is creation so 'give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's'. If 'it' is ID it should be taught in school for what it is, the explanation of how things are. Plus, it is a phenomena all of it's own anyway, and should be taught as a subject in it's own category. The story of how life begins. The process creates one species and another, weather it did it that way in the beginning of life or not it does it that way now.

Stanton said: I mean, sure, Steve P has often boasted about how he allegedly has the funds to do his own Intelligent Design research, but...

harold said: Steve P - I've asked you at least three times now. 1) Who is the designer? 2) What did the designer design? 3) How did the designer do it? 4) When did the designer do it? 5) What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

do you happen to have a link or reference to where Meyer talks about ID and God? Some people at Amazon don’t seem to understand that ID is fundamentally relgious and I feel the need for another carpet bombing run.

Lesson 1: Faith and Reason Lesson 2: The Big Bang Cosmology: "The Finite Universe" Lesson 3: The Big Bang Cosmology, Part 2: "In the Beginning" Lesson 4: The Big Bang Cosmology, Part 3: "A finely Tuned Universe" Lesson 5: DNA by Design Lesson 6: DNA by Design, Part 2: "Doing the Math" Lesson 7: DNA by Design, Part 3: "Information and Intelligence" Lesson 8: The Return of the God Hypothesis Lesson 9: The Moral Necessity of Theism Lesson 10: The Moral Necessity of Theism, Part 2: "We Need God" Bonus Extra: The Toughest Test in College

Thanks Glen, yeah SitC is almost (to me at least) a conclusion of his notion. If ID is true, then the most logical designer is a theistic god.

On the other hand, the return of the god hypothesis... that's nice. And I really like the moral necessity of theism. That's hillarious.

Stephen C. Meyer, founder and leader of the intelligent design program of the Discovery Institute admitted on national television he believes that the designer is God.[17] In addition, the intelligent design movement seeks as a well-documented agenda the overall goal "to defeat materialism" and the "materialist world view" as represented by evolution, and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[18] Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

raven said: Phillip Johnson and The Wedge Document have been even more blatant about ID.

Yes, Merry Kitzmas Saint Nick!

damn. 5 years?

Marion Delgado said: damn. 5 years?

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

Karen S. said:

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

I should think this will give Disney World's upcoming Fantasyland expansion some competition

Karen S. said:

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

I should think this will give Disney World's upcoming Fantasyland expansion some competition

Isn't it odd that the Dishonesty Institute forgets Kitzmas? As a Nota Bene subscriber (that's its samizdat agitprop e-mail "newsletter"), I just got this personalized letter from Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer John G. West. Let's see what the Dishonesty Institute has in store for 2011. I just can't wait:

Dear John ,

Thank you for being a subscriber to one or more of the three e-newsletters put out by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (Nota Bene, Academic Freedom Update, and Faith and Science Update). By subscribing, you are helping us get the word out about the powerful evidence for intelligent design in nature. We are grateful for your interest in our work, and for all you do to share the information we provide with your family, friends, and co-workers. By making it possible for us to go around the Darwinian establishment and communicate directly with the public, you are an important partner in our work.

In the coming year, I'd like to invite you to partner with us in an even stronger way by making a tax-deductible donation to Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the non-profit and non-partisan hub of the intelligent design movement.

Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture advances the case for intelligent design by funding cutting-edge science research, mentoring young people, defending free speech, and communicating to the public the compelling evidence of design in nature. Thanks to our supporters, we have been able to underwrite path-breaking research and writing by leading scientists and scholars such as Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Jay Richards, and Richard Sternberg. Also thanks to our supporters, we have been able to reach millions of people this year through our e-newsletters, books, articles, media interviews, events, videos, podcasts, and websites.

However, to continue our work in 2011, we need additional help. Specifically, we need support to carry out the following exciting initiatives:

Book Promotion. Next year will see the publication of several important books by our scientists and scholars. The Myth of Junk DNA by biologist Jonathan Wells will explode the fable that most of our DNA is "junk" left over from a blind Darwinian process. Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life by Michael Flannerywill reveal the long-suppressed story of how the co-discoverer of the modern theory of evolution was in fact a powerful advocate of intelligent design! And The Nature of Nature will feature our scientists debating leading scientists on the other side about whether nature is the product of impersonal chance or intelligent design. We need adequate funds to promote all of these books so they will have maximum impact.

Lawsuit Assistance. David Coppedge of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab was harassed and demoted merely for sharing with co-workers pro-intelligent design DVDs. His discrimination lawsuit goes to trial in June 2011. So does the free speech lawsuit against the California Science Center, a state government agency, for illegally stopping a privately-sponsored screening of the pro-ID film Darwin's Dilemma. We are providing a lot of behind-the-scenes support in these cases, but we need the resources to be able to continue our help.

New Videos. Have you ever marveled at the beauty of a butterfly? In 2011, our media partner Illustra Media will be releasing Metamorphosis, a stunning film that will transform the way you look at butterflies. I am terrifically excited about this project, which holds the potential to communicate the truth about intelligent design to many people who are still undecided. We need funding to mount regional premieres, a talk radio campaign, and other promotional activities to make sure this film gets the exposure it deserves.

Education. If we are serious about changing the culture, we must reach the leaders of tomorrow. That's why we need to continue next summer our mentoring program for leading students heading to graduate school. We need funds to pay for student travel, lodging, food, and educational materials.

Scientific Research. Over the past several years, we have been able to underwrite important experimental and lab research into the limits of natural selection and random mutations through the Biologic Institute. We need funding to continue this cutting-edge research over the next five years.

Unlike Darwinists, we can't rely on tax dollars. Instead, we must rely on the sacrificial gifts of publicly-spirited individuals like yourself. I realize that the economy is in terrible shape, and you may be unable to help us this year. But if you can give, it will make a tremendous difference.

Our staff and Fellows would be incredibly grateful for any support you can provide. Again, you can make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here.

Sincerely,

John G. West, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture

Discovery Institute

P.S. We have to finalize our budget for 2011 in the next few days. For those who contribute $150 or more, we will be pleased to send you a free copy of the new book God and Evolution edited by Jay Richards or Darwin's Nemesis edited by William Dembski.

mrg said: (Phillip) Johnson was annoying. Not so much for being a stealth creationist, but for claiming that his competence as a law professor gave him authority to pass judgement on science.

John Kwok quoted the Dishonesty Institute's John West as writing: In 2011, our media partner Illustra Media...

John Kwok quoted the Dishonesty Institute's John West as writing: Book Promotion. Next year will see the publication of several important books.... We need adequate funds to promote all of these books so they will have maximum impact.

Nice letter they sent you, John! When they said "By subscribing, you are helping us get the word out about the powerful evidence for intelligent design in nature." did they happen to say what the evidence was?

Ask them what, exactly, is this 'science research' they are 'underwriting'.

Marion Delgado said: Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school ...

I'd like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school ...

I'd like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it's not just me.

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

Marion Delgado said: Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

"O little clown in Beheland How oft I hear thee lie In thy deep and ig'nernt sleep Science facts slip by"

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

Marion Delgado said: Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

"O little clown in Beheland How oft I hear thee lie In thy deep and ig'nernt sleep Science facts slip by"

Ummmm, still they don't get it. The reason Nick doesn't have to do fundamental evolutionary biology research - and I don't have to do fundamental climate research - is that we're leaning on hundreds of thousands or millions of people worldwide already doing it.

John Kwok said: Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school ...

I'd like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it's not just me.

M.W. said: Does that help put any pieces together for translation.

M.W. said:

John Kwok said: Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school ...

I'd like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it's not just me.

1968, in Epperson v Arkansas .. The 1st amendment to the US constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principals or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. Does that help put any pieces together for translation. It is they that think ID violates the US constitution because it represents religious belief. Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can't see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can't see it myself. The cell does religiously go through the precise motions of construction, perhaps that is what they are referring to, but I can't see how that is something that should prevent evolution together with creation being studied and evaluated to there extremes, if inclination and time permits.

mrg said:

M.W. said: Does that help put any pieces together for translation.

Yep: "Intelligent Design isn't really stealth creationism." Well, why didn't you just say so?

I believe, Stanton, that you do realize that I know such a statement is Jedi Mind Tricks ... but do watch where you point that thing.

M.W. said:

John Kwok said: Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can't be taught in school ...

I'd like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it's not just me.

1968, in Epperson v Arkansas .. The 1st amendment to the US constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principals or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. Does that help put any pieces together for translation. It is they that think ID violates the US constitution because it represents religious belief. Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can't see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can't see it myself. The cell does religiously go through the precise motions of construction, perhaps that is what they are referring to, but I can't see how that is something that should prevent evolution together with creation being studied and evaluated to there extremes, if inclination and time permits.

Oh yeh Stanton and Mr Kwok what part of it pulled the wool over your eye's then.

M.W. said: Oh yeh Stanton and Mr Kwok what part of it pulled the wool over your eye's then.

Ichthyic said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can’t be taught in school, then it is creation, that can’t be taught in school, ... Now why did that scene with Kirk confusing the M5 computer come back to me all of a sudden. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMRzZpQ8q0

M.W. said: Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can't see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can't see it myself.

Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can’t see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can’t see it myself.

If their goal is to re-Christianize America, starting with defeating science, then isn't the behavior of the DI at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial embarrassingly reminiscent of some of the behavior of the apostles?

Where were you when they crucified our school board, William?

Im not going to say what everyone else has already said, but I do want to comment on your knowledge of the topic. Youre truly well-informed. I cant believe how much of this I just wasnt aware of. Thank you for bringing more information to this topic for me.