Dallas "researchers" out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation

As the recent Rough Guide series on Heliocentricity points out: http://thonyc.wordpress.com/

1) The Bible was wrong about the solar system when read literally.
and/or
2) Theologians did not know how to interpret the Bible when it discussed how the universe worked.

The conclusions are don't trust the Bible when it comes to explaining nature, don't trust theologians when explaining the Bible, and if theologians (who are supposed to be experts) don't know what they are talking about, then you can hardly expect a layperson to know anything either.

“All scientists have a philosophy that guides their interpretation of the evidence,” said Lisle.

“Most secular scientists are not even aware what their philosophy is — they tend to inherit it like the measles, from whatever their professors taught them.

But we find that when we interpret the data through biblical lenses, it fits very well and makes sense.”

Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist and the research director at ICR, said he has no chance of winning a Nobel Prize, even if he makes a groundbreaking discovery. Secular scientists, he said, would never bestow the field’s highest honor on a creationist.

I find it incredibly obnoxious when people who don't care about the evidence, mention the evidence only to attempt to rationalize it away, and don't even bother to attempt to rationalize it away in a complete or fair manner, claim to be "interpreting" the evidence.

If your opinion is fixed no matter what evidence is found, then you don't care about the evidence.

If you know in advance that no evidence can ever change your opinion, if you "know" in advance that any evidence that casts doubt on your position "must be wrong" no matter what, then you don't care about, or need, any evidence.

Mike Elzinga said: From that Dallas Morning News article:

Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist and the research director at ICR, said he has no chance of winning a Nobel Prize, even if he makes a groundbreaking discovery. Secular scientists, he said, would never bestow the field’s highest honor on a creationist.

This is pretty clear evidence of science envy on the part of YECs. They want desperately to be recognized as top gurus of the science community; and they think it is unfair that they are not. Lisle shows that they stew about this constantly; they lust for fame and recognition but can’t get it. It’s not about the science for them; it’s about being a feared and revered authority figure.

Dallas “researchers” out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation

"All scientists have a philosophy that guides their interpretation of the evidence," said Lisle.

Well first of all, research is done to test hypotheses, not to try to prove that your pet ideas are correct. Second, does that article mention any actual, you know, research? What laboratory space do they have? What equipment do they use? What projects are they doing? WHat kinds of data are they gathering? How are they doing data analysis? WHere are they publishing their findings? Wait, let me guess. They only publish in their own in-house publication. Well why didn't you say so in the first place? Case closed.

harold said: Jason Lisle is set for life in a wingnut welfare position that pays more, is more secure, and requires far less work than, an actual academic or industry job doing physics. But all he can do is whine.

Scientists who sign on with ICR know there is no turning back. They’ll probably never be hired again to work in academia, or at a government-sponsored lab.

Sure enough, the ICR scientists claim that spiral galaxies, ocean salinity, and the (surprising) existence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones are clear evidence against what they call evolutionary naturalism.

Jason Lisle is set for life in a wingnut welfare position that pays more, is more secure, and requires far less work than, an actual academic or industry job doing physics. But all he can do is whine.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Jason Lisle is set for life in a wingnut welfare position that pays more, is more secure, and requires far less work than, an actual academic or industry job doing physics. But all he can do is whine.

ID/creationists are no different in temperament from any other crackpot. They all want to be celebrities, and they all seek to achieve this status on a public stage in debates with real, high-profile working scientists. Ken Ham and his staff were wetting their pants to get a debate with Bill Nye; and they have been milking that debate for all they can get out of it ever since. Crackpots who show up at colloquia or seminars on university campuses, or at professional meetings, will seek to draw attention to themselves by arguing with the speakers. They will doggedly pursue anyone who gives them any polite attention. Crackpots will join discussion groups on the Internet; then argue with experts as though they are themselves experts. They believe themselves to be jilted geniuses who are being persecuted for their genius. Crackpots have their own "correct" versions of "science;" real scientists are wrong in their eyes. Crackpots all have some "profound" new principle or discovery they are pushing; and they give their principles names. ID/creationists are no different in this respect. I think most, if not all, the ID/creationists guru wannabes have this narcissistic personality trait and lust for celebrity status. They want to be obsequiously fawned over. We see it in all the members of the staff at the DI, at AiG, and the ICR. We see it with the pontificating regulars over UD.

If Lisle actually had positive evidence for creationism, he would, of course, have taken a real physics job after his PhD, and doggedly ground out high quality research supporting that.

It's true that he might have to write a grant on some non-controversial topic at the beginning of his career, but if the positive evidence to support creationism was there, he'd be pursuing it in a venue where he could get access to resources.

Working at some creationist web site is effectively a concession that he doesn't want to deal with the real evidence.

The oddest thing, here, is that Dallas is a very liberal city, one of the last Dixiecrat strongholds.

harold said: And of course, there is undeniable overlap between these categories. Lisle is pretty much in the paid, crafty creationist camp, though.

KlausH said: The oddest thing, here, is that Dallas is a very liberal city, one of the last Dixiecrat strongholds.

If you want to read some of the stupidest comments ever, check out the comment section on that article. Every kook, crank, crackpot and religious nutter in Texas is on full display.

And you wonder why we have a hard time establishing decent science education standards in this state. These people are why. Totally clueless, uneducated, religious sociopaths who vote! Well, we get what we vote for and so long as reasonable independents and educated people sit at home during school board elections, this is what we're going to get. Nuts and whack-o's.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: And of course, there is undeniable overlap between these categories. Lisle is pretty much in the paid, crafty creationist camp, though.

The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University did the right thing in posting a disclaimer about Behe on their website. I hope that disclaimer has had a cooling effect on the pursuit of secular academic positions by ID/creationists. It will be interesting to see if Ball State comes to regret its hiring of a couple of ID/creationists. Gonzalez didn"t generate any research at Iowa State; and it is unlikely he will be any more successful at Ball State. Hedin may have the same difficulty in the long haul. However, Ball State is not a major research university by any measure; so bringing in research money may not be as important in getting tenure there. Lisle is so far out of it that he won't ever land a position at a secular university. I suspect that you are correct that he is set for life at the ICR; unless, of course, he has a sectarian falling out with the Morris brothers. "Director of Research" at the Institute for Creation Research probably sounds quite impressive in his world.

Uno problemo!

One problem!

Un problema!

The logic of both most of the Bible and Academia Evolution, is wrong, absurd, too simplistic, and naive...!

The lack of intelligence in both areas of these Society groups, is obvious!

Please refer to the Book of Pure Logic!

To live in willful ignorance and make a witch hunt about it! Regresses us all back in history to barbaric times! And the same things or similar will happen over again!

One or Two small details or mistakes. A wonderful first edition! To all you perfectionists! Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch! But people love their Books because there are no "apparent" mistakes! WELL THE WHOLE OF THESE EVOLUTION BOOKS ARE a Big logical mistake! But people buy them! Religion Books are sold buy the millions, and their logic is also mostly A BIG MISTAKE! MY BOOK has small mistakes, AND IS THE BEST LOGIC EVER, and it teaches you to think! You can read it, and not be told lies! BUT MY LOGIC IS NEAR PERFECT!

... Dallas is a very liberal city, one of the last Dixiecrat strongholds.

Re "out to scientifically prove"

Heck, all they'd have to do is identify some combination of consistently observed patterns that they are purporting to explain. That, after all, is where any actual scientific theory starts - with patterns of observations to be explained. (IIRC, Darwin started with some stuff about geographical distribution of species.)

Then, identify and demonstrate some mechanisms that would be likely to produce those patterns, and not likely to produce a different set of patterns. (If the pattern itself can be described in a way that makes testing of it feasible, that can be used without knowledge of underlying mechanism; physics will most likely always have parts that are stuck with that approach, at least until such time as the particles previously thought to be fundamental are found to have components. )

Then identify places or circumstances where those patterns would be likely if their ideas are accurate, but unlikely otherwise.

Then go look in those places.

Then either (1) Eureka!, or (2), go back to the drawing board.

Of course, extensive error checking and correction has to be employed in all the above steps, and the steps can (and should) be repeated as often as necessary to get accurate results.

Henry

Henry J said: Of course, extensive error checking and correction has to be employed in all the above steps, and the steps can (and should) be repeated as often as necessary to get accurate results. Henry

Morris says, is that about 10 percent of Christians hold to the strict interpretation of Genesis advanced by ICR — one that argues humans lived alongside dinosaurs, that Noah loaded the adolescent Jurassic-era creatures on the ark in pairs with every other animal species on the planet, and that natural wonders like the Grand Canyon were formed in months instead of millions of years. Nine out of 10 Christians, Morris says, don’t buy it...

From the Book of Illogic:

"Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!"

Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory.

The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

DS said: From the Book of Illogic: "Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!" Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory. The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

harold said:

DS said: From the Book of Illogic: "Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!" Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory. The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

I feel 100% certain that the comments promoting the book here are from the book's author.

And if evolution and creationism are both wrong, what is his alternative? Is he another one of these magnetic light idiots?

— DS

Frank J said:

And if evolution and creationism are both wrong, what is his alternative? Is he another one of these magnetic light idiots?

— DS

Sounds like a pseudoskeptic, which a former PT regular (whom I hope returns) described as someone who claims to have "no dog in the fight," but obsessively attacks one "dog" (evolution) while merely ignoring the others (creationism/ID).

Doc Bill said: If you want to read some of the stupidest comments ever, check out the comment section on that article. Every kook, crank, crackpot and religious nutter in Texas is on full display. And you wonder why we have a hard time establishing decent science education standards in this state. These people are why. Totally clueless, uneducated, religious sociopaths who vote! Well, we get what we vote for and so long as reasonable independents and educated people sit at home during school board elections, this is what we're going to get. Nuts and whack-o's.

No evidence means it's all guesswork that's proposed by scientists who hate the idea of The Creator God.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

“All scientists have a philosophy that guides their interpretation of the evidence,” said Lisle.

But not all have a philosophy that dictates their interpretation of the evidence. ICR does.

“Most secular scientists are not even aware what their philosophy is — they tend to inherit it like the measles, from whatever their professors taught them.

Which indicates that it's not exactly a dogma that must be served, rather, a way of looking at the world that simply has worked rather well for science. Or, to put it even more pointedly, scientists who study evolution merely share the views of other scientists doing good work.

But we find that when we interpret the data through biblical lenses, it fits very well and makes sense.”

You only have to ignore masses of evidence that goes against in order it to do so. Glen Davidosn

DS said: From the Book of Illogic: "Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!" Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory. The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

Scott F said:

DS said: From the Book of Illogic: "Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!" Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory. The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

Hmm… I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is that Evolution made life, made each species, "perfectly" adequate for propagating itself. :-)

DS said:

harold said:

DS said: From the Book of Illogic: "Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!" Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory. The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

I feel 100% certain that the comments promoting the book here are from the book's author.

Well if he obviously doesn't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory, why is he trying to criticize it? And why is it that he thinks that he is the only one who can use logic correctly? Exactly why does he think that every real scientist is illogical? And if evolution and creationism are both wrong, what is his alternative? Is he another one of these magnetic light idiots?

Scott F said:

Scott F said:

DS said: From the Book of Illogic: "Evolution did not perfect anything, nor make anything from scratch!" Yes, that's correct. But it is creationism that makes those claims, not evolutionary theory. The book seems to be one big logical error, but this guy still wants people to buy it. Go figure.

Hmm… I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is that Evolution made life, made each species, "perfectly" adequate for propagating itself. :-)

Interesting technical issue. That should have been: Hmm... The odd character at the end of "Hmm" is a triple-dot character. It shows up fine in "Preview" mode

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said: Of course, extensive error checking and correction has to be employed in all the above steps, and the steps can (and should) be repeated as often as necessary to get accurate results. Henry

Extensive error checking and correction? Horrors! They prefer to use fast and furious word-gaming instead; if it doesn't check out, word-game it into submission.

Scott F said: Interesting technical issue. That should have been: Hmm... The odd character at the end of "Hmm" is a triple-dot character. It shows up fine in "Preview" mode

Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad.

This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad. This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad. This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

phhht said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad. This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

When I reply to your post, I can see in the reply editor two symbols " and “ as two distinct glyphs, although both are quotation symbols. In Preview mode, the distinction may still be visible; I cannot tell for certain. Can you? I suspect there is a bug in the code which interprets a post for display. That code should, presumably, map each of the two quotation characters to the same display glyph. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that “ is a default in the case of interpretation failure, perhaps due to the omission of a necessary else clause.

stevaroni said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad. This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

I can't quite tell you exactly what the problem is, but the first "dumb" quote character seems to be a conventional unicode "normal ascii" 0x0022 quotation mark character, while the second thing that reads (in my character map, at least) as a "Latin Small Letter A with a Circumflex" is a unicode 0x00e2, which in some character sets is a smart quote and in others is... well, it varies. How to solve the problem ... sorry, can't help you there. I'm old and learned to code back in the "all we got is ASCII" days. Nothing makes me quite as crazy as dealing with unicode character mapping. Well, formatting envelopes in Word, but that's a constant of the universe.

phhht said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad. This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

When I reply to your post, I can see in the reply editor two symbols " and “ as two distinct glyphs, although both are quotation symbols. In Preview mode, the distinction may still be visible; I cannot tell for certain. Can you? I suspect there is a bug in the code which interprets a post for display. That code should, presumably, map each of the two quotation characters to the same display glyph. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that “ is a default in the case of interpretation failure, perhaps due to the omission of a necessary else clause.

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here is a sentence with the word "don't" in it as copy/pasted from Notepad. This is a sentence with the word “don’t” in it as copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

When I reply to your post, I can see in the reply editor two symbols " and “ as two distinct glyphs, although both are quotation symbols. In Preview mode, the distinction may still be visible; I cannot tell for certain. Can you? I suspect there is a bug in the code which interprets a post for display. That code should, presumably, map each of the two quotation characters to the same display glyph. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that “ is a default in the case of interpretation failure, perhaps due to the omission of a necessary else clause.

I can see a difference in the slants of the quotes and the apostrophe when I look at my above text in this reply. I remember from several years back that Reed Cartwright said something about "curly quotes" from Microsoft Word not being interpreted properly. But I had not, until recently, encountered the quotes and apostrophes being interpreted as a circumflex a. As long as the quotes were not part of a url address tag or a blockquote tag, they came through as quotes in the posted text. The same for apostrophes. The main problem I encountered was the quotes not being interpreted properly in the url addresses or in blockquote author= tabs. If I copy/pasted my text from Microsoft Word, I had to be sure I went into the edit box and retyped those quotes directly into the edit box. The stuff I am copy/pasting from Notpad doesn't seem to have any of those problems. The Panda text editor apparently likes the ASCII code from Notepad.

I guess Notepad outputs strict ASCII, while Microsoft in general (god bless 'em) outputs characters which are not strict ASCII.

This is a test of the word "Don't" in Microsoft Word with "straight quotes to curly quotes" unchecked.

stevaroni said: IIRC, I think there's an option in the preferences page of Word for "turn off smart quotes" or something along those lines. I had to find it once for a similar document-compatibility issue.

Yup; that does it!

To turn this feature on or off:

1. On the Tools menu, click AutoCorrect Options, and then click the AutoFormat As You Type tab.

2. Under Replace as you type, select or clear the "Straight quotes" with "smart quotes" check box.

Heh, and wouldn't you know it, just as predicted the em-dash is affected. Interestingly enough though, I used direct keyboard insertion to type it, so I guess it's just not possible to use any of these fancy characters directly at this time.

Short story, the board software appears to be auto-converting dumb characters into their smart versions, but is getting it wrong when they are already in their smart form.

AltairIV said:

stevaroni said: IIRC, I think there's an option in the preferences page of Word for "turn off smart quotes" or something along those lines. I had to find it once for a similar document-compatibility issue.

I was just about to give the same recommendation. I've seen this kind of thing happen over and over, and it's almost always been due to encoding interpretation errors between the old Microsoft cp-1252 codepage and unicode or other encodings. If you're using Word or a similar editor, turn off smart quote substitution and perhaps check that you're using utf-8 as your character encoding. Also, if you're copy-pasting text from another source take a moment to scan it and replace any curly-quotes you find with straight keyboard-typed ones. There are also a few other less-common punctuation glyphs involved, such as the three-dot elipsis Scott F just discovered. The em-dash (—) is another one that's commonly misinterpreted, for example, and word processors often automatically substitute them for "--" (two hyphens).

AltairIV said: Short story, the board software appears to be auto-converting dumb characters into their smart versions, but is getting it wrong when they are already in their smart form.

FWIW, I'm typing directly into the comment box using Safari on a Mac. It is certainly the "high-ASCII" codes, but it appears to be the browser itself that is "fixing" them, or the interaction between the browser and comment editor.

I think there are enough off-topic comments on this thread and on the Bathroom Wall to give a reasonably good picture of what the bug might be.

I hope the off-topic comments will be seen as justified. Reed is a smart guy; he'll figure it out.

Mike Elzinga said: I think there are enough off-topic comments on this thread and on the Bathroom Wall to give a reasonably good picture of what the bug might be. I hope the off-topic comments will be seen as justified. Reed is a smart guy; he'll figure it out.

Kevin B said: This brief investigation of MS smart quotes probably represents more research (as opposed to market research) than the DI has done all year.....

Neat how they got quotes for an opposing view from a very-VERY-old earth scientist:

[ “If you believe God created a world hundreds of billions of years ago that led to the evolutionary transitions that we see from the pre-Cambrian era all the way to today, that is at least as magnificent a testimony to creation as any words in the Bible.”]

*hundreds of billions of years" :) I assume that's a typo and was supposed to be hundreds of millions.

daoudmbo said: *hundreds of billions of years" :) I assume that's a typo and was supposed to be hundreds of millions.

Tens of millions, hundreds of billions, thousands of trillions -- it's all equally bogus. Duh.

I think the "biblical lenses" have the lens cap left on. With a picture of Ray Comfort and the Banana pasted inside the cap.

The Dallas News said: Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation

Doc Bill said: If you want to read some of the stupidest comments ever, check out the comment section on that article. Every kook, crank, crackpot and religious nutter in Texas is on full display.

TomS said:

Kevin B said: This brief investigation of MS smart quotes probably represents more research (as opposed to market research) than the DI has done all year.....

"probably"? "has done"? "all year"?

Kevin B said:

TomS said:

Kevin B said: This brief investigation of MS smart quotes probably represents more research (as opposed to market research) than the DI has done all year.....

"probably"? "has done"? "all year"?

I omitted any qualifiers, (such as "competent", "valid" or "relevant",) so have not explicitly excluded Casey Luskin's quote-mining.

Henry J said:

Dallas “researchers” out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation

Which one, chapter 1, or chapter 2?

Jason's Greatest (Presuppositional) Hits

About as infuriating as WLC's "ignore the evidence because "Burning In The Bosom ... whoops that's Mormonism Holy Spirit" and Ham's "biblical lenses/there's a book" routine.

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

mattdance18 said: My favorite comment was the guy who decried evolution as "magic"... because only the agency of a supernatural designer could possibly account for life's existence and diversity. Moron.

eric said:

mattdance18 said: My favorite comment was the guy who decried evolution as "magic"... because only the agency of a supernatural designer could possibly account for life's existence and diversity. Moron.

Oh c'mon. You gotta love the comment which said that if evolution were correct, you could put a frog in a blender, blend, and produce another whole frog.

Oh c’mon. You gotta love the comment which said that if evolution were correct, you could put a frog in a blender, blend, and produce another whole frog.

mattdance18 said: Wow, I missed that one. Would definitely have considered it even better.

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea. If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive! What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

eric said:

mattdance18 said: Wow, I missed that one. Would definitely have considered it even better.

If it's any consolation, both your fave and mine were probably penned by the same author. William Tillis seems to be trying to win the best crank award. Here it is, in all it's glory:

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea. If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive! What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

And yes, he appears to be serious about that last part. No idea what he's referring to exactly, just that he appears to be sincere about it.

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea. If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive! What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

eric said:

What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

And yes, he appears to be serious about that last part. No idea what he's referring to exactly, just that he appears to be sincere about it.

If you put ideas in a blender, you get... science! And lo and behold that is where all my scientific ideas come from. The experiment is repeatable.

And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

eric said:

mattdance18 said: My favorite comment was the guy who decried evolution as "magic"... because only the agency of a supernatural designer could possibly account for life's existence and diversity. Moron.

Oh c'mon. You gotta love the comment which said that if evolution were correct, you could put a frog in a blender, blend, and produce another whole frog. I'm aware of the salinity and soft tissue cases, but the spiral galaxy one is new to me. Anyone care to summarize?

david.starling.macmillan said:

eric said:

mattdance18 said: My favorite comment was the guy who decried evolution as "magic"... because only the agency of a supernatural designer could possibly account for life's existence and diversity. Moron.

Oh c'mon. You gotta love the comment which said that if evolution were correct, you could put a frog in a blender, blend, and produce another whole frog. I'm aware of the salinity and soft tissue cases, but the spiral galaxy one is new to me. Anyone care to summarize?

One of the reasons dark matter was originally proposed was that the spin-up rate of spiral galaxies seems too low for their visible mass. Creationists said, "See! Galaxies would never remain stable in this shape for billions of years. They must be young!" Real scientists, meanwhile, created a hypothesis of dark matter. Predicted that dark matter could be gravitationally lensed. Then, holy crap, we saw dark matter in gravitational lensing! Meanwhile, creationists say, "Well, I don't really understand dark matter. And besides, we haven't detected any dark matter directly!"

eric said: William Tillis seems to be trying to win the best crank award. Here it is, in all it's glory:

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea. If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive! What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

And yes, he appears to be serious about that last part. No idea what he's referring to exactly, just that he appears to be sincere about it.

david.starling.macmillan said: One of the reasons dark matter was originally proposed was that the spin-up rate of spiral galaxies seems too low for their visible mass. Creationists said, "See! Galaxies would never remain stable in this shape for billions of years. They must be young!" Real scientists, meanwhile, created a hypothesis of dark matter. Predicted that dark matter could be gravitationally lensed. Then, holy crap, we saw dark matter in gravitational lensing! Meanwhile, creationists say, "Well, I don't really understand dark matter. And besides, we haven't detected any dark matter directly!"

eric said: William Tillis seems to be trying to win the best crank award. Here it is, in all it's glory...

eric said:

mattdance18 said: Wow, I missed that one. Would definitely have considered it even better.

If it's any consolation, both your fave and mine were probably penned by the same author. William Tillis seems to be trying to win the best crank award. Here it is, in all it's glory:

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea. If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive! What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

And yes, he appears to be serious about that last part. No idea what he's referring to exactly, just that he appears to be sincere about it.

Kevin B said:

Mike Elzinga said: I think there are enough off-topic comments on this thread and on the Bathroom Wall to give a reasonably good picture of what the bug might be. I hope the off-topic comments will be seen as justified. Reed is a smart guy; he'll figure it out.

This brief investigation of MS smart quotes probably represents more research (as opposed to market research) than the DI has done all year.....

If life was started, or commenced to be, millions of years ago, in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, [...]

Well you can run a sponge through a pair of pantyhose and it will re-aggregate. Not quite a frog, but multicellular none-the-less.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Well you can run a sponge through a pair of pantyhose and it will re-aggregate. Not quite a frog, but multicellular none-the-less.

david.starling.macmillan said:

eric said:

mattdance18 said: My favorite comment was the guy who decried evolution as "magic"... because only the agency of a supernatural designer could possibly account for life's existence and diversity. Moron.

Oh c'mon. You gotta love the comment which said that if evolution were correct, you could put a frog in a blender, blend, and produce another whole frog. I'm aware of the salinity and soft tissue cases, but the spiral galaxy one is new to me. Anyone care to summarize?

One of the reasons dark matter was originally proposed was that the spin-up rate of spiral galaxies seems too low for their visible mass. Creationists said, "See! Galaxies would never remain stable in this shape for billions of years. They must be young!" Real scientists, meanwhile, created a hypothesis of dark matter. Predicted that dark matter could be gravitationally lensed. Then, holy crap, we saw dark matter in gravitational lensing! Meanwhile, creationists say, "Well, I don't really understand dark matter. And besides, we haven't detected any dark matter directly!"

However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

Scott F said: F = ma = (Gmm/r2)?? a = (Gm/r2)?? If you increase the mass, you increase the acceleration. Or do I remember just barely enough to be dangerous?

Remove the circumflex A in the above equations. We are seeing that bug in the posting of text again.

Scott F said:

However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

So, this guy thinks that he was made from clay and water, and the power of the creator?

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea. If life was started, or commenced to be, millions of years ago, in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to recreate the conditions of the primitive earth and produce most of the essential building blocks of life. We call this the Miller-Urey experiment. If, on the other hand, we put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a few miracles, see a frog emerge alive! What do you perceive the chances of that happening are? However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable. And of course it isn't, that is not how you and I got here. The process of evolution is repeatable, given enough time. First creation isn't repeatable.

Sounds like perfect logic to me.

Well Genesis claims it was the dust of the earth. Nothing at all about clay and water. Who is this guy, the antichrist?

Kevin B said: If men were made of clay and water, they *could* be squeezed through the pantyhose. Since that doesn't work, clearly the clay and water claim is wrong. Oh look! I can do Ken Ham science *and* I can use it to disprove Genesis!!! :)

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said: One of the reasons dark matter was originally proposed was that the spin-up rate of spiral galaxies seems too low for their visible mass. Creationists said, "See! Galaxies would never remain stable in this shape for billions of years. They must be young!" Real scientists, meanwhile, created a hypothesis of dark matter. Predicted that dark matter could be gravitationally lensed. Then, holy crap, we saw dark matter in gravitational lensing! Meanwhile, creationists say, "Well, I don't really understand dark matter. And besides, we haven't detected any dark matter directly!"

Remember the Solar neutrino problem? I recall having a discussion with a YEC who thought that the discrepancy in count somehow provided support to the Sun not being billions of years old. I recall that he seemed offended when I called his claim "bizarre". But I stand by that, even after the solution by the discovery of Neutrino oscillation between flavors of neutrinos.

eric said: Well, that's disappointing. I thought it was something new I hadn't heard about, not some argument that starts "if we ignore the existence of dark matter, then..."

I upgraded our DB software recently. Likely whatever patches I have to recognize weird Microsoft encoding issues no long work.

Server maintenance is on my schedule for September an October.

Reed A. Cartwright said: I upgraded our DB software recently. Likely whatever patches I have to recognize weird Microsoft encoding issues no long work. Server maintenance is on my schedule for September an October.

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

eric said:

mattdance18 said: My favorite comment was the guy who decried evolution as "magic"... because only the agency of a supernatural designer could possibly account for life's existence and diversity. Moron.

Oh c'mon. You gotta love the comment which said that if evolution were correct, you could put a frog in a blender, blend, and produce another whole frog. I'm aware of the salinity and soft tissue cases, but the spiral galaxy one is new to me. Anyone care to summarize?

One of the reasons dark matter was originally proposed was that the spin-up rate of spiral galaxies seems too low for their visible mass. Creationists said, "See! Galaxies would never remain stable in this shape for billions of years. They must be young!" Real scientists, meanwhile, created a hypothesis of dark matter. Predicted that dark matter could be gravitationally lensed. Then, holy crap, we saw dark matter in gravitational lensing! Meanwhile, creationists say, "Well, I don't really understand dark matter. And besides, we haven't detected any dark matter directly!"

Remember the Solar neutrino problem? I recall having a discussion with a YEC who thought that the discrepancy in count somehow provided support to the Sun not being billions of years old. I recall that he seemed offended when I called his claim "bizarre". But I stand by that, even after the solution by the discovery of Neutrino oscillation between flavors of neutrinos.

daoudmbo said:

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

So what does Behe actually do at his day job? Does he teach low level intro classes to biochemistry? Just idle curiosity...

Okay, I read up on abiotic components . Putting that together with the scientific method that states that an experiment must be repeatable, I would like to propose an idea.

If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive!

What do you perceive the chances of that happening are?

However, hang on, if the creation story of a man being made of clay water with the addition of power by the creator is true, it should be repeatable.

And of course it is, that is how you and I got here. The first creation is repeatable.

harold said: The only highly educated public creationist I can think of who makes the same amount of money for the same amount of work, as if he wasn't a creationist, is Michael Egnor. Neurosurgery pays the same whether you spout nonsense in your spare time or not.

harold said:

daoudmbo said:

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

So what does Behe actually do at his day job? Does he teach low level intro classes to biochemistry? Just idle curiosity...

My understanding is that he is tenured and quarantined. He isn't assigned any classes and doesn't have to do any research. They pay him to do nothing. Corrections welcome, but that is my understanding.

SWT said:

harold said:

daoudmbo said:

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

So what does Behe actually do at his day job? Does he teach low level intro classes to biochemistry? Just idle curiosity...

My understanding is that he is tenured and quarantined. He isn't assigned any classes and doesn't have to do any research. They pay him to do nothing. Corrections welcome, but that is my understanding.

According to the Lehigh Fall 2014 course schedule, Behe is responsible for three classes in the upcoming semester: BIOS 408 RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF SCIENCE (0 credits) CHM 371 ELEMENTS OF BIOCHEMISTRY I (3 credits) BIOS 202 BIOMEDICAL EXTERNSHIP (1-3 credits) I will try to resist the temptation to editorialize ...

BIOS 408 RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF SCIENCE (0 credits)

harold said:

If life was started, or commenced to be ,millions of years ago ,in a pool of water containing all the necessary abiotic components, which with the addition of electricity, came into being. No magic, no supernatural, just a purely natural process catalyzed by a flow of electrons. If this is true and can be repeated, we should be able to put a frog in a blender and liquify all biotic and abiotic components and with the addition of a flow of electrons, see a frog emerge alive!

The poor deluded chap seems to have confused the concept of "abiogenesis" with the concept of "miraculous resurrection". No wonder he was so skeptical about abiogeneis. Some mustache-twirling dastard has tricked this poor individual into thinking that scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis have something to do with resurrecting modern frogs.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

BIOS 408 RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF SCIENCE (0 credits)

How very close (like exact) to the number of credits I would think that Behe's course on "responsible conduct of science" should be worth. Glen Davidson

SLC said: Of course, the creationists fail to mention that the detection of any neutrinos coming from the Sun negates the theory of gravitational collapse causing the it to shine. In no way, shape, form, or regard can gravitational collapse produce neutrinos. Neutrinos are produced by nuclear interactions.

Ooh, this is fun.

Saturn's Rings Are 4.4 Billion Years Old, New Cassini Findings Suggest

A usual creationist claim is that secular scientists only reach "evolutionary" conclusions because their presuppositions demand it. They paint a picture in which scientists must force their data to fit the billions-of-years model or face censure from their peers, resulting in a massive unintended conspiracy.

But that's not the case here, because there was never any pressure to "make" the rings of Saturn as old as the rest of the solar system. Because Saturn's rings could have formed at literally any time from a moon passing through the gas giant's Roche limit, there were no constraints on their age. Scientists were completely free to follow the evidence wherever it led.

Turns out, it led to the "4.4 billion years" age in the end. Funny how that works.

david.starling.macmillan said: Turns out, it led to the "4.4 billion years" age in the end. Funny how that works.

It is most perplexing to me how all of these different scientists in different disciplines managed to come to the same conclusion. Not just that the Biblical timescale is wrong, wrong by a sufficient amount that they don't have to worry about it. The agreed-on number could have been a few million years, and that would be enough to satisfy the Bible-phobes. It would be piling it on to say a hundred million years. But that life on Earth is a few billion years old, and the Universe something like 10 billion! But, on the other hand, why would they not go whole hog and say that life on Earth was infinitely old? Or that "deep time" was of the order of trillions, or quadrillions, ...?

How rancorous must have been the secret meeting that settled on a few billions.

One of the most consistent characteristics of ID/creationists over the approximately 50 years I have been watching them is that they ALWAYS get the basics wrong. They have been doing this ever since Henry Morris and Duane Gish formed the Institute for Creation "Research" back in 1970. It was probably going on even before then; back in the 1960s when A.E Wilder-Smith was popular among fundamendalists.

We know that Morris was already thinking along these lines in the 1960s, but there were none of these real formal attacks on science until ICR worked out their socio/political strategy for taunting scientists into high-profile public debates on college and university campuses.

Of one thing you can be sure; ID/creationists have been bending and breaking fundamental science concepts to fit sectarian dogma until those concepts have no relevance to the real world. ID/creationist leaders – but especially their followers – are totally incapable of doing productive, basic science because they cannot even form a coherent research program that will work.

Even the typical ID/creationist's high school level of understanding is verschlecht. At best, they can do some technical work and sometimes invent technical devices; but that is an entirely different type of thinking. Lots of people, even young adolescent kids, can invent and innovate without a deep understanding science.

I have made it a point over the years to not engage ID/creationists in debates; and in those very few instances where I have engaged them at all, I have found that they still cannot get the basics right and that they will attempt to climb on your back to get recognition and "respectability."

Furthermore, I have found it quite interesting to study the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science by the ID/creationists; their leaders in particular, but especially their "PhDs." Those misconceptions and misrepresentations get picked up as memes floating around in our general culture, which means that they show up even among students who aren't ID/creationist followers.

So my general philosophy with regard to ID/creationist pushers and their leaders is to allow their misconceptions and misrepresentations stand as shibboleths that reveal their ignorance and dishonesty. I think it is appropriate to just let these ID/creationist Dunnig-Kruger tendencies stand. In my opinion, these idiots will never make the effort to understand why they always fail. They aren't going to change; and their whining renders them less effective.

I suspect that others in the science community have come to similar conclusions. A department at a research university can flunk an ID/creationist scientist wannabe because of his misconceptions and mismanagement of scientific concepts and subsequent failure to build a productive research program. But the ID/creationist will continue to think he has been "expelled" and persecuted for his religious beliefs; he simply cannot understand that it is his poor grasp of science that has caused him to fail.

People who really want to learn, and have the humility and self-awareness to know when they don't understand something, will usually find their way if they can get free of those kinds of demagogues who throw stumbling blocks into the learning paths of others.

And it seems scientists are not afraid of saying something is possibly only 6000 years old:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/science/tuberculosis-is-newer-than-what-was-thought-study-says.html?ref=science

And beautifully showing the absolute defining opposite condition of creationists:
[a professor unrelated to the study commenting on it]
"Until further research is done, Dr. Brown said he would keep an open mind."

“But I’d really like them to be correct,” he said, “because it is going to be fun rearranging all the deck chairs in my brain to accommodate this new idea.”

Mike Elzinga said: A department at a research university can flunk an ID/creationist scientist wannabe because of his misconceptions and mismanagement of scientific concepts and subsequent failure to build a productive research program. But the ID/creationist will continue to think he has been "expelled" and persecuted for his religious beliefs; he simply cannot understand that it is his poor grasp of science that has caused him to fail.

One of the most consistent characteristics of ID/creationists over the approximately 50 years I have been watching them is that they ALWAYS get the basics wrong.

@harold,

Google Michael Behe rate my professor. He's been teaching up to this year, apparently to a generally good reception:

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=215407

Just to be clear, I don't think enthusiastic posts on "rate my professor" are a substitute for responsible science. But if you wonder whether someone is still teaching, google is your friend.

Joel Eissenberg said: Just to be clear, I don't think enthusiastic posts on "rate my professor" are a substitute for responsible science. But if you wonder whether someone is still teaching, google is your friend.

Very Easy Class. Exams were not hard at all, he tells you what it is going to be on. Just make sure to cover everything detail about the topic in his notes and you will be fine.

Your point is good, but still not hard to spin away. First off, YEC thrives by false dichotomies, so it might not even occur to many creationists that there are possible answers other than 6000 years and 4.4 billion years for this question.

Ignore that; I miscalculated.

Your point is good, but still not hard to spin away. First off, YEC thrives by false dichotomies, so it might not even occur to many creationists that there are possible answers other than 6000 years and 4.4 billion years for this question.

harold said:

daoudmbo said:

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

So what does Behe actually do at his day job? Does he teach low level intro classes to biochemistry? Just idle curiosity...

My understanding is that he is tenured and quarantined. He isn't assigned any classes and doesn't have to do any research. They pay him to do nothing. Corrections welcome, but that is my understanding. It's important for people to understand that the world isn't "fair", and that wingnut welfare can make creationism a good payoff for doctoral level people who don't have either the self-awareness or the conscience to care. The only highly educated public creationist I can think of who makes the same amount of money for the same amount of work, as if he wasn't a creationist, is Michael Egnor. Neurosurgery pays the same whether you spout nonsense in your spare time or not. It's just incredibly important to realize that many talented PhD scientists, even of Behe's cohort, who had it easier, have struggled as post-docs for years, lost their grants if they ever got one, been denied tenure if they ever got that far, etc. Behe wrote a book of nonsense, but a particular type of nonsense that's popular with certain deluded billionaires, and now he has a sinecure position for life at the expense of whoever's money runs Lehigh. And all the money from the book.

Just Bob said:

harold said: The only highly educated public creationist I can think of who makes the same amount of money for the same amount of work, as if he wasn't a creationist, is Michael Egnor. Neurosurgery pays the same whether you spout nonsense in your spare time or not.

Don't forget all the 'Tea Party' Republicans, like, oh, Paul "Pit of Hell" Broun, who is an MD.

Doc Bill said:

harold said:

daoudmbo said:

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

So what does Behe actually do at his day job? Does he teach low level intro classes to biochemistry? Just idle curiosity...

My understanding is that he is tenured and quarantined. He isn't assigned any classes and doesn't have to do any research. They pay him to do nothing. Corrections welcome, but that is my understanding. It's important for people to understand that the world isn't "fair", and that wingnut welfare can make creationism a good payoff for doctoral level people who don't have either the self-awareness or the conscience to care. The only highly educated public creationist I can think of who makes the same amount of money for the same amount of work, as if he wasn't a creationist, is Michael Egnor. Neurosurgery pays the same whether you spout nonsense in your spare time or not. It's just incredibly important to realize that many talented PhD scientists, even of Behe's cohort, who had it easier, have struggled as post-docs for years, lost their grants if they ever got one, been denied tenure if they ever got that far, etc. Behe wrote a book of nonsense, but a particular type of nonsense that's popular with certain deluded billionaires, and now he has a sinecure position for life at the expense of whoever's money runs Lehigh. And all the money from the book.

Yeah, it's my recollection having looked this up many years ago that Behe does some undergraduate teaching, simple stuff, but he still has a sign on his door that reads, essentially, "Beware the Troll." So, yeah, he gets money for old rope. Egnor, on the other hand, falls into the category of some of my neurosurgeon and cardiac surgeon friends who all claim to be "good mechanics." I remember my cardio guy giving a career advice talk to medical students and telling them that the greatest skill they needed was to be able to improvise. It wasn't about some high cerebral knowledge about the heart or physiology, rather it was to cut open some guy, look in there, think "Oh, shit!" and come up with a plan. So, Egnor can heal with steel, but outside of that he's a major dumbass.

harold said: It's interesting to note that creationists are members of an ideology that accuses everyone else of not working hard, but their own characteristic is to find a way to get money without working. I wonder if some projection may be involved.

We need a new word: idiotology.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Doc Bill said:

harold said:

daoudmbo said:

harold said: Lehigh is, first of all, a private institution. Second of all, Lehigh didn't deliberately hire an ID/creationist. Behe is one of the most patient of all the ID types. The standard move, for the few who do get a secular PhD, is the Lisle/Wells move - denounce your own education the instant the PhD has been awarded and run away to a cushy wingnut welfare job in Creationist Land. Behe pretended to be a scientist for quite a bit longer than that. The ones who try to ensconce themselves at mainstream universities are actually the real believers, suffering somewhat for the cause. Sure, Behe has a do-nothing job at Lehigh, but he'd probably make even more money to do nothing at a right wing think tank.

So what does Behe actually do at his day job? Does he teach low level intro classes to biochemistry? Just idle curiosity...

My understanding is that he is tenured and quarantined. He isn't assigned any classes and doesn't have to do any research. They pay him to do nothing. Corrections welcome, but that is my understanding. It's important for people to understand that the world isn't "fair", and that wingnut welfare can make creationism a good payoff for doctoral level people who don't have either the self-awareness or the conscience to care. The only highly educated public creationist I can think of who makes the same amount of money for the same amount of work, as if he wasn't a creationist, is Michael Egnor. Neurosurgery pays the same whether you spout nonsense in your spare time or not. It's just incredibly important to realize that many talented PhD scientists, even of Behe's cohort, who had it easier, have struggled as post-docs for years, lost their grants if they ever got one, been denied tenure if they ever got that far, etc. Behe wrote a book of nonsense, but a particular type of nonsense that's popular with certain deluded billionaires, and now he has a sinecure position for life at the expense of whoever's money runs Lehigh. And all the money from the book.

Yeah, it's my recollection having looked this up many years ago that Behe does some undergraduate teaching, simple stuff, but he still has a sign on his door that reads, essentially, "Beware the Troll." So, yeah, he gets money for old rope. Egnor, on the other hand, falls into the category of some of my neurosurgeon and cardiac surgeon friends who all claim to be "good mechanics." I remember my cardio guy giving a career advice talk to medical students and telling them that the greatest skill they needed was to be able to improvise. It wasn't about some high cerebral knowledge about the heart or physiology, rather it was to cut open some guy, look in there, think "Oh, shit!" and come up with a plan. So, Egnor can heal with steel, but outside of that he's a major dumbass.

It's a fact that brain surgery isn't rocket science. Then again, it's certainly not involved with theories of causes, either, which makes Egnor's appalling ignorance of evolutionary causation acceptable on the operating table. Glen Davidson

Doc Bill said: Well, that was the point. You didn't have to be rational to be a brain surgeon, just dexterous. My brain surgeon was dexterous, played the guitar in a garage heavy metal band and knew all the Led Zepplin songs by heart. My kind of guy! Never offered to pray over my brain, however, and just as well.

A congressman doesn’t make as much as a typical neurosurgeon in salary, but they do make more than plenty of academic physicians or even primary care physicians in private practice, for doing very, very little.

— Harold

I heard Behe in a debate once. He's likable and a good speaker with a sense of humor, even when he talks about ID crap. So if he stays on script and teaches science he's assigned to teach, with no ID, he might be an acceptable teacher. I wonder if we'd hear about it if he slipped ID into his lectures?

Karen S. said: I heard Behe in a debate once. He's likable and a good speaker with a sense of humor, even when he talks about ID crap. So if he stays on script and teaches science he's assigned to teach, with no ID, he might be an acceptable teacher. I wonder if we'd hear about it if he slipped ID into his lectures?

I'm very familiar with the way that skilled speakers can make b.s. sound good. Look at politics. But the school can't get rid of Behe and they are paying him, so it kind of makes sense to let him teach very basic courses to get a little return on their investment. He needs monitoring, though. (If they could get away with it, they should make him work in the cafeteria, but they can't)

Karen S. said: I'm very familiar with the way that skilled speakers can make b.s. sound good. Look at politics. But the school can't get rid of Behe and they are paying him, so it kind of makes sense to let him teach very basic courses to get a little return on their investment. He needs monitoring, though. (If they could get away with it, they should make him work in the cafeteria, but they can't)

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

Perhaps he should be teaching remedial guitar. It's a good thing they can control what he teaches now that they're stuck with him.

speaking of the devil

Karen S. said: speaking of the devil

I am also curious about that zero-credit course he teaches, BIOS 408, “Responsible Conduct in Science”. The irony is palpable.

mcknight.td said:

I am also curious about that zero-credit course he teaches, BIOS 408, “Responsible Conduct in Science”. The irony is palpable.

This looks like the required bioethics course required for anyone wanting to work in a federally funded lab. It probably covers things like 'How to keep a good notebook', 'Be nice to your research animals', and 'Don't make shit up.' Surely Behe is competent in one of those areas.

BIOS 408 Responsible Conduct of Science 0 Credits Responsible practice in research. Training in general laboratory methods; human subjects concerns; radiation safety; chemical hazards; aseptic technique; physical, mechanical, biological, and fire hazards; animal welfare. Occupational and workplace considerations. Recombinant DNA guidelines; patent and proprietary rights; controversies over applications of science. Appropriate aspects required of investigators in all departmental research projects.

Mike Elzinga said:

mcknight.td said:

I am also curious about that zero-credit course he teaches, BIOS 408, “Responsible Conduct in Science”. The irony is palpable.

This looks like the required bioethics course required for anyone wanting to work in a federally funded lab. It probably covers things like 'How to keep a good notebook', 'Be nice to your research animals', and 'Don't make shit up.' Surely Behe is competent in one of those areas.

From the Lehigh course catalog:

BIOS 408 Responsible Conduct of Science 0 Credits Responsible practice in research. Training in general laboratory methods; human subjects concerns; radiation safety; chemical hazards; aseptic technique; physical, mechanical, biological, and fire hazards; animal welfare. Occupational and workplace considerations. Recombinant DNA guidelines; patent and proprietary rights; controversies over applications of science. Appropriate aspects required of investigators in all departmental research projects.

It would be pretty hard to screw that up with sectarian ideology and ID/creationism. Much of that stuff is covered by established law. So, good; as long as they have to keep him, Lehigh is insuring that Behe remains pretty harmless.

Karen S. said: I heard Behe in a debate once. He's likable and a good speaker with a sense of humor, even when he talks about ID crap. So if he stays on script and teaches science he's assigned to teach, with no ID, he might be an acceptable teacher. I wonder if we'd hear about it if he slipped ID into his lectures?

But how do we properly observe poofs in the laboratory (or field), Behe?

Karen S. said:

But how do we properly observe poofs in the laboratory (or field), Behe?

I think they cover that at Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Frank J said: Why do I think that's the case? It hit me when reading the transcripts of the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. When asked his opinion on the age of the earth, Bryan Leonard refused to answer without qualifying the "4.6 billion years" with "I teach my students..." He was shrewd enough to know that, if he played dumb or gave a younger age in class, that some students would challenge him, and he would not be able to rebut it.

Furthermore, once he came out as an ID/creationist, he has no other place to go if he wants to remain employed.

— Mike Elzinga

ID/C could not make the grade at Hogwart’s.

Karen S. said: I don't know...what about Slytherin House? I think that's an excellent fit for all of them.

Oh hell no. We don't want them in Slytherin. Out, out!

Creationists are squibs with Self-Spelling wands. They think they're doing magic, but they aren't actually wizards at all.

So much for Intelligent Sorting

I apologize for not knowing the Behe's biography (do I really gain anything from knowing it? Ah well, curiosity). So if I understand correctly, he was a normal biology professor doing respectable research until he got tenure, and once he got it, he came out with all guns blazing ID? Wow, I must think that other tenured professors must hate him, I am sure there are movements to end tenure and he must be their no. 1 example for their arguments.

Oh, and Hufflepuff all the way!

daoudmbo said: I apologize for not knowing the Behe's biography (do I really gain anything from knowing it? Ah well, curiosity). So if I understand correctly, he was a normal biology professor doing respectable research until he got tenure, and once he got it, he came out with all guns blazing ID? Wow, I must think that other tenured professors must hate him, I am sure there are movements to end tenure and he must be their no. 1 example for their arguments. Oh, and Hufflepuff all the way!

Ray Martinez said:

Real scientists, notes Prof. Wetherington, constantly test their hypotheses, rather than simply “line up facts to support a hypothesis.”

I for one see nothing wrong at all with "[lining] up facts to support a hypothesis." This is what separates truth from falsehood: facts. To see Evolutionists admit to disparaging facts is extremely rare. I suspect a round of damage control is about to happen.