ID at Kitzmiller+10: They still don't get it

Almost every science-y argument (I won’t say scientific argument) produced by Meyer, Luskin, and the rest of the gang is based on nothing but wishful thinking that is underwritten by misunderstanding the relevant terminology, context, methods, or data.

I had, or rather still having, a similar experience to yours, Nick. I'm not a graduate student (not in evolutionary biology, anyway), but the more I study methods in evolutionary biology and statistics in general the more creationists' misrepresentations of the relevant science become more obvious to me.

I also noticed something disturbing. The more I learn, the more difficult it becomes for me to communicate the fallacies I find in their arguments to the non-academic audiences. I still manage reasonably well, I think, but the trend is disturbing me.

Here's an interesting question - what percentage of searchable mentions of ID or prominent ID advocates occur specifically in critical pro-science venues?

In 2000, it would have been a tiny percent. The vast majority of mentions were superficial, gushing editorials in the mainstream media, or creationist letters to editors. Critical sites barely even existed.

In 2015, I would suggest that 95% or more of searchable discussion of ID is generated by critics.

ID stuff is generated by the likes of Casey Luskin and posted on one of a few web sites with literally only dozens of supportive readers, like UD or Evolution News and Views (the material may also get favorable mention by a YEC site; outright YEC sites are also marginal but are doing, of course, far better than ID sites - Ken Ham has a LOT more active supporters than UD). Even those rare ID sites probably get a majority of their clicks from critics. In addition to the problem that ID is pure bullshit, they have also struggled from day one with the related problem that they keep getting taken over by disturbed moderators who aggressively "ban" many of the few supporters for perceived impurity. Or, with decreasing frequency, it is brought out in the form of a repetitive, verbose book rehashing old wrong arguments, by Regnery or some other right wing publishing house.

The material is then almost immediately and accurately lambasted on a pro-science sites. These sites also have limited readership, but much, much, much larger supportive readership than the ID sites.

ID has gone from media darling to obscure crackpot territory. This was already happening in the run up to Dover, but Dover caused the inevitable to occur much quickly.

There are two things that keep it persisting at all - money and ego. It will take a long time for those to run out, so it's probably in a steady state right now.

I. Hadi, they are getting much more sophisticated in their arguments. They make up stuff about material that you (and I) aren't sure we understand, then attack any mistake on our part... claiming that they are right and we don't understand it. We can't tell if they are correct or not.

The simple response is to require that they explain it, in their own words and cite references.

Alternately, since they just attack evolution, attack them back. Demand that they provide evidence for their notions. Evidence that is equal to what they demand from science. When they can't provide it, they will go away (for a while).

Unfortunately, the only way people can break out of this is by exposure to the actual science and the actual people doing it. If some billionaire wants to have an impact on the creationism/evolution debate, they should try something like paying people like Luskin whatever it takes to convince them to go to graduate school in evolutionary biology, on the understanding that they have total freedom to maintain whatever beliefs they like, but that they have to learn enough to earn good grades, including in courses in statistical methods, and they have to do a real project constituting original research in the field, and they have to attend many scientific meetings and present their work.

Kevin said: It's not a misunderstanding, it's deliberately misrepresenting the material.It's lying. [...] I understand what Nick is saying, but I think he gives them too much credit. I'm tired of being nice about it. It's time to call a pile of horse hooey a pile of horse hooey. They are purposefully lying to their readers.

They are purposefully lying to their readers.

My money says that there were probably a fair number of con men eyeing "ID" as a good scam circa 2000, but that they have all jumped off that ship since Dover.

Why be an "ID" con man, when it makes much more sense to be an outright YEC con man?

The DI isn't exactly hiring large numbers of new fellows. ID books are bullshit, but they're repetitive and verbose and probably a pain to write, and don't likely generate big bucks anymore.

ID failed. It was an effort to get evolution denial into a public school science class. If anything it resulted in considerably more support for the correct teaching of biology.

Failing its legal mission, it is just useless weak tea creationism. If you want to get a job at Patrick Henry College or Liberty University, you have to swear that you support undiluted Biblical creationism. If you want to be a successful faculty member at a real university, you don't help yourself at all with politically motivated crackpottery. Look at the few people with somewhat legitimate academic achievements who became "ID advocates".

The older YEC generation and Hugh Ross ("OEC") have done well for themselves. The gimmick was new, and goo-goo administrators (and closet right wingers) at places like SFSU stumbled over themselves to "respect" the "alternative" viewpoint, especially before the court cases that crushed "creation science" in public schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Of the newer, "pure ID" types from the late nineties and early 2000's, not so much. Behe is tenured and got some book sale money in the late 1990's, but he's also ignored and rejected by both his own department and YEC organizations. He may have net benefited in the form of money from sales of his late nineties books, but there have been considerable costs. Dembski has floundered around from job to job and hasn't even been able to stay on faculty at a Bible college; he got some TV appearances back in the day but would have done far better overall as either a regular statistician or an overt YEC at a full blown right wing Bible college. That astronomer at Ball State got a job because some Limbaugh-loving administrator forced his hire but has pretty much been keeping his head down. Luskin doesn't even have a doctoral degree and his actual long term career trajectory is hard to plot, but looks as if it will move rapidly in a Dembski direction if the DI trims anything.

There really isn't much there for a real con man.

They still don't get it after 50 years of building a Potempkin village of cargo cult science.

Back in the 1970s and 80, when I was still given talks about "scientific" creationism, the most glaring feature of this movement was its total mangling of scientific concepts. It was so glaring that scientists responded with consternation and were lured into debating these characters in public forums on college and university campuses.

Even back then, the goal of Morris and Gish was to publish "textbooks" for the public school; but at that time, they published two versions, one full of religion and demonizing of secular science and society meant for home school and sectarian schools, and another stripped of all that religious language and aimed at public schools.

In both cases, the science was dead wrong; they couldn't even use scientific words properly in a sentence.

Nothing has changed in the intervening years; and in particular, the same mangling of basic concepts continued through the morphing of creationism into "intelligent design theory." These people, PhD or none, get concepts wrong at the high school level.

I have gone through most of their math and physics stuff; it is atrociously wrong. It was wrong back in the 1970s and it remains just as wrong today. The latest push by Granville Sewell on the ID/creationist argument from thermodynamics retains the same misconceptions as were in Henry Morris's arguments. Furthermore, Sewell can't even get units right when plugging his "X-entropies" into a diffusion equation.; and that is pretty typical of the level of understanding the other ID/creationists have of basic concepts.

David L. Abel cranks out gibberish and constantly cites himself in his previous gibberish papers; and all of it is done with funding coming from an "institute" with the same address as his little ranch style house in a suburb in the DC area. In other words, Abel is consciously attempting to create the appearance of a well-established and active research field that has been going on for decades.

Strip away all the words, the "information" labels, and the logarithms to base 2, we find that William Dembski's life work can be boiled down to Np being less than 1; where N = 10^150 is the number of trials lifted without comprehension from the abstract of a paper by Seth Lloyd in Physical Review Letters, and p is calculated by assuming a specified complex structure is assembled sequentially from an ideal gas of inert objects that act as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules.

All of Intelligent Design/creationism is founded on misconceptions and misrepresentations of science at the high school level and below. ID/creationists, and that means their PhDs as well, spend all their time bending and breaking scientific concepts to fit their sectarian beliefs; and they have managed to either game the system or slip through the cracks in getting those letters after their names.

All of them, Abel, Behe, Dembski, Sewell, Lisle, Purdom, Nelson - I could go through the entire list - have bastardized science in order to retain their sectarian religion. And because of that process, not one of them can actually do or discuss real science; they simply don't understand the basic concepts.

Going forward, it seems evident that stealth is the current strategy of the ID/creationist movement. But none of these characters has actually been in the trenches of scientific research. Not one has spent 60-80 hour weeks, day in and day out for years, engaged in designing, building, testing, and running a laboratory. Not one of them can lay out a research proposal with timelines and budget. Not one of them can submit a competitive research proposal for peer review and have it stand up to scrutiny by people who have been in the trenches of scientific research for their entire lives. Not one of them has ever been in the territory of science long enough to know what science is.

So this is the crowd that makes up the Discovery Institute, the ICR, AiG, and the rest of the leadership of ID/creationism. They are political operatives first and foremost; but scientists they never were and never can be.

harold said: My money says that there were probably a fair number of con men eyeing "ID" as a good scam circa 2000, but that they have all jumped off that ship since Dover. Why be an "ID" con man, when it makes much more sense to be an outright YEC con man? The DI isn't exactly hiring large numbers of new fellows. ID books are bullshit, but they're repetitive and verbose and probably a pain to write, and don't likely generate big bucks anymore. ID failed. It was an effort to get evolution denial into a public school science class. If anything it resulted in considerably more support for the correct teaching of biology. Failing its legal mission, it is just useless weak tea creationism. If you want to get a job at Patrick Henry College or Liberty University, you have to swear that you support undiluted Biblical creationism. If you want to be a successful faculty member at a real university, you don't help yourself at all with politically motivated crackpottery. Look at the few people with somewhat legitimate academic achievements who became "ID advocates". The older YEC generation and Hugh Ross ("OEC") have done well for themselves. The gimmick was new, and goo-goo administrators (and closet right wingers) at places like SFSU stumbled over themselves to "respect" the "alternative" viewpoint, especially before the court cases that crushed "creation science" in public schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon Of the newer, "pure ID" types from the late nineties and early 2000's, not so much. Behe is tenured and got some book sale money in the late 1990's, but he's also ignored and rejected by both his own department and YEC organizations. He may have net benefited in the form of money from sales of his late nineties books, but there have been considerable costs. Dembski has floundered around from job to job and hasn't even been able to stay on faculty at a Bible college; he got some TV appearances back in the day but would have done far better overall as either a regular statistician or an overt YEC at a full blown right wing Bible college. That astronomer at Ball State got a job because some Limbaugh-loving administrator forced his hire but has pretty much been keeping his head down. Luskin doesn't even have a doctoral degree and his actual long term career trajectory is hard to plot, but looks as if it will move rapidly in a Dembski direction if the DI trims anything. There really isn't much there for a real con man.

I'm not sure why that link to the list of ID/creationist "research" doesn't work; but you can go here and then click on the link to download the "Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design." in a pdf.

That document is hilarious.

Not one has spent 60-80 hour weeks, day in and day out for years, engaged in designing, building, testing, and running a laboratory.

Mike Elzinga said: They still don't get it after 50 years of building a Potempkin village of cargo cult science. Back in the 1970s and 80, when I was still given talks about "scientific" creationism, the most glaring feature of this movement was its total mangling of scientific concepts. It was so glaring that scientists responded with consternation and were lured into debating these characters in public forums on college and university campuses. Even back then, the goal of Morris and Gish was to publish "textbooks" for the public school; but at that time, they published two versions, one full of religion and demonizing of secular science and society meant for home school and sectarian schools, and another stripped of all that religious language and aimed at public schools. In both cases, the science was dead wrong; they couldn't even use scientific words properly in a sentence. Nothing has changed in the intervening years; and in particular, the same mangling of basic concepts continued through the morphing of creationism into "intelligent design theory." These people, PhD or none, get concepts wrong at the high school level. I have gone through most of their math and physics stuff; it is atrociously wrong. It was wrong back in the 1970s and it remains just as wrong today. The latest push by Granville Sewell on the ID/creationist argument from thermodynamics retains the same misconceptions as were in Henry Morris's arguments. Furthermore, Sewell can't even get units right when plugging his "X-entropies" into a diffusion equation.; and that is pretty typical of the level of understanding the other ID/creationists have of basic concepts. David L. Abel cranks out gibberish and constantly cites himself in his previous gibberish papers; and all of it is done with funding coming from an "institute" with the same address as his little ranch style house in a suburb in the DC area. In other words, Abel is consciously attempting to create the appearance of a well-established and active research field that has been going on for decades. Strip away all the words, the "information" labels, and the logarithms to base 2, we find that William Dembski's life work can be boiled down to Np being less than 1; where N = 10^150 is the number of trials lifted without comprehension from the abstract of a paper by Seth Lloyd in Physical Review Letters, and p is calculated by assuming a specified complex structure is assembled sequentially from an ideal gas of inert objects that act as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules. All of Intelligent Design/creationism is founded on misconceptions and misrepresentations of science at the high school level and below. ID/creationists, and that means their PhDs as well, spend all their time bending and breaking scientific concepts to fit their sectarian beliefs; and they have managed to either game the system or slip through the cracks in getting those letters after their names. All of them, Abel, Behe, Dembski, Sewell, Lisle, Purdom, Nelson - I could go through the entire list - have bastardized science in order to retain their sectarian religion. And because of that process, not one of them can actually do or discuss real science; they simply don't understand the basic concepts. Going forward, it seems evident that stealth is the current strategy of the ID/creationist movement. But none of these characters has actually been in the trenches of scientific research. Not one has spent 60-80 hour weeks, day in and day out for years, engaged in designing, building, testing, and running a laboratory. Not one of them can lay out a research proposal with timelines and budget. Not one of them can submit a competitive research proposal for peer review and have it stand up to scrutiny by people who have been in the trenches of scientific research for their entire lives. Not one of them has ever been in the territory of science long enough to know what science is. So this is the crowd that makes up the Discovery Institute, the ICR, AiG, and the rest of the leadership of ID/creationism. They are political operatives first and foremost; but scientists they never were and never can be.

harold said: If they do the slightest real scientific analysis it shows them to be wrong. There is also no market for just saying "I don't care what science says, I say the Earth is 6000 years old and nothing will change my mind" directly. No-one seems to have the cojones for that and the billionaires won't fund it. (As a logical corollary, we can note that science has achieved the implicit status of being the socially sanctioned test of reality.. They are not willing to say "our religion denies science but we follow it anyway". They feel a need to claim that they do not deny science.) So they literally have no choice but to pretend to do science. But they have to be very, very careful not to do any real science. They're authoritarians not conscious con men. People die for authoritarian ideologies that don't make sense all the time. A con man will give up on a scheme that doesn't work, an authoritarian cannot. However, they do find themselves in exactly the same situation as a con man whose scheme is unraveling. The con man can't say "the evidence indicates that this gold mine is worthless, but out of faith, believe in it and ignore the evidence". He has to desperately try to dissemble away the real evidence and invent fake evidence. And they are the same. Their science is below high school level because they have zero interest in science other than making a show of denying it while pretending not to deny it. As an imperfect analogy, imagine a crackpot holocaust denier getting a history PhD with the sole objective of falsely claiming that the degree supports his claims. He'll pass his exams, but the instant the degree is in his hands, you'll never hear anything but distortions, cherry picking, made up crap, quote mining, etc. In his mind the "other side" is the same. It "can't be true" and his only mission is to use high school debate team tricks to seem to argue against "the other side". There is a reason why high school style "debate" is huge at creationist colleges. Its rule are exactly how the authoritarian mind works. You have an arbitrary position to defend and you say whatever it takes to create the impression that you have done so. This is how their minds work. If they prefer a certain self-serving fantasy, it must be true, everyone else must be wrong, there is no need to ask questions, and the only job is to never stop arguing against the opponent.

What strikes me is that, despite all their protestations to the contrary, all the fuss they continue to make over Kitzmiller is a blatant implicit admission that it was a devastating defeat (both strategically and psychologically) for them, that they still haven't gotten over. From a practical standpoint, if they had any real PR sense they'd have developed collective amnesia about Kitzmiller years ago, and attempt to avoid talking about it at all costs.

This is their latest solicitation letter, penned by one John G. West. I got it in my e-mail inbox earlier today. Quite pathetic, but yet a sterling example of their pernicious mendacious intellectual pornography:

Today A Judge Tried to Kill Intelligent Design

Dear John:

Ten years ago today, an activist federal judge in Pennsylvania tried to kill intelligent design by court order.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John Jones declared that teaching about intelligent design was unconstitutional because intelligent design was religion rather than science.

The months following the Dover ruling were extremely difficult for those of us at Discovery Institute. Even though we had opposed the Dover school district policy, we were the ones who bore the brunt of the impact of Judge Jones' decision. The ruling unleashed a wave of persecution against intelligent design-friendly scientists.

It was during the bleak months following Dover that I made one of the biggest decisions of my professional life. Rather than cut and run, I decided to risk everything. Convinced of the critical importance of the intelligent design debate, I gave up my tenured position as a university professor to devote my full energies to Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, which I had co-founded with Steve Meyer in 1996.

When an atheist professor discovered I had left my university post, he started harassing me, gleefully informing me I would soon be out of a job because the Dover decision would destroy both Discovery Institute and intelligent design.

That atheist professor had not counted on courageous people like YOU.

Because of support from independent-minded thinkers, intelligent design did not die after Dover, and neither did Discovery Institute. Instead, we produced a slew of new books advancing the argument, including Signature in the Cell, The Edge of Evolution, The Nature of Nature, and the New York Times-bestseller Darwin's Doubt. More than a million people learned about intelligent design through the documentary Expelled featuring Ben Stein. The ENCODE project exploded the myth of "junk DNA," fulfilling early predictions made by intelligent design theorists. Bestselling authors Dean Koontz and Stephen King spoke publicly about the evidence for intelligent design. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel issued a withering critique of Darwinian materialism and expressed his gratitude to "defenders of intelligent design." Earlier this year, famed writer Tom Wolfe even compared the unjust persecution inflicted on intelligent design proponents to the Spanish Inquisition.

Ten years ago, Judge Jones and the activists behind him tried to kill intelligent design through government power and censorship. Thanks to you, they failed.

But the battle is not done, not by a long shot.

Scientists who support intelligent design continue to face vicious persecution. Reporters who write about intelligent design continue to misreport it. And Darwin-only activists continue to use intimidation to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Unlike Darwinists, we in the intelligent design movement don't depend on tax dollars, judicial decrees, or bullying. We do depend on voluntary help from people like you. As we progress toward the 20th Anniversary of the CSC, we are preparing a stream of new books, scientific research, documentaries, and more to push the debate forward. But we can't bring these things to completion without your support.

Will you take a stand against censors like Judge Jones and help us continue and expand the debate over intelligent design in 2016?

If you've helped us in the past, can you do it again right now? And if you've never donated to our work, isn't it time to join us?

With gratitude for your encouragement and support,

John G. West, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute

P.S. If you are able to donate $175 or more, we will send you a copy of Michael Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (fair market value of $22), when it is published in late January.

(snicker)

"Where's the wrist?"

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

As we progress toward the 20th Anniversary of the CSC, we are preparing a stream of new books, scientific research, documentaries, and more to push the debate forward. But we can’t bring these things to completion without your support.

John G. West begged thusly: P.S. If you are able to donate $175 or more, we will send you a copy of Michael Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (fair market value of $22), when it is published in late January.

Ah well, people with the ability to understand science wouldn't believe in ID in the first place.

stevaroni said: Still a theory in crisis, huh. Seems evolution has been "in crisis" for like, what, half a century or so. [snip]

Karen s said:

As we progress toward the 20th Anniversary of the CSC, we are preparing a stream of new books, scientific research, documentaries, and more to push the debate forward. But we can’t bring these things to completion without your support.

What scientific research?

Tenncrain said:

stevaroni said: Still a theory in crisis, huh. Seems evolution has been "in crisis" for like, what, half a century or so. [snip]

Perhaps a lot more like a century and a half (click here).

Karen s said: What scientific research?

Paul Burnett said:

Karen s said: What scientific research?

All that research Ann Gauger does in her green-screen lab.

Here is John G. West's assertion that ID is alive and well and needs money.

ID and millions and YEC and tens of millions consider organized creationism or organized criticism of evolutionism ryv(not by identified creationists) to be as scientific as science is . Case closed.
this judge was incompetent. A judge has no right to decide who is doinf science. its silly. Its not like in forensics etc etc. No one there is saying there is no science but instead if its good or bad science. Even then i don't think the judges question the science really. Crime cases are different.
NO this decision was about the philosophy of science.
THEN after deciding iD was not about science the judge said it was religion.
Thats the only illegal thing. lets remember that legal fact here.

anyways the bigger point is about state censorship on important matters.

ID/YEC has not been slowed down by this court decision unless evolutionists can show how much better iD/YEC would be today if vICTORIOUS .
These ideas never will be decided by obscure incompetent or famous competent Judges. . Important ideas never are.

What ID/YEC needs to do is a greater objective. nOt just their tiny corner but take on the wjole state censorship complex created since WW11.
Get cases before the attentive public to show that its illegal for the state to censor in public institutions(including schools) conclusions on general subjects of human inquiry. likewise illegal to censor religious conclusions. In short the state has no place in academic content control beyond the legislature. No courts. Yes the people .

Asking judges(lawyers in black robes) to decide what is true about science conclusions or what and who does science is giving a authority to people who know nothing about science relative to what they know about the law. Lawers are not scientists or better judges of science unless , like cases like casey Luskin, they applied themselves extensively to the subject.

iD is wrong to ignore court cases and schools.
It should be a goal for the ID cause and academic freedom and freedom in America.
Its hard to do these things but ID and YEC should do it as they live and owe America also.
Evolutionism needs state control over school content. Creationism needs just freedom and equal time.
The good guys always just need that in any story of mankind.
O'm thankful the anniversary was covered on pandas thumb as it is important and remains so because it didn't silence anyone.

Robert, read the BW.

Robert Byers said: ID and millions and YEC and tens of millions consider organized creationism or organized criticism of evolutionism ryv(not by identified creationists) to be as scientific as science is .

Robert Byers said: ID and millions and YEC and tens of millions consider organized creationism or organized criticism of evolutionism ryv(not by identified creationists) to be as scientific as science is . Case closed.

One of the conclusions of evolutionary biology is an account of how the human eye happens to be more similar to the eyes of other vertebrates, rather than the eyes of insects, or the eyes of octopuses. (Just one of plenty of examples.) According to YEC or OEC or ID or omphalism or whatever you want, how does that happen?

1) It is just a matter of chance. It doesn't need any explanation.

2) It is a matter of some natural law, something that constrains the formation of living things. Something about their origins that makes those more likely.

3) It is something about the designer(s), their purposes or their own structure, or the methods that they use, that leads them to design things that way.

TomS said: One of the conclusions of evolutionary biology is an account of how the human eye happens to be more similar to the eyes of other vertebrates, rather than the eyes of insects, or the eyes of octopuses. (Just one of plenty of examples.) According to YEC or OEC or ID or omphalism or whatever you want, how does that happen? 1) It is just a matter of chance. It doesn't need any explanation. 2) It is a matter of some natural law, something that constrains the formation of living things. Something about their origins that makes those more likely. 3) It is something about the designer(s), their purposes or their own structure, or the methods that they use, that leads them to design things that way.

John said: What I find more intriguing is convergent evolution, with, for example, the wings of bats and pterodactyls.

ID cretinism has yet to offer any meaningful, scientifically testable, explanations that would account for such convergence.

eric said:

John said: What I find more intriguing is convergent evolution, with, for example, the wings of bats and pterodactyls.

Hmm, only sort of. AIUI, in pterodactyls one finger has evolved to extreme lengths and bears the brunt of the lifting work for about half of the wing. In bats, all fingers elongated and form 'ribs' for the wings.

ID cretinism has yet to offer any meaningful, scientifically testable, explanations that would account for such convergence.

If they had been exactly the same structure, that would've been more unexpected than what we actually see (which is variations on the theme of stretching membrane between arms and fingers). As with many 'convergences', the details reveals differences that make sense from an evolutionary perspective but seem nonsensical from a design one. Of course from a much broader ID perspective, it seems inelegant and somewhat restrictive for a designer to have turned arms and fingers into wings when He could've easily given flying creatures wings in addition to a set of grasping appendages (exhibit A: insects).

We should also mention how this supposedly biased-for-the-plaintiffs Judge was most generous to some of the defendants (Buckingham?) who could easily have been brought up on perjury charges when their sworn testimony concerning ID's religious motives conflicted with their comments to the press.

John said:

eric said:

John said: What I find more intriguing is convergent evolution, with, for example, the wings of bats and pterodactyls.

Hmm, only sort of. AIUI, in pterodactyls one finger has evolved to extreme lengths and bears the brunt of the lifting work for about half of the wing. In bats, all fingers elongated and form 'ribs' for the wings.

ID cretinism has yet to offer any meaningful, scientifically testable, explanations that would account for such convergence.

If they had been exactly the same structure, that would've been more unexpected than what we actually see (which is variations on the theme of stretching membrane between arms and fingers). As with many 'convergences', the details reveals differences that make sense from an evolutionary perspective but seem nonsensical from a design one. Of course from a much broader ID perspective, it seems inelegant and somewhat restrictive for a designer to have turned arms and fingers into wings when He could've easily given flying creatures wings in addition to a set of grasping appendages (exhibit A: insects).

You're absolutely right, eric. But I used that merely to point out ID's failings. Even more interesting is coevolutionary arms races IMHO.

TomS said:

John said:

eric said:

John said: What I find more intriguing is convergent evolution, with, for example, the wings of bats and pterodactyls.

Hmm, only sort of. AIUI, in pterodactyls one finger has evolved to extreme lengths and bears the brunt of the lifting work for about half of the wing. In bats, all fingers elongated and form 'ribs' for the wings.

ID cretinism has yet to offer any meaningful, scientifically testable, explanations that would account for such convergence.

If they had been exactly the same structure, that would've been more unexpected than what we actually see (which is variations on the theme of stretching membrane between arms and fingers). As with many 'convergences', the details reveals differences that make sense from an evolutionary perspective but seem nonsensical from a design one. Of course from a much broader ID perspective, it seems inelegant and somewhat restrictive for a designer to have turned arms and fingers into wings when He could've easily given flying creatures wings in addition to a set of grasping appendages (exhibit A: insects).

You're absolutely right, eric. But I used that merely to point out ID's failings. Even more interesting is coevolutionary arms races IMHO.

There are plenty of interesting examples in the world of life. What interests me are examples which cannot be simply answered by "that similarity is due to it being the product of one designer". What is it about the design process or the nature or goals of the designer that vertebrates would have their own complexity of eye, while other animals have other complex (or, in some cases, simple) eyes? And, as long as the the example of the eye is such a favorite example of something demanding an explanation, what is the explanation?

Nick Matzke: Excuse-making: Trying to pretend the courtroom defeat in Dover was due to something other than the evidence and the arguments.

Ray Martinez said: One day America will rebound from the set backs of the bias of pro-evolution judges and return to the bias of the Founding Fathers; most of whom were Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke: Excuse-making: Trying to pretend the courtroom defeat in Dover was due to something other than the evidence and the arguments.

Contrary to all denials, Judge Jones became an Evolutionist in college. His evolutionary beliefs were undoubtedly re-affirmed in the pseudo-church he attends. The point is that his ruling was predetermined by his preexisting bias. It was manifestly impossible for a Darwinian judge to rule in favor of his enemy. IF Jones had ruled in favor of ID then the Matzke crowd, long ago, would be making these points in reverse. They would have said the bias of Jones was responsible for his ruling. The master point: The Constitution can be made to say anything needed once original intent is discarded. One day Edwards and Kitzmiller will be set aside in the stroke of one ruling. One day America will rebound from the set backs of the bias of pro-evolution judges and return to the bias of the Founding Fathers; most of whom were Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Hey Ray, why don't you offer those mice some of the sour grapes you're eating? I'm sure they would love to chow down on them.

By the way, booby has stated that he thinks that organisms can magically change in an instant if they need to. Doesn't sound like he's buying your immutable bullshit either. Maybe you should discuss it with him. I'd love to see that.

DS said: Hey Ray, why don't you offer those mice some of the sour grapes you're eating? I'm sure they would love to chow down on them. By the way, booby has stated that he thinks that organisms can magically change in an instant if they need to. Doesn't sound like he's buying your immutable bullshit either. Maybe you should discuss it with him. I'd love to see that.

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke: Excuse-making: Trying to pretend the courtroom defeat in Dover was due to something other than the evidence and the arguments.

Contrary to all denials, Judge Jones became an Evolutionist in college. His evolutionary beliefs were undoubtedly re-affirmed in the pseudo-church he attends. The point is that his ruling was predetermined by his preexisting bias. It was manifestly impossible for a Darwinian judge to rule in favor of his enemy. IF Jones had ruled in favor of ID then the Matzke crowd, long ago, would be making these points in reverse. They would have said the bias of Jones was responsible for his ruling. The master point: The Constitution can be made to say anything needed once original intent is discarded. One day Edwards and Kitzmiller will be set aside in the stroke of one ruling. One day America will rebound from the set backs of the bias of pro-evolution judges and return to the bias of the Founding Fathers; most of whom were Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Still longing for slavery Ray?

Still lamenting giving women the right to vote? Science should be frozen at 1776 and philosophy 500 years earlier with Aquinas?

What? Huh?

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: One day America will rebound from the set backs of the bias of pro-evolution judges and return to the bias of the Founding Fathers; most of whom were Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Wow Ray, your argument is that people creating policy in 1780s didn't believe in a theory first published in 1859? I agree, they didn't. How exactly is this (a) news, or (b) relevant? [snip....]

Ray Martinez said: Contrary to all denials, Judge Jones became an Evolutionist in college. His evolutionary beliefs were undoubtedly re-affirmed in the pseudo-church he attends.

And if they hadn't been biased against the atheist Hume, they would have realized that the design argument is bogus. Theism will rot even the best brain.

Ray Martinez said: Contrary to all denials, Judge Jones became an Evolutionist in college. His evolutionary beliefs were undoubtedly re-affirmed in the pseudo-church he attends. The point is that his ruling was predetermined by his preexisting bias. It was manifestly impossible for a Darwinian judge to rule in favor of his enemy.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, why don't you offer those mice some of the sour grapes you're eating? I'm sure they would love to chow down on them. By the way, booby has stated that he thinks that organisms can magically change in an instant if they need to. Doesn't sound like he's buying your immutable bullshit either. Maybe you should discuss it with him. I'd love to see that.

The guy doesn't even possess basic writing or grammar skills, no thanks

Ray Martinez said: Jefferson was anything but a Christian. When he died his estate sold the slaves that he still owned.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: Jefferson was anything but a Christian. When he died his estate sold the slaves that he still owned.

So... just to be clear here, your position is that people who owned slaves couldn't be Christians. Now, oddly I happen to agree with you....

Ray, but I find it odd since it seems to me that you and your ilk spend a significant amount of time arguing about how America is a Christian Nation(TM), founded by solid, God-fearing Christian Founders.

Many of whom owned slaves, Ray, because owning people was kind of a thing in 1776. So... if these founders weren't Christian.....

Ray Martinez said: America was founded by non-religious Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Science Avenger said:

Ray Martinez said: America was founded by non-religious Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Any statement implying that all the founders held the same beliefs on much of anything, particularly religion, is horribly, fantastically, gobsmackingly wrong.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: Contrary to all denials, Judge Jones became an Evolutionist in college. His evolutionary beliefs were undoubtedly re-affirmed in the pseudo-church he attends. The point is that his ruling was predetermined by his preexisting bias. It was manifestly impossible for a Darwinian judge to rule in favor of his enemy.

Blah, blah, blah. Here's a simple question, Ray. Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Am I wrong, Ray? If I am, it should be a simple matter to point it out to me.

But you're not going to do that, because you can't. Because it didn't happen.

Instead, you got a day of Michael Behe furiously backpedaling as he had to defend his "work" in the field of irreducible complexity against mounds of extant data demonstrating that his mysterious, inexpiable examples had actually been well understood for, in some cases, decades. At one point Behe was walked through the actual math of his claims and forced to conclude that there were enough living cells present in the courtroom that a certain mutation that Behe claimed was so rare as to be statistically impossible, was, in fact, probably happening every 50 minutes or so withing the four walls. His priceless observation on a stack of well known textbooks which all contained detailed data about the evolution of his inexplicable "mystery" proteins... "These are heavy". And then there was Wild Bill Dembski, ID's shining star who was going to dazzle the courtroom with his mathematical brilliance. A man who was so brilliant he quickly realized he was going to cross-examined under oath, by people who would brook no perjury or bullshit, and wisely decided to high-tail it out of town without testifying.

So you can talk 'bias' all you want, Ray, but the obvious question remains. In the biggest ID case of the decade, where, bias or not, the Discovery Institute was finally going to get its day to show off its case to the whole fucking world... it didn't bother. Why, Ray?

Why didn't ID bring some actual evidence? Even if they couldn't win in the face of the obvious bias of this church-elder, Regan-appointed, conservative, Republican judge, they'd still get it in the official record and it could form the core of an appeal to the Supremes, which is what the DI says they really want more than anything else. A skeptic might just conclude it was because DI didn't actually have any evidence to bring, their argument is entirely legal and political maneuvering and they simply have no real science to show, because there isn't any. But I'm sure you'll set me straight, Ray, and disabuse me of skeptical ways by pointing me to all that solid experimental work the DI's been doing these past few decades.

Ray Martinez said: Old Earth Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist

Science Avenger said: We should also mention how this supposedly biased-for-the-plaintiffs Judge was most generous to some of the defendants (Buckingham?) who could easily have been brought up on perjury charges when their sworn testimony concerning ID's religious motives conflicted with their comments to the press.

The answer of course is very simple, They didn't present any evidence because they didn't have any. Never did, never will. Same goes for Ray. He keeps repeating his mantra over and over, all the while ignoring all the evidence and providing absolutely none himself. His ideas are rejected and he just can't bring himself to deal with it.

his ruling was predetermined by his preexisting bias. It was manifestly impossible for a Darwinian judge to rule in favor of his enemy.

IF Jones had ruled in favor of ID then the Matzke crowd, long ago, would be making these points in reverse. They would have said the bias of Jones was responsible for his ruling.

The master point: The Constitution can be made to say anything needed once original intent is discarded.

One day Edwards and Kitzmiller will be set aside in the stroke of one ruling. One day America will rebound from the set backs of the bias of pro-evolution judges and return to the bias of the Founding Fathers; most of whom were Deists who accepted the design of nature.

Regan-appointed

Ray Martinez said:

I find it odd since it seems to me that you and your ilk spend a significant amount of time arguing about how America is a Christian Nation(TM), founded by solid, God-fearing Christian Founders.

They're ignorant. I'm not. America was founded by non-religious Deists who accepted the design of nature.

harold said: ... guarantee them a victory.

"causation mutual exclusivity"

Priceless.

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

Just Bob said: So Ray, what do you figure will be the 'waterloo' of evolution?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: So Ray, what do you figure will be the 'waterloo' of evolution?

Question presupposes evolution true. Evolution has never been true. Thus we are only obligated to explain why a false theory is held true.

DS said: The answer of course is very simple, They didn't present any evidence because they didn't have any. Never did, never will. Same goes for Ray. He keeps repeating his mantra over and over, all the while ignoring all the evidence and providing absolutely none himself. His ideas are rejected and he just can't bring himself to deal with it.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: So Ray, what do you figure will be the 'waterloo' of evolution?

Question presupposes evolution true. Evolution has never been true. Thus we are only obligated to explain why a false theory is held true.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: The answer of course is very simple, They didn't present any evidence because they didn't have any. Never did, never will. Same goes for Ray. He keeps repeating his mantra over and over, all the while ignoring all the evidence and providing absolutely none himself. His ideas are rejected and he just can't bring himself to deal with it.

I've made two arguments recently; both completely ignored or misrepresented, which confirms veracity. You guys are playing a stupid rhetorical game. Whenever evidence is posted the same is met by a chorus of rhetorical messages asking for evidence? And in the rare instances where something is addressed these replies reveal 101 ignorance, like all replies that challenge the veracity of Paley's stone. I already told you guys that Darwinian scholars, without any exceptions, accept Paley's formulation as accurate, stating, by analogy, the main object of explanation in the Creation/Evolution debate. These scholars accept his formulation but reject his inference. No Evolutionist present has shown 101 proficiency in these matters. Yet countless messages keep appearing challenging Paley's stone. In short: you're challenging your own scholars and don't even know it---LOL!

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

Dear John: Ten years ago today, an activist federal judge in Pennsylvania tried to kill intelligent design by court order.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John Jones declared that teaching about intelligent design was unconstitutional because intelligent design was religion rather than science.

The months following the Dover ruling were extremely difficult for those of us at Discovery Institute. Even though we had opposed the Dover school district policy, we were the ones who bore the brunt of the impact of Judge Jones’ decision. The ruling unleashed a wave of persecution against intelligent design-friendly scientists.

It was during the bleak months following Dover that I made one of the biggest decisions of my professional life. Rather than cut and run, I decided to risk everything. Convinced of the critical importance of the intelligent design debate, I gave up my tenured position as a university professor to devote my full energies to Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, which I had co-founded with Steve Meyer in 1996.

When an atheist professor discovered I had left my university post, he started harassing me, gleefully informing me I would soon be out of a job because the Dover decision would destroy both Discovery Institute and intelligent design.

That atheist professor had not counted on courageous people like YOU.

Because of support from independent-minded thinkers, intelligent design did not die after Dover, and neither did Discovery Institute.

Instead, we produced a slew of new books advancing the argument, including Signature in the Cell, The Edge of Evolution, The Nature of Nature, and the New York Times-bestseller Darwin’s Doubt. More than a million people learned about intelligent design through the documentary Expelled featuring Ben Stein. The ENCODE project exploded the myth of “junk DNA,” fulfilling early predictions made by intelligent design theorists.

Bestselling authors Dean Koontz and Stephen King spoke publicly about the evidence for intelligent design.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel issued a withering critique of Darwinian materialism and expressed his gratitude to “defenders of intelligent design.”

Earlier this year, famed writer Tom Wolfe even compared the unjust persecution inflicted on intelligent design proponents to the Spanish Inquisition.

Ten years ago, Judge Jones and the activists behind him tried to kill intelligent design through government power and censorship.

Thanks to you, they failed.

But the battle is not done, not by a long shot.

Scientists who support intelligent design continue to face vicious persecution.

Reporters who write about intelligent design continue to misreport it.

And Darwin-only activists continue to use intimidation to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Unlike Darwinists, we in the intelligent design movement don’t depend on tax dollars,

judicial decrees,

or bullying.

We do depend on voluntary help from people like you.

As we progress toward the 20th Anniversary of the CSC, we are preparing a stream of new books, scientific research, documentaries, and more to push the debate forward. But we can’t bring these things to completion without your support.

Will you take a stand against censors like Judge Jones and help us continue and expand the debate over intelligent design in 2016?

If you’ve helped us in the past, can you do it again right now? And if you’ve never donated to our work, isn’t it time to join us? With gratitude for your encouragement and support, John G. West, Ph.D. Associate Director, Center for Science & Culture Discovery Institute P.S. If you are able to donate $175 or more, we will send you a copy of Michael Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (fair market value of $22), when it is published in late January.

Ray Martinez said: I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Nick Matzke has systematically evaded every point which observed the preexisting, pro-evolution bias of 20th century judges, rendered each and every anti-creationism ruling to have been predetermined. Once a judge defines science using the word "naturalism" then the ruling cannot contradict. Only a judge with a preexisting bias would define science the way Darwinists define science.

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Ray Martinez said: Nick Matzke has systematically evaded every point which observed the preexisting, pro-evolution bias of 20th century judges, rendered each and every anti-creationism ruling to have been predetermined. Once a judge defines science using the word "naturalism" then the ruling cannot contradict. Only a judge with a preexisting bias would define science the way Darwinists define science.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Fine. I believe you. Jones is biased. Please share with me the evidence presented at trial that Jones' bias caused him to ignore as he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

stevaroni said: Please share with me the evidence presented at trial that Jones' bias caused him to ignore as he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

OOOPS! Got caught in a time warp!

Ray Martinez said: The bias of Jones seen clearly when he approved of a definition of "science" which included the word "naturalism."

gnome de net said:

stevaroni said: Please share with me the evidence presented at trial that Jones' bias caused him to ignore as he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

I think you'll be as successful with that request as the people who repeat lies hoping the lies will magically become truth.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Fine. I believe you. Jones is biased. Please share with me the evidence presented at trial that Jones' bias caused him to ignore as he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The bias of Jones seen clearly when he approved of a definition of "science" which included the word "naturalism."

John said:

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

Typo, I meant physicist Karl Giberson, who is doing his best to educate his fellow Evangelical Christians on the reality of biological evolution. So too is Matheson.

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

SLC said: Mr. Kwok, don't you know that Miller, Conway Morris, Collins et all aren't real Christians? /snark

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

John said: [I]n the strange worldview of Ravi and Ray Martinez, Collins, Conway Morris, Giberson, Matheson and Miller aren't real Christians. Nor is Pope Francis I since he accepts the reality of evolution.

Ray Martinez said: The bias of Jones seen clearly when he approved of a definition of "science" which included the word "naturalism."

It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).

gnome de net said:

John said: [I]n the strange worldview of Ravi and Ray Martinez, Collins, Conway Morris, Giberson, Matheson and Miller aren't real Christians. Nor is Pope Francis I since he accepts the reality of evolution.

Remember the more than 13,000 American Christian clergy signers of the letter at clergyletterproject.org. Nor is the pastor who patted Judge John E. Jones on the back and shook his hand.

TomS said:

gnome de net said:

John said: [I]n the strange worldview of Ravi and Ray Martinez, Collins, Conway Morris, Giberson, Matheson and Miller aren't real Christians. Nor is Pope Francis I since he accepts the reality of evolution.

Remember the more than 13,000 American Christian clergy signers of the letter at clergyletterproject.org. Nor is the pastor who patted Judge John E. Jones on the back and shook his hand.

TomS said:

gnome de net said:

John said: [I]n the strange worldview of Ravi and Ray Martinez, Collins, Conway Morris, Giberson, Matheson and Miller aren't real Christians. Nor is Pope Francis I since he accepts the reality of evolution.

Remember the more than 13,000 American Christian clergy signers of the letter at clergyletterproject.org. Nor is the pastor who patted Judge John E. Jones on the back and shook his hand.

Thank you, Ray Martinez, for standing as a shining example... of this OP's title.

The most prominent characteristic of all that Ray (a "Paleyan immutabilist") writes is unbounded inanity.

IIRC, he's admitted that mutations do occur, but he insist that that there is an absolute, inviolable boundary between species. I don't remember his response to my argument about ring species.

He's been a regular at the talk.origins newsgruop for many years and his blatant denial of accepted rules of logic was exposed by a "Roger Shrubber". Roger regrettably disappeared from t.o.

Roger did his best to show Ray why he is wrong about the rules of logic but Ray protested to the end. Ray's logic still is defined according to his own idiosyncrasies.

Roger made the impression of being a real, most likely retired scientist.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: The bias of Jones seen clearly when he approved of a definition of "science" which included the word "naturalism."

He referenced the National Academies definition because both the plaintiffs and defense witnesses told him that was the current definition. Instead of making up some new definition or using his position to redefine science, he accepted a fact agreed upon by both parties in the suit. Here is the relevant section of the decision, where the judge points out that the defenses own witnesses agree that ID is not science by the current definition of science:

It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).

Going with the definition of science agreed upon by both the plaintiffs AND the defenses' expert scientific witnesses: that's not bias, that's judicial conservativism.

John said:

SLC said: Mr. Kwok, don't you know that Miller, Conway Morris, Collins et all aren't real Christians? /snark

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

Damn you SLC, did you really have to divulge my identity? (You're forgiven this time.) But yes, in the strange worldview of Ravi and Ray Martinez, Collins, Conway Morris, Giberson, Matheson and Miller aren't real Christians. Nor is Pope Francis I since he accepts the reality of evolution.

If you recall that Darwin wrote his essay back in the summer of 1842, then evolution has been in "crisis" for more than one and three-quarter centuries.

MiddleStMan said: John said:

If you recall that Darwin wrote his essay back in the summer of 1842, then evolution has been in "crisis" for more than one and three-quarter centuries.

Evolution goes back (in English) at least to the Cambridge Platonists. It was not a 'naturalistic' idea then, but it was still controversial. How does God 'evolve' the universe hasn't stopped being controversial, or whether one should apply science, philosophy or theology to 'prove' or 'infer' divine action (if one even allows the possibility) continues to be lively for atheists, agnostics (seekers) and theists today. The Denton crisis talk is funny. What he meant was Darwinism, rather than evolutionary biology. But he gets paid by the DI likely well to publish his books if he scuttles himself (& his vitalist agnosticism) within their ranks compared to his other options. It's been said that Denton initially left the DI because it was 'too Christian' for him, while now he seems not to mind that on his paychecks along with the praise from Johnson and Behe.

Rolf said: The most prominent characteristic of all that Ray (a "Paleyan immutabilist") writes is unbounded inanity. IIRC, he's admitted that mutations do occur, but he insist that that there is an absolute, inviolable boundary between species. I don't remember his response to my argument about ring species. He's been a regular at the talk.origins newsgruop for many years and his blatant denial of accepted rules of logic was exposed by a "Roger Shrubber". Roger regrettably disappeared from t.o. Roger did his best to show Ray why he is wrong about the rules of logic but Ray protested to the end. Ray's logic still is defined according to his own idiosyncrasies. Roger made the impression of being a real, most likely retired scientist.

Ray old buddy, I hate to keep beating this long-dead horse, but you just won't admit it's dead. Instead you duck and dodge and splutter about analogies and atheist scientists and whatnot... anything but admit that no, you have no method whatever for determining whether a particular stone is 'natural' or 'designed' -- or man-made, for that matter.

Don't be like FL, man. You can be better than that. You CAN admit that you're wrong or that you don't know.

Or can you?

Rolf said: The most prominent characteristic of all that Ray (a "Paleyan immutabilist") writes is unbounded inanity. IIRC, he's admitted that mutations do occur, but he insist that that there is an absolute, inviolable boundary between species. I don't remember his response to my argument about ring species.......Ray's logic still is defined according to his own idiosyncrasies.

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

Maybe Ray should read the bible before he tries to tell us who is a Christian and who isn't. He doesn't seem to know what it says. Not that anyone cares who is and who isn;t any more than the care about Ray's opinion.

Of all the denizens of PT, the one I understand least is Ray. And I mean that literally, I’ve been arguing with him for years and I still have no real understanding of his actual position.

And the words of Jesus and the Bible aren't good enough for him, since "I’ve devised another test [besides that given in the Bible] for genuine Christianity."

Isn't there a special place in HELL for those who put themselves above Jesus and the Bible? Ask FL, he knows all about makes up stuff about Hell all the time.

Ray Martinez said: I've devised another test for genuine Christianity: Any Christian who accepts Naturalism or Materialism interpretive philosophies to explain reality and/or scientific evidence is NOT following Christ. How can one say they are following Christ while accepting interpretive philosophies that exclude the power and intelligence of Christ's Father from having any role in the production of reality? So: You are as you argue (Materialism/Naturalism-Atheist) and not as you claim (Christian) if the two contradict. Miller and Jones are Atheists. Their claims of following Christ fail both criteria.

And Ray's opinion and $2 will buy a cup of coffee.

But his definition rules out anybody being a Christian - even your mother can't love you! and you can't accept any science!

I wish I had found this earlier in the thread. This is a fantastic breakdown of DI activities.

http://cenlamar.com/2013/06/07/the-discovery-institute-is-a-con-profit-scam/

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Ray Martinez said: According to the Scriptures a real follower of Christ will be treated the same way Christ was treated by religious and non-religious persons. In short: Christ was rejected by both groups and He was persecuted by both groups. Jesus said His disciples are no better than Him---that these will be treated the same way He was treated. Makes sense: true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like He was treated.

Ray Martinez said:

John said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: Bias or no bias, I can easily look at the transcripts and find the places where the science of evolution and the evidence behind it was explained in the courtroom in great detail. I know this because I paid quite close attention to those parts, and have, on several occasions here, gone back and referred to them. What I cannot seem to do, Ray, is find the corresponding bits where the ID put their experts on the stand, under oath, and have them explain the science and evidence underpinning ID.

Why didn't they? What was their reason for not doing so?

That's what I'm asking you, Ray, because you brought this up. You tell me "Jones was biased". I said "Fine. What was he biased against? What,exactly, was the evidence that DI put in front of him that you say he ignored?" You evaded. So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Sure, Reynaldo, sure, Jones had a pro-evolution bias. Nick Matzke has a pro-evolution bias. Richard Dawkins does too, and so does Jerry Coyne, and so do every one of those professional biologists and other scientists, and so do all the correspondents here. Even Charles Darwin had a pro-evolution bias. Hell, reality itself has a pro-evolution bias. Now you've won. You've triumphed. You're the bull goose loony. So go away.

Yep, Judge Jones shares the same bias as three well known Atheists: Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. So Judge Jones is not a real Christian. Something objective and honest people knew as soon as they read his ruling.

Gee whiz. Judge Jones - who is (or maybe was) a fellow Republican - has an "atheist bias" because he accepts the reality of evolution. Where in your crude listing Ray do people like Kenneth R. Miller - the first witness for the Kitzmiller et al. plaintiffs - NIH director Francis Collins and noted British invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris fit in your twisted worldview? The last time I checked, they are all devout Christian scientists. Collins is an Evangelical Protestant Christian like his fellow co-religionists, biologist Stephen Matheson and physicist Karl Gibson.

How does anyone know who is a real Christian and who is a false or phony Christian? According to the comments seen above the answer lies in the mere claim. Perhaps, for example, Ken Miller's wife or friends believe or even know he is a real Christian, but how does anyone else like persons living in California, Canada, Australia, or Greenland? How do strangers KNOW Ken Miller is a real Christian? Is a claim of Christianity exempt from normal standards of evidence? Of course not. The Bible provides the best way of determining who is following Christ and who is not. According to the Scriptures a real follower of Christ will be treated the same way Christ was treated by religious and non-religious persons. In short: Christ was rejected by both groups and He was persecuted by both groups. Jesus said His disciples are no better than Him---that these will be treated the same way He was treated. Makes sense: true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like He was treated. Ken Miller is LOVED by secular people, so is Judge Jones. Secular people would never love or approve of a true follower of Christ. In fact, Jones PROUDLY accepted a humanist award after the Dover trial! In no way, shape or form, are Jones or Miller treated like Christ was treated in the Bible. And I've devised another test for genuine Christianity: Any Christian who accepts Naturalism or Materialism interpretive philosophies to explain reality and/or scientific evidence is NOT following Christ. How can one say they are following Christ while accepting interpretive philosophies that exclude the power and intelligence of Christ's Father from having any role in the production of reality? So: You are as you argue (Materialism/Naturalism-Atheist) and not as you claim (Christian) if the two contradict. Miller and Jones are Atheists. Their claims of following Christ fail both criteria.

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: According to the Scriptures a real follower of Christ will be treated the same way Christ was treated by religious and non-religious persons. In short: Christ was rejected by both groups and He was persecuted by both groups. Jesus said His disciples are no better than Him---that these will be treated the same way He was treated. Makes sense: true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like He was treated.

So...Hitler was a True Christian, eh?

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Martinez has actually said it: "true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like he was treated.

In what way, exactly? It's plain that nobody here is treating Martinez in the way that Jesus was treated. For one thing, the gospels all say that Jesus was at least taken seriously by one and all. Pharisees, priesthood, people, Romans - nobody found him ridiculous. But Martinez we laugh at. And nobody is proposing that Martinez should be arrested, interrogated, flogged and crucified. Nobody is proposing to strip him of his worldly goods and make him homeless, even though that's what Jesus said his followers should first do, before they actually followed him. Depriving Ray Martinez of his computer and his keyboard would be an injustice, no matter how much it would benefit the practice of public discourse and lower the amount of toxic dementia on the 'net.

In fact, for Martinez to use the word "persecuted" of himself is simply further evidence for his loss of contact with reality. Nobody is persecuting him. Rejecting him - yes, of course. Unreason and denial of fact should be rejected. But for him to compare himself to Jesus is simply crazy.

It is also evidence of hubris. Martinez thinks he is Christ-like. At the very least, he thinks he is practically the only true Christian. For who else qualifies under his other head, namely, flat denial of the mutability of the species?

None of the mainstream Christian churches do, as Martinez himself proclaims. They accept theistic evolution. None of the so-called creationists on the Protestant fringe qualify, either. Even Ken Ham, loony as he is, doesn't think that the species are immutable. Kent Hovind, the same. Even Ray Comfort allows for evolution within "kinds", although he hasn't the faintest idea of what he actually means by that, and won't specify. As for "intelligent design", forget it. Those heretics won't say when or where or how their designer intervened, but they mostly concede common descent, although they don't like to talk about it.

So who is Martinez speaking for, when he uses the first person plural? I suspect nobody. Well, no human being, anyway. Which leaves God.

So I think that Martinez thinks that this "we" he's speaking for are him and God. He is God's only spokesman. He alone carries the True Word.

That is to say, I think Martinez is really crazy. I quibble with phhht and others about whether FL is, because I think that FL's delusions are culturally installed, and he operates within a social group that reinforces them. But that isn't true of Martinez. There is no cultural referent for his brand of crazy. If not nurture, then nature. Martinez is not the product of a culture. His delusions are not consensual. They are a product of mental aberration peculiar to himself. He's actually crazy.

Dave Luckett said: Martinez has actually said it: "true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like he was treated. In what way, exactly? It's plain that nobody here is treating Martinez in the way that Jesus was treated. For one thing, the gospels all say that Jesus was at least taken seriously by one and all. Pharisees, priesthood, people, Romans - nobody found him ridiculous. But Martinez we laugh at. And nobody is proposing that Martinez should be arrested, interrogated, flogged and crucified. Nobody is proposing to strip him of his worldly goods and make him homeless, even though that's what Jesus said his followers should first do, before they actually followed him. Depriving Ray Martinez of his computer and his keyboard would be an injustice, no matter how much it would benefit the practice of public discourse and lower the amount of toxic dementia on the 'net. In fact, for Martinez to use the word "persecuted" of himself is simply further evidence for his loss of contact with reality. Nobody is persecuting him. Rejecting him - yes, of course. Unreason and denial of fact should be rejected. But for him to compare himself to Jesus is simply crazy. It is also evidence of hubris. Martinez thinks he is Christ-like. At the very least, he thinks he is practically the only true Christian. For who else qualifies under his other head, namely, flat denial of the mutability of the species? None of the mainstream Christian churches do, as Martinez himself proclaims. They accept theistic evolution. None of the so-called creationists on the Protestant fringe qualify, either. Even Ken Ham, loony as he is, doesn't think that the species are immutable. Kent Hovind, the same. Even Ray Comfort allows for evolution within "kinds", although he hasn't the faintest idea of what he actually means by that, and won't specify. As for "intelligent design", forget it. Those heretics won't say when or where or how their designer intervened, but they mostly concede common descent, although they don't like to talk about it. So who is Martinez speaking for, when he uses the first person plural? I suspect nobody. Well, no human being, anyway. Which leaves God. So I think that Martinez thinks that this "we" he's speaking for are him and God. He is God's only spokesman. He alone carries the True Word. That is to say, I think Martinez is really crazy. I quibble with phhht and others about whether FL is, because I think that FL's delusions are culturally installed, and he operates within a social group that reinforces them. But that isn't true of Martinez. There is no cultural referent for his brand of crazy. If not nurture, then nature. Martinez is not the product of a culture. His delusions are not consensual. They are a product of mental aberration peculiar to himself. He's actually crazy.

Ray, Can I ask a couple of question?

Can you define "Species immutabilist" for me?

At what level does the immutability take place? Genetic? Genotypic (alleles)? Phenotypic?

What changes are allowed and still retain the immutable character of the species?

Thanks

Ray Martinez said: John 7:20 (NIV): “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered." The crowd thought Jesus was crazy too. Your observation supports everything I said. Like Jesus, I'm rejected too, but unlike Miller and Jones who are accepted and approved by the crowds.

And there you have it folks, in order for Ray to be a Christian he must be rejected. Therefore, he must believe something ridiculous enough for every sane person to reject. So, by being completely divorced from reality, he has proven himself to be the one true Christian. BFD

Ray Martinez said: “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered." The crowd thought Jesus was crazy too. Your observation supports everything I said. Like Jesus, I'm rejected too, but unlike Miller and Jones who are accepted and approved by the crowds.

Ray Martinez said: John 7:20 (NIV): “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered." The crowd thought Jesus was crazy too. Your observation supports everything I said. Like Jesus, I'm rejected too, but unlike Miller and Jones who are accepted and approved by the crowds.

Ray Martinez said: Any Christian who accepts Naturalism or Materialism interpretive philosophies to explain reality and/or scientific evidence is NOT following Christ.

Allow me to supply Mr Martinez with a far more eloquent statement of his state of mind:

"I was classed as a madman, a charlatan, outlawed in the world of science which had previously honoured me as a genius. Now here in this forsaken jungle hell I have proved that I am right. No, Professor Strowski, it is no laughing matter ... Home? I have no home. Hunted! Despised! Living like an animal. The jungle is my home. But I will show the world I can be its master. I will perfect my own race of people, a race of atomic supermen which will conquer the world."

- Bela Lugosi, The Bride of Frankenstein

Bookending his cite, in the same passage in John 7, we have:

12: "There was much murmuring about him in the crowds. "He is a good man, said some. "No, said others, "he is leading the people astray."

31: "Among the people many believed him"

So it was as I said. They took him seriously, and he had a sizable and visible faction. Those who called him demon-possessed were only the crowd around the Pharisees. The gospel writer says that many believed him, and says it both before and after Martinez's selected quote.

So there was a difference of opinion over Jesus, but nobody thinks Martinez is anything but crazy. Conventional Christians, even the crowd at Uncommon Descent and Acts and Farts, the DI, even fruit loops and con men like Hovind, Comfort, et al - nobody's with him. He has no faction. He has no supporters. It's just him and his keyboard against the world. He hasn't even got a race of atomic supermen.

One would tend think that someone who's rejected by everybody might stop and take a critical look at himself. But if introspection is not defined in your dictionary you are excused.

But the supermen thing is atomic and unproven. booby foils Ray yet again.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Any Christian who accepts Naturalism or Materialism interpretive philosophies to explain reality and/or scientific evidence is NOT following Christ.

Well, at least its nice that you state your No True Scotsman fallacy so blatantly. Most religious types attempt to hide this reasoning behind some rationale, but you're loud and proud about it. Good for you!

Rolf said: One would tend think that someone who's rejected by everybody might stop and take a critical look at himself. But if introspection is not defined in your dictionary you are excused.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

Dave Luckett said: "I was classed as a madman, a charlatan, outlawed in the world of science which had previously honoured me as a genius. Now here in this forsaken jungle hell I have proved that I am right. No, Professor Strowski, it is no laughing matter ... Home? I have no home. Hunted! Despised! Living like an animal. The jungle is my home. But I will show the world I can be its master. I will perfect my own race of people, a race of atomic supermen which will conquer the world." - Bela Lugosi, The Bride of Frankenstein

Dave Luckett said: Allow me to supply Mr Martinez with a far more eloquent statement of his state of mind: "I was classed as a madman, a charlatan, outlawed in the world of science which had previously honoured me as a genius. Now here in this forsaken jungle hell I have proved that I am right. No, Professor Strowski, it is no laughing matter ... Home? I have no home. Hunted! Despised! Living like an animal. The jungle is my home. But I will show the world I can be its master. I will perfect my own race of people, a race of atomic supermen which will conquer the world." - Bela Lugosi, The Bride of Frankenstein Bookending his cite, in the same passage in John 7, we have: 12: "There was much murmuring about him in the crowds. "He is a good man, said some. "No, said others, "he is leading the people astray." 31: "Among the people many believed him" So it was as I said. They took him seriously, and he had a sizable and visible faction. Those who called him demon-possessed were only the crowd around the Pharisees. The gospel writer says that many believed him, and says it both before and after Martinez's selected quote. So there was a difference of opinion over Jesus, but nobody thinks Martinez is anything but crazy. Conventional Christians, even the crowd at Uncommon Descent and Acts and Farts, the DI, even fruit loops and con men like Hovind, Comfort, et al - nobody's with him. He has no faction. He has no supporters. It's just him and his keyboard against the world. He hasn't even got a race of atomic supermen.

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: "I was classed as a madman, a charlatan, outlawed in the world of science which had previously honoured me as a genius. Now here in this forsaken jungle hell I have proved that I am right. No, Professor Strowski, it is no laughing matter ... Home? I have no home. Hunted! Despised! Living like an animal. The jungle is my home. But I will show the world I can be its master. I will perfect my own race of people, a race of atomic supermen which will conquer the world." - Bela Lugosi, The Bride of Frankenstein

I think you have the wrong attribution there, Dave. Bela Lugosi wasn't in The Bride of Frankenstein, and it didn't take place in a "forsaken jungle hell." I believe you're quoting Bride of the Monster, one of Ed Wood's execrable productions.

harold said:

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

John Kwok is right here. The DI is getting over $5M a year in income, paying grotesque salaries, and pushing right wing lawmakers in vulnerable states to introduce bills that amount to time bombs. And the explosion is some low budget rural school district being embroiled in a multi-million dollar lawsuit (granted it's possible this won't happen, but it is implicitly the intended outcome - the DI gets money by coyly suggesting that they'll win some kind of anti-evolution lawsuit some day; as we've seen, losses don't hurt them financially). We all have our eccentricities, but personal disputes should be transferred to the BW ASAP. could it be time to be more proactive? Could it be worthwhile to think about challenging the DI’s tax exempt status? Exposing donation sources if they are coming from companies that might not want a PR problem? It kind of catches in my craw that these jerks are living it up at the expense of donors, even right wing authoritarian donors. http://cenlamar.com/2013/06/07/the-[…]profit-scam/

harold said:

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

John Kwok is right here. The DI is getting over $5M a year in income, paying grotesque salaries, and pushing right wing lawmakers in vulnerable states to introduce bills that amount to time bombs. And the explosion is some low budget rural school district being embroiled in a multi-million dollar lawsuit (granted it's possible this won't happen, but it is implicitly the intended outcome - the DI gets money by coyly suggesting that they'll win some kind of anti-evolution lawsuit some day; as we've seen, losses don't hurt them financially). We all have our eccentricities, but personal disputes should be transferred to the BW ASAP. could it be time to be more proactive? Could it be worthwhile to think about challenging the DI’s tax exempt status? Exposing donation sources if they are coming from companies that might not want a PR problem? It kind of catches in my craw that these jerks are living it up at the expense of donors, even right wing authoritarian donors. http://cenlamar.com/2013/06/07/the-[…]profit-scam/

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

SLC said: I will resist any attempts by John to initiate a dispute between us.

John said:

TomS said:

gnome de net said:

John said: [I]n the strange worldview of Ravi and Ray Martinez, Collins, Conway Morris, Giberson, Matheson and Miller aren't real Christians. Nor is Pope Francis I since he accepts the reality of evolution.

Remember the more than 13,000 American Christian clergy signers of the letter at clergyletterproject.org. Nor is the pastor who patted Judge John E. Jones on the back and shook his hand.

Well noted, TomS, but I mentioned several famous devout Christians who are scientists - plus a few others - merely to remind our creotard troll of the breathtaking inanity of his observation.

SLC said: One of the major funding sources for the Dishonesty Institute is Howard Ahmanson Jr, a reclusive billionaire (all of it inherited) living in the Seattle area who supports turning the US into a theocracy. Ahmanson is a scion of the Ahmanson family, which controls the Home Savings and Loan of California. One of the more interesting attempts of this disreputable outfit is a claim by Casey Luskin, a "fellow" of the institute, that the citing of the fusion in human chromosome 2 of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 as evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees is incorrect in that, in his opinion, the structures involved are not telomeres. This was a subject of a post by Larry Moran on his blog which attracted the attention of Ken Miller, in addition to Moran's usual commentors. Their comments totally discredited Luskins' claim.

harold said:

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

John Kwok is right here. The DI is getting over $5M a year in income, paying grotesque salaries, and pushing right wing lawmakers in vulnerable states to introduce bills that amount to time bombs. And the explosion is some low budget rural school district being embroiled in a multi-million dollar lawsuit (granted it's possible this won't happen, but it is implicitly the intended outcome - the DI gets money by coyly suggesting that they'll win some kind of anti-evolution lawsuit some day; as we've seen, losses don't hurt them financially). We all have our eccentricities, but personal disputes should be transferred to the BW ASAP. could it be time to be more proactive? Could it be worthwhile to think about challenging the DI’s tax exempt status? Exposing donation sources if they are coming from companies that might not want a PR problem? It kind of catches in my craw that these jerks are living it up at the expense of donors, even right wing authoritarian donors. http://cenlamar.com/2013/06/07/the-[…]profit-scam/

John said:

harold said:

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

John Kwok is right here. The DI is getting over $5M a year in income, paying grotesque salaries, and pushing right wing lawmakers in vulnerable states to introduce bills that amount to time bombs. And the explosion is some low budget rural school district being embroiled in a multi-million dollar lawsuit (granted it's possible this won't happen, but it is implicitly the intended outcome - the DI gets money by coyly suggesting that they'll win some kind of anti-evolution lawsuit some day; as we've seen, losses don't hurt them financially). We all have our eccentricities, but personal disputes should be transferred to the BW ASAP. could it be time to be more proactive? Could it be worthwhile to think about challenging the DI’s tax exempt status? Exposing donation sources if they are coming from companies that might not want a PR problem? It kind of catches in my craw that these jerks are living it up at the expense of donors, even right wing authoritarian donors. http://cenlamar.com/2013/06/07/the-[…]profit-scam/

I don't think we ought to view it solely in terms of a struggle between the Right and the Left, since there are those of us on the Right like former PT poster attorney Timothy Sandefur, myself and others who recognize just how dangerous the Discovery Institute is. I can think of no better way of celebrating by the 20th anniversary of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling than by having the Discovery Institute, and especially, its Center (for the Renewal) of Science and Culture exposed as the diabolical science denialist frauds that they are, and their existence as nonprofit organizations terminated. This is fundamentally a war between those of us who value reason and the scientific method versus those, like the Discovery Institute who don't. (Apparently, as Wesley Elsberry noted in a recent PT blog, there are some Discovery Institute supporters like Uncommon Descent's Barry Arrington who know they are losing. It's time the Discovery Institute realizes that it needs to become as extinct as the nonavian dinosaurs.)

Kevin said: Ray, Can I ask a couple of question? Can you define "Species immutabilist" for me?

At what level does the immutability take place? Genetic? Genotypic (alleles)? Phenotypic? What changes are allowed and still retain the immutable character of the species? Thanks

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said: So I'll ask you again. You say Jones was biased. Presumably this means you feel he ruled against ID despite of solid evidence in its favor. So what,exactly, was the solid evidence for ID that made it into the trial that Jones subsequently ignored?

I told you that I oppose the D.I. vehemently. So I have no interest in defending them. But the fact remains: Judge Jones held a pro-evolution bias, which he, as one could expect denies. Judge Jones is a liar.

Fine. I believe you. Jones is biased. Please share with me the evidence presented at trial that Jones' bias caused him to ignore as he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The bias of Jones seen clearly when he approved of a definition of "science" which included the word "naturalism."

Again, Ray, it's a simple question. What bits of pro ID evidence did this 'biased' judge omit from his decisions? It's really simple, Ray, in your world this judge's bias induced him to turn a blind eye to the strong case that ID presented in his courtroom. All I'm asking, Ray, is that you describe to me what pro-ID evidence did Jones have before him that he choose to ignore?

harold said: It's no coincidence that the creationists who still argue at PT are the ones who are "banned" by the other creationists. Whether because they all got the same idea, or whether, as seems plausible if Ray Martinez was banned for merely posting on a pro-science site, some sort of word went out, or both, the creationists who accept one another now avoid this site.

Ray Martinez said: You don't understand the point. Again, the point is that bias predetermines outcome. Jones, contrary to his lies, was a Darwinist since college therefore it was manifestly impossible for him to render any ruling in favor of design. Judge Jones is a liar. One day we will succeed in passing a congressional resolution stating the fact. He deliberately and willfully carried his preexisting bias into the court room while concealing and denying the fact. The same can be said for EVERY decision that has rendered the worldview of the Founding Fathers unconstitutional. Nick Matzke is not in possession of even ONE fact. He has written a propaganda piece dressed up as objective scholarship. And what a sorry piece of "scholarship" he has: best seen in his "brilliant" idea of portraying anti-evolution legislation as having evolved. One could make several contradictory points about his choice of portrayal concepts, yet each of these points could be true. He failed to elucidate the facts in an objective manner, which is what scholars are supposed to do. His work will not stand the test of time for this very reason.

Dave Luckett said: Martinez has actually said it: "true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like he was treated. In what way, exactly? It's plain that nobody here is treating Martinez in the way that Jesus was treated.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Luckett said: Martinez has actually said it: "true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like he was treated. In what way, exactly? It's plain that nobody here is treating Martinez in the way that Jesus was treated.

Every person here says I'm loony or a liar or both (= reasons Christ suffered rejection). It's hard to understand what you don't understand? John 8:48 (KJV): "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" The Pharisees rejected Jesus as a heretic and liar.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: You don't understand the point. Again, the point is that bias predetermines outcome. Jones, contrary to his lies, was a Darwinist since college therefore it was manifestly impossible for him to render any ruling in favor of design. Judge Jones is a liar. One day we will succeed in passing a congressional resolution stating the fact. He deliberately and willfully carried his preexisting bias into the court room while concealing and denying the fact. The same can be said for EVERY decision that has rendered the worldview of the Founding Fathers unconstitutional. Nick Matzke is not in possession of even ONE fact. He has written a propaganda piece dressed up as objective scholarship. And what a sorry piece of "scholarship" he has: best seen in his "brilliant" idea of portraying anti-evolution legislation as having evolved. One could make several contradictory points about his choice of portrayal concepts, yet each of these points could be true. He failed to elucidate the facts in an objective manner, which is what scholars are supposed to do. His work will not stand the test of time for this very reason.

[snip....] I think what we are seeing here is exactly the issue that ID/creationists cannot grasp and never will; namely ID/creationism is a sectarian pseudoscience.

Every major work by Abel, Dembski, Sewell, and all the rest of the leaders of the ID/creationist movement gets the scientific concepts dead wrong.

....ID/creationism will forever remain dead wrong in all its concepts and assertions; and all of it is dead wrong at even the high school level. [snip....]

Ray Martinez said: I agree the debate is mutually exclusive; all or nothing.

Dave Luckett said: Martinez has actually said it: "true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like he was treated. [snip....] In fact, for Martinez to use the word "persecuted" of himself is simply further evidence for his loss of contact with reality. Nobody is persecuting him. Rejecting him - yes, of course. Unreason and denial of fact should be rejected. But for him to compare himself to Jesus is simply crazy.

It is also evidence of hubris. Martinez thinks he is Christ-like. At the very least, he thinks he is practically the only true Christian. For who else qualifies under his other head, namely, flat denial of the mutability of the species?

None of the mainstream Christian churches do, as Martinez himself proclaims. They accept theistic evolution. None of the so-called creationists on the Protestant fringe qualify, either. Even Ken Ham, loony as he is, doesn't think that the species are immutable. Kent Hovind, the same. Even Ray Comfort allows for evolution within "kinds", although he hasn't the faintest idea of what he actually means by that, and won't specify. As for "intelligent design", forget it. Those heretics won't say when or where or how their designer intervened, but they mostly concede common descent, although they don't like to talk about it. [snip....]

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: I agree the debate is mutually exclusive; all or nothing.

If you really agree; then what is the issue?

ID/creationist pseudoscience has nothing to do with anything in the real world; it is a Trojan horse that has been attemping to smuggle the dogma of a narrow sectarian religious view into public education.

That fact makes the ID/creationist movement not only a socio/political movement attempting to cover its tracks and motives; it also reveals both intellectual laziness and dishonesty on the part of the leaders of this movement.

It is not only dishonest to teach material that is dead wrong in science class - as though it is a legitimate alternative to science - it is also professionally irresponsible and bad pedagogy. There is absolutely nothing good about misleading students and throwing stumbling blocks into their educational paths; in fact, it is a nasty trick.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Luckett said: Martinez has actually said it: "true followers of Christ, in some way, are treated like he was treated. In what way, exactly? It's plain that nobody here is treating Martinez in the way that Jesus was treated.

Every person here says I'm loony or a liar or both (= reasons Christ suffered rejection). It's hard to understand what you don't understand? John 8:48 (KJV): "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" The Pharisees rejected Jesus as a heretic and liar.

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Every person here says I'm loony or a liar or both (= reasons Christ suffered rejection). It's hard to understand what you don't understand? John 8:48 (KJV): "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" The Pharisees rejected Jesus as a heretic and liar.

Why Ray, should we accept a word you say?

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Nick Matzke is not in possession of even ONE fact. He has written a propaganda piece dressed up as objective scholarship. And what a sorry piece of "scholarship" he has: best seen in his "brilliant" idea of portraying anti-evolution legislation as having evolved. One could make several contradictory points about his choice of portrayal concepts, yet each of these points could be true. He failed to elucidate the facts in an objective manner, which is what scholars are supposed to do. His work will not stand the test of time for this very reason.

John said:

Nick Matzke is not in possession of even ONE fact. He has written a propaganda piece dressed up as objective scholarship. And what a sorry piece of "scholarship" he has: best seen in his "brilliant" idea of portraying anti-evolution legislation as having evolved. One could make several contradictory points about his choice of portrayal concepts, yet each of these points could be true. He failed to elucidate the facts in an objective manner, which is what scholars are supposed to do. His work will not stand the test of time for this very reason.

Nick has gone out of his way to provide every "fact" as noted in his recent blog post here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/12/bonus-material.html If it was "propaganda" I strongly doubt it would have made it through Science's rigorous peer review and get published in that journal. Nor is Nick the only one to think of creationism as something that is amenable to phylogenetic analysis. In a far less sophisticated manner, both philosopher of science Robert Pennock - I believe in his book "Tower of Babel" - and historian - and former creationist - Ronald Numbers have referred to the "evolutionary history" of creationism. Only a mine as intellectually deficient as yours would make such ludicrous accusations against Nick.

harold said:

SLC said: One of the major funding sources for the Dishonesty Institute is Howard Ahmanson Jr, a reclusive billionaire (all of it inherited) living in the Seattle area who supports turning the US into a theocracy. Ahmanson is a scion of the Ahmanson family, which controls the Home Savings and Loan of California. One of the more interesting attempts of this disreputable outfit is a claim by Casey Luskin, a "fellow" of the institute, that the citing of the fusion in human chromosome 2 of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 as evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees is incorrect in that, in his opinion, the structures involved are not telomeres. This was a subject of a post by Larry Moran on his blog which attracted the attention of Ken Miller, in addition to Moran's usual commentors. Their comments totally discredited Luskins' claim.

harold said:

Just Bob said:

John said:

SLC said: John, I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it difficult with charges like that. I would remind you that you said some pretty negative things about me (e.g. accusations of sexism and misogyny etc.). I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and start afresh.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Fair enough, although if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest you adopt a real nom de guerre. I now use the nom de guerre colnago80, having dropped the use of my initials SLC.

Interesting. I must say that your remarks on Dispatches from the Culture Wars aren't calculated to make any think well of you, though.

Don't encourage him. I took a long break from posting here because of his outrageous remarks aimed in my direction.

I wouldn't have responded if I hadn't read some ridiculous commentary from you. If you're going to attack anyone, then leave your rhetorical ammunition for the creotard trolls posting here, not me.

Please... not this again!

John Kwok is right here. The DI is getting over $5M a year in income, paying grotesque salaries, and pushing right wing lawmakers in vulnerable states to introduce bills that amount to time bombs. And the explosion is some low budget rural school district being embroiled in a multi-million dollar lawsuit (granted it's possible this won't happen, but it is implicitly the intended outcome - the DI gets money by coyly suggesting that they'll win some kind of anti-evolution lawsuit some day; as we've seen, losses don't hurt them financially). We all have our eccentricities, but personal disputes should be transferred to the BW ASAP. could it be time to be more proactive? Could it be worthwhile to think about challenging the DI’s tax exempt status? Exposing donation sources if they are coming from companies that might not want a PR problem? It kind of catches in my craw that these jerks are living it up at the expense of donors, even right wing authoritarian donors. http://cenlamar.com/2013/06/07/the-[…]profit-scam/

I am keenly aware of Ahmanson, and it may well almost all be from him. On the other hand, 5M per year is a lot even for a crazy right wing billionaire. Some of it could be coming from others. Individuals are unlikely to be persuadable, but companies with customers might be reachable.

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

harold said: ...could it be time to be more proactive? Could it be worthwhile to think about challenging the DI’s tax exempt status? Exposing donation sources if they are coming from companies that might not want a PR problem?

"I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859."

My god, man, do you eschew all drugs and medical treatment discovered or developed since 1859?

Ray Martinez said: I accept Mayr's Biological Species Concept (BSC). For example, wolves, coyotes, and feral dogs exist because each only mate with members of their own species. I know you guys have little ability to understand species, but try.

For many, the Biological Species Concept was a useful theoretical idea because it leads to a focus on the evolutionary origins of barriers to reproduction between species. But the BSC has been criticized for not being very useful for deciding when to identify new species. It is also true that there are many cases where members of different species will hybridize and produce fertile offspring when they are under confined conditions, such as in zoos. One fairly extreme example is that lions and tigers will hybridize in captivity, and at least some of the offspring have been reported to be fertile. Mayr's response to cases like these is that the reproductive barriers that are important for species are the ones that occur in the wild. But even so, it is also the case that there are many cases of different species that are known to hybridize and produce fertile offspring in nature.

Ray Martinez said: For example, wolves, coyotes, and feral dogs exist because each only mate with members of their own species.

John said: Damn you SLC, did you really have to divulge my identity?

Science Avenger said:

John said: Damn you SLC, did you really have to divulge my identity?

You gave yourself away with "mendacious intellectual pornography". You might as well have yelled "I AM KWOK!" At least you aren't talking about your damned high school any more. Congratulations, welcome to adulthood.

Science Avenger said:

John said: Damn you SLC, did you really have to divulge my identity?

You gave yourself away with "mendacious intellectual pornography". You might as well have yelled "I AM KWOK!" At least you aren't talking about your damned high school any more. Congratulations, welcome to adulthood.

Ray Martinez said:

Kevin said: Ray, Can I ask a couple of question? Can you define "Species immutabilist" for me?

Each species, past and present, created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

At what level does the immutability take place? Genetic? Genotypic (alleles)? Phenotypic? What changes are allowed and still retain the immutable character of the species? Thanks

I accept Mayr's Biological Species Concept (BSC). For example, wolves, coyotes, and feral dogs exist because each only mate with members of their own species. I know you guys have little ability to understand species, but try.

I'll join you Ray. However first I need some clarity.
All religions, and these include all flavours of Christianity, are wrong; right? You are the sole authority on what scripture means, and that that scripture is the KJV circa 1611? All previous scripture was wronly trsnslated, or interpreted, but now that you are here, humanity can rely upon your interpretation and all things will be hunky dory? Being spat upon and ridiculed is like the highest praise you can get, and in so getting you experience a vicarious joy only a true flagellator can experience?
If I got any of this self delusion wrong please set me straight. Oh yeah! Who the hell do you actually agree with on religious matters? Is there a church of Ray some where, where the truth is known? Any way, look forward to following your every effusion.
Please keep posting. I want to know what level of lunacy is required before someone is actually banned here. I have a more than sneeking suspicion you hold some very unsavoury and dated ideas about many things in our modern society. I'll leave others to interpret my conjecture.

John said: You obviously missed my point, moron.

Science Avenger said:

John said: You obviously missed my point, moron.

Big talk for someone who had the humor-only nature of my post zoom right over his head. Glad to see you still take yourself far too seriously. My work here is done.

John said:

Science Avenger said:

John said: You obviously missed my point, moron.

Big talk for someone who had the humor-only nature of my post zoom right over his head. Glad to see you still take yourself far too seriously. My work here is done.

Where were you when Ray and Ravi were around his time, moron? You need to change your moniker to Science Denialist Supporter. And no, I don't take myself all that seriously. But apparently, you do.

I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman has the ability to understand the highest level of scientific jargon found in biology journals yet he doesn't understand that my quotation and its context is only talking about the origin of species/biological production? Based on his educational credentials it is proper to assume he does indeed understand the quotation and its context therefore John is deliberately misrepresenting.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman has the ability to understand the highest level of scientific jargon found in biology journals yet he doesn't understand that my quotation and its context is only talking about the origin of species/biological production? Based on his educational credentials it is proper to assume he does indeed understand the quotation and its context therefore John is deliberately misrepresenting.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: I accept Mayr's Biological Species Concept (BSC). For example, wolves, coyotes, and feral dogs exist because each only mate with members of their own species. I know you guys have little ability to understand species, but try.

Hi Ray, Several pages ago, since you believed that species are immutable, I asked if you could define what a "species" is. I think this is the closest you have come. So, if I understand correctly, what you are saying is that wolves, coyotes, and dogs are separate species, because (according to the BSC) they "only mate with members of their own species." According to you these species are "immutable". Is my understanding of your position correct? Wolves, coyotes, and dogs are separate species? You do realize that this subheading comes under the major article on Wiki, titled the "Species Problem" [emphasis added]:

For many, the Biological Species Concept was a useful theoretical idea because it leads to a focus on the evolutionary origins of barriers to reproduction between species. But the BSC has been criticized for not being very useful for deciding when to identify new species. It is also true that there are many cases where members of different species will hybridize and produce fertile offspring when they are under confined conditions, such as in zoos. One fairly extreme example is that lions and tigers will hybridize in captivity, and at least some of the offspring have been reported to be fertile. Mayr's response to cases like these is that the reproductive barriers that are important for species are the ones that occur in the wild. But even so, it is also the case that there are many cases of different species that are known to hybridize and produce fertile offspring in nature.

My point is that "species" is, in fact, simply a concept of human categorization (a la Linnaeus), and that the notion of "species" is rather flexible and quite mutable. From an evolutionary perspective, one species blends into another, and there is no true clear dividing line between one species to another. Evolution doesn't really care for the arbitrary labels that humans attach to "species". If the definition of what a species is, is not fixed, it's difficult to understand how you can say that the species themselves are immutable.

Unless, of course, you intend to always apply the "No True Scotsman Species" fallacy at every turn. Kind of like FL's goal-posts-on-roller-skates method of argument. But you wouldn't do that, would you Ray. Because, since species are "immutable", the definition of what a species is must be immutable too. Right? So, in essence your concept of "species" is 60 years out of date. I guess that's better than your concept of the rest of science, which is 156 years out of date.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman has the ability to understand the highest level of scientific jargon found in biology journals yet he doesn't understand that my quotation and its context is only talking about the origin of species/biological production? Based on his educational credentials it is proper to assume he does indeed understand the quotation and its context therefore John is deliberately misrepresenting.

Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

Just Bob said: Here's an idea, Ray: say exactly what you mean, and mean exactly what you say. "Science" means science, not just the TOE. But while we're at it, do you accept all of modern -- since 1859 -- science except evolutionary biology? Or are there other 'atheist' (you sure like that word) disciplines that you reject? Geological deep time? Big Bang cosmology? General or Special Relativity? Quantum Mechanics? DNA genetics aside from the 'evolutionary' parts?

They are purposefully purposely lying to their readers.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman has the ability to understand the highest level of scientific jargon found in biology journals yet he doesn't understand that my quotation and its context is only talking about the origin of species/biological production? Based on his educational credentials it is proper to assume he does indeed understand the quotation and its context therefore John is deliberately misrepresenting.

Here's an idea, Ray: say exactly what you mean, and mean exactly what you say. "Science" means science, not just the TOE. But while we're at it, do you accept all of modern -- since 1859 -- science except evolutionary biology? Or are there other 'atheist' (you sure like that word) disciplines that you reject? Geological deep time? Big Bang cosmology? General or Special Relativity? Quantum Mechanics? DNA genetics aside from the 'evolutionary' parts?

Ray Martinez said: Who wrote the Wiki article, Kim Kardashian? Nancy Grace? Ken Ham? your neighbor's uncle, perhaps?

Here is one of my sources for the BSC: See Jerry Coyne, "Why Evolution Is True," 2009:174, 250; New York: Penguin Group. Yes, someone is out of date, LOL! Ray

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

YaFen Shen said:

They are purposefully purposely lying to their readers.

Scott F said:

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

I don't see why you think that's a snarky comment.

He claims that Judge Jones was biased, but appears to be incapable of explaining what evidence the judge's supposed bias caused him to overlook. When asked again, he repeatedly calls Jones a liar, without explaining what he feels Jones is lying about. He believes that Judge Jones decided the case wrongly, yet at the same time appears to disagree with the definition of "Intelligent Design" as presented at trial by the very people defending "Intelligent Design". It seems that he believes that the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the Judge were all wrong.

It appears to be impossible to have a discussion with Ray, because he fails to explain the terms he uses, the terms he uses are used in ambiguous or even misleading ways (such as using "science" when he appears to mean a very limited subset of "biology"), and he fails to even define what it is he believes, let alone defend it. When asked to explain what he means, he simply laughs.

Maybe his only goal is to get attention?

I see some commendable comments here but sadly enough I don't think they will have any effect, at least not on Ray. ISTM that Ray has invested all of his life on what I call "his grand project" - "to tear down Darwin".

His reasoning is that if he can make "Darwin fall", the ToE falls because Darwin is the basis of the theory. The way he reasons, 160 years of science since Darwin is irrelevant.

Besides, if you accept non-religious science you are an atheist and all atheists are liars destined for the eternal fire. See ya all down there.

Rolf said: I see some commendable comments here but sadly enough I don't think they will have any effect, at least not on Ray. ISTM that Ray has invested all of his life on what I call "his grand project" - "to tear down Darwin". His reasoning is that if he can make "Darwin fall", the ToE falls because Darwin is the basis of the theory. The way he reasons, 160 years of science since Darwin is irrelevant. Besides, if you accept non-religious science you are an atheist and all atheists are liars destined for the eternal fire. See ya all down there.

More evidence that 'species' was a naive term which needs to evolve into more realistic descriptions of nature: It is possible for two types of creatures with (slightly) different characteristics and different chromosome counts to exist as a combined breeding population in equilibrium: 'homo sapiens' and 'homo sapiens with Down's Syndrome'. This reference gives the basic data:

http://www.thesebrokenvases.com/2010/10/down-syndrome-awareness-can-people-with.html

(The current state of the equilibrium is low in DS percentage because DS people are discouraged from breeding.)

DS occurs in other animals besides homo sapiens, but the fact that our own 'species' is not immutable should be food for thought for creationists.

And the Bible shows no interest in the fixity of species (or "kinds", or any taxon). Or much else about species (or whatever).

It seems to accept spontaneous http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/kauo-fff121415.php. Does a living thing belong to one and only one taxon, forever throughout its existence? It can change from being clear to unclean. What about metamorphosis? What about specieation or extinction?

It doesn't say anythng about humans being of a species.

Rolf said: I see some commendable comments here but sadly enough I don't think they will have any effect, at least not on Ray. ISTM that Ray has invested all of his life on what I call "his grand project" - "to tear down Darwin". His reasoning is that if he can make "Darwin fall", the ToE falls because Darwin is the basis of the theory. The way he reasons, 160 years of science since Darwin is irrelevant. Besides, if you accept non-religious science you are an atheist and all atheists are liars destined for the eternal fire. See ya all down there.

For argument's sake, let us accept the biological species concept. Which reminds me of an old joke, which I will adapt for the occasion: Q. Why did the Chihuahua marry the Great Dane? A. She had to.

I leave to your imagination why Danes and Chihuahuas cannot normally or potentially interbreed, in nature or otherwise. Are they different species? If so, we have observed speciation. If not, then are species immutable? Or do not outward appearances count? Or can artificial selection develop new species but not natural selection? If not, why not?

Matt Young said: For argument's sake, let us accept the biological species concept. Which reminds me of an old joke, which I will adapt for the occasion: Q. Why did the Chihuahua marry the Great Dane? A. She had to. I leave to your imagination why Danes and Chihuahuas cannot normally or potentially interbreed, in nature or otherwise. Are they different species? If so, we have observed speciation. If not, then are species immutable? Or do not outward appearances count? Or can artificial selection develop new species but not natural selection? If not, why not?

All Chihuahuas suffer from a delusional disorder that makes them think they're Rottweilers anyway.

harold said:

Matt Young said: For argument's sake, let us accept the biological species concept. Which reminds me of an old joke, which I will adapt for the occasion: Q. Why did the Chihuahua marry the Great Dane? A. She had to. I leave to your imagination why Danes and Chihuahuas cannot normally or potentially interbreed, in nature or otherwise. Are they different species? If so, we have observed speciation. If not, then are species immutable? Or do not outward appearances count? Or can artificial selection develop new species but not natural selection? If not, why not?

In a way dogs are a ring species. I'm not at all sure that Chihuahuas and Great Danes can't interbreed. There also male Chihuahuas and female Great Danes. Love will find a way. It's all about the chromosomes. But anyway, a lot of dogs with one Chihuahua parent will get together with dogs with one Great Dane parent.

I think the problem might be that a chihuahua bitch impregnated (artificially -- surely not naturally) by a great dane would have fetuses much too large to carry to term. I sort of doubt that a chihuahua dog could impregnate a great dane bitch by natural means, even if he wanted to.

I've always considered this an interesting thought experiment: Consider 2 breeding populations of dogs, for some reason released on a desert island: great danes and teacup poodles. The Great Human-Dog Plague strikes and wipes out all humanity and all dogs except those on the island. The genetics of the two breeds are such that for hundreds of generations into the future their original morphology is preserved: one tiny breed and one giant breed. Let's say they each fit into different ecological niches, so that even natural selection pressure tends to favor and preserve each size extreme.

Now, after, say, a thousand years, extraterrestrials land on the de-humaned and mostly de-dogged Earth, and discover the island with its two dog populations. They never witness interbreeding or see any hybrids. Would they even for a moment consider that they're the same species? Or would it be 'obvious' that they're distinct species, like tigers and tabby cats, or wolves and foxes?

Just Bob said: I think the problem might be that a chihuahua bitch impregnated (artificially -- surely not naturally) by a great dane would have fetuses much too large to carry to term. I sort of doubt that a chihuahua dog could impregnate a great dane bitch by natural means, even if he wanted to.

I'll add that domestic dogs have more morphological variety than all other members of carnivora combined. If any one is interested I'll dig up the paper.

But I've use the Chihuahua and Dane thing before. In the wild, which we should take into account (humans screw everything up), a make chihuahua could not make a female Dane receptive. Not gonna happen.

Of course, what's really painful for Ray, is that we can actually trace the ancestry of species. There's some really great work on felids and it traces which species became which other species and when. Similar work exists for cetaceans, ichthyosaurs, and dozens of other species.

There also male Chihuahuas and female Great Danes. Love will find a way.

Matt Young said:

There also male Chihuahuas and female Great Danes. Love will find a way.

You have a more fertile imagination than I do.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said: I stand behind science as it existed November 23, 1859.

So, in other words, there's no such thing as radioactivity, electrons, protons, anything else in particle physics, quanta, organic chemistry, genetics, etc., etc. Makes sense.

Doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman has the ability to understand the highest level of scientific jargon found in biology journals yet he doesn't understand that my quotation and its context is only talking about the origin of species/biological production? Based on his educational credentials it is proper to assume he does indeed understand the quotation and its context therefore John is deliberately misrepresenting.

Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

Kevin said: I'll add that domestic dogs have more morphological variety than all other members of carnivora combined. If any one is interested I'll dig up the paper. But I've use the Chihuahua and Dane thing before. In the wild, which we should take into account (humans screw everything up), a make chihuahua could not make a female Dane receptive. Not gonna happen. Of course, what's really painful for Ray, is that we can actually trace the ancestry of species. There's some really great work on felids and it traces which species became which other species and when. Similar work exists for cetaceans, ichthyosaurs, and dozens of other species.

Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

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

Just Bob said: I think the problem might be that a chihuahua bitch impregnated (artificially -- surely not naturally) by a great dane would have fetuses much too large to carry to term. I sort of doubt that a chihuahua dog could impregnate a great dane bitch by natural means, even if he wanted to.

Oh come on, it's not that hard to imagine. Glen Davidson

Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

Raving Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

... essentially Anglo-American ...

What can be described better by that: Evolutionary biology or Intelligent Design?

How many publications other than in English on Intelligent Design? I don't know, I'm asking.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of some overtly religious creationists of Christian or Islamic faiths, but specifically ID, claiming to be non-religious?

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

Ray Martinez said:

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

I have repeatedly. In response I'm ignored, evaded, misrepresented. For instance: I was asked for an example of a thing not designed? I answered with Paley's stone, and I also said ALL Darwinian scholars accept Paley's contrast and analogy as correct (except for his inference of course). In response all of the Evolutionists present proceeded to make idiotic observations about Paley's stone which contradict what their own scholars have said. For instance: I was asked to define species and immutability? I answered with Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray for the latter and for the former I said that I accept the BSC. Then in response a Wiki article was referenced as a source, saying the BSC is 60 years out of date! I then referenced my source for the BSC; Coyne 2009.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

I have repeatedly. In response I'm ignored, evaded, misrepresented. For instance: I was asked for an example of a thing not designed? I answered with Paley's stone, and I also said ALL Darwinian scholars accept Paley's contrast and analogy as correct (except for his inference of course). In response all of the Evolutionists present proceeded to make idiotic observations about Paley's stone which contradict what their own scholars have said. For instance: I was asked to define species and immutability? I answered with Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray for the latter and for the former I said that I accept the BSC. Then in response a Wiki article was referenced as a source, saying the BSC is 60 years out of date! I then referenced my source for the BSC; Coyne 2009.

This is why I mocked the Wiki article as possibly being written by Kim Kardashian, Nancy Grace, Ken Ham, or your neighbor's uncle.

I answered with Paley’s stone

Ray Martinez said: I have repeatedly...

Here is what is wrong with "Paley's stone": It's an imaginary stone.

Ray, his stone is an imagined element in a thought experiment, just like Einstein's train traveling at lightspeed. Paley posited a 'natural, undesigned' stone to contrast with his designed watch -- neither of which may have even existed. He may not have been examining any real stone, or watch, for that matter. But it was HIS thought experiment and HIS analogy. So of course his imagined stone was not designed. It's like things in a fictional story: whatever the author says is true, has to be true within the story. So of course nobody challenges the 'undesigned' nature of Paley's stone: it's his made-up stone in his analogy, and for the purposes of the thought experiment it has whatever properties he says it has. And it's a perfectly good analogy, as far as it goes: man-made vs. natural. The problems arise when you try to apply its logic to living things: watches don't have babies.

But what I'm asking you to do is consider NOT Paley's imaginary stone, but a REAL one. Go get one from your garden. Look at it, weigh it, smell it, measure its specific gravity, whatever. Then explain how you can KNOW that God didn't design and even manufacture it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, to be exactly THAT stone and no other. How do you detect THAT?

Paley's stone -- that's easy: it's whatever he says it is, because it's his thought experiment. A real rock? Tell us how you can tell. The imaginary one in the analogy has no bearing whatever on the real one in front of you -- just like Einstein's imagined train has no bearing on the speed potential of a real train.

I am still trying ot figure out why, according to ID/creationist reasoning, Paley's stone is not designed.

After all, when atoms or molecules are part of a biological organism, you are supposed calculate the odds against the formation of a chain of length L, selected randomly from N types of these atoms or molecules, to be one out of N ^L. Then you have to explain where all that log₂N ^L of "information" came from using the laws of physics and chemistry. If you can't explain that, then the chain of atoms or molecules is designed.

There are 118 elements. So if there are N moles of Paley's stone lying on the ground, then the odds of that happening is one out of 118^(N x 6x10²³); and the amount of "information" in Paley's stone would be log to the base 2 of that. If ID/creationists can't explain all that "information" in a biological organism, how do they explain so much more "information" in Paley's stone?

So, obviously, Paley's stone is designed, and Ray must be wrong.

Ray Martinez said:

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

I have repeatedly. In response I'm ignored, evaded, misrepresented. For instance: I was asked for an example of a thing not designed? I answered with Paley's stone, and I also said ALL Darwinian scholars accept Paley's contrast and analogy as correct (except for his inference of course). In response all of the Evolutionists present proceeded to make idiotic observations about Paley's stone which contradict what their own scholars have said. For instance: I was asked to define species and immutability? I answered with Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray for the latter and for the former I said that I accept the BSC. Then in response a Wiki article was referenced as a source, saying the BSC is 60 years out of date! I then referenced my source for the BSC; Coyne 2009. So far no Evolutionist has even so much as acknowledged the ball being in their court.

Mike Elzinga said: I am still trying ot figure out why, according to ID/creationist reasoning, Paley's stone is not designed. After all, when atoms or molecules are part of a biological organism, you are supposed calculate the odds against the formation of a chain of length L, selected randomly from N types of these atoms or molecules, to be one out of N ^L. Then you have to explain where all that log₂N ^L of "information" came from using the laws of physics and chemistry. If you can't explain that, then the chain of atoms or molecules is designed. There are 118 elements. So if there are N moles of Paley's stone lying on the ground, then the odds of that happening is one out of 118^(N x 6x10²³); and the amount of "information" in Paley's stone would be log to the base 2 of that. If ID/creationists can't explain all that "information" in a biological organism, how do they explain so much more "information" in Paley's stone? So, obviously, Paley's stone is designed, and Ray must be wrong.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Kevin said: Interesting, I wonder why Ray won't discuss his ideas and actually state them clearly for everyone. (end snark)

I have repeatedly. In response I'm ignored, evaded, misrepresented. For instance: I was asked for an example of a thing not designed? I answered with Paley's stone, and I also said ALL Darwinian scholars accept Paley's contrast and analogy as correct (except for his inference of course). In response all of the Evolutionists present proceeded to make idiotic observations about Paley's stone which contradict what their own scholars have said. For instance: I was asked to define species and immutability? I answered with Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray for the latter and for the former I said that I accept the BSC. Then in response a Wiki article was referenced as a source, saying the BSC is 60 years out of date! I then referenced my source for the BSC; Coyne 2009.

This is why I mocked the Wiki article as possibly being written by Kim Kardashian, Nancy Grace, Ken Ham, or your neighbor's uncle.

Ray Martinez said: This is why I mocked the Wiki article as possibly being written by Kim Kardashian, Nancy Grace, Ken Ham, or your neighbor's uncle.

Mike Elzinga said: I am still trying ot figure out why, according to ID/creationist reasoning, Paley's stone is not designed. After all, when atoms or molecules are part of a biological organism, you are supposed calculate the odds against the formation of a chain of length L, selected randomly from N types of these atoms or molecules, to be one out of N ^L. Then you have to explain where all that log₂N ^L of "information" came from using the laws of physics and chemistry. If you can't explain that, then the chain of atoms or molecules is designed. There are 118 elements. So if there are N moles of Paley's stone lying on the ground, then the odds of that happening is one out of 118^(N x 6x10²³); and the amount of "information" in Paley's stone would be log to the base 2 of that. If ID/creationists can't explain all that "information" in a biological organism, how do they explain so much more "information" in Paley's stone? So, obviously, Paley's stone is designed, and Ray must be wrong.

Scott F said: To be fair, there are only 92 naturally occurring elements, so the base of your calculation is a bit off. :-) Looked at the other way round, if the Designer designed the stone, why would the Designer be limited to 92 elements? Or 118? In principle, there are an infinite number of elements! (Well, okay. Probably not infinite. There are some limitations on the number of nucleons an atom can have and still be (relatively) stable.) But still, just like prime numbers get sparser and sparser, surely there would be "islands of stability" at even greater atomic numbers, so that the Designer could create Paley's Stone with quite a large number of elements. In fact, why would the Designer be limited by the laws of physics?

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: I am still trying ot figure out why, according to ID/creationist reasoning, Paley's stone is not designed. After all, when atoms or molecules are part of a biological organism, you are supposed calculate the odds against the formation of a chain of length L, selected randomly from N types of these atoms or molecules, to be one out of N ^L. Then you have to explain where all that log₂N ^L of "information" came from using the laws of physics and chemistry. If you can't explain that, then the chain of atoms or molecules is designed. There are 118 elements. So if there are N moles of Paley's stone lying on the ground, then the odds of that happening is one out of 118^(N x 6x10²³); and the amount of "information" in Paley's stone would be log to the base 2 of that. If ID/creationists can't explain all that "information" in a biological organism, how do they explain so much more "information" in Paley's stone? So, obviously, Paley's stone is designed, and Ray must be wrong.

To be fair, there are only 92 naturally occurring elements, so the base of your calculation is a bit off. :-) Looked at the other way round, if the Designer designed the stone, why would the Designer be limited to 92 elements? Or 118? In principle, there are an infinite number of elements! (Well, okay. Probably not infinite. There are some limitations on the number of nucleons an atom can have and still be (relatively) stable.) But still, just like prime numbers get sparser and sparser, surely there would be "islands of stability" at even greater atomic numbers, so that the Designer could create Paley's Stone with quite a large number of elements. In fact, why would the Designer be limited by the laws of physics?

Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

OK, I've got Ray figured out.

We don't know what Ray believes because we're not as smart as he is. If we were as smart as he is, then we would already believe the same things he does... and wouldn't have to ask!

So I understand why Ray doesn't bother to tell us what he believes: we're not smart enough to understand it anyway. Yep, I understand Ray. But I don't know what he believes.

Because I'm not smart enough.

Just Bob said: Here is what is wrong with "Paley's stone": It's an imaginary stone. Ray, his stone is an imagined element in a thought experiment, just like Einstein's train traveling at lightspeed. Paley posited a 'natural, undesigned' stone to contrast with his designed watch -- neither of which may have even existed. He may not have been examining any real stone, or watch, for that matter. But it was HIS thought experiment and HIS analogy. So of course his imagined stone was not designed. It's like things in a fictional story: whatever the author says is true, has to be true within the story. So of course nobody challenges the 'undesigned' nature of Paley's stone: it's his made-up stone in his analogy, and for the purposes of the thought experiment it has whatever properties he says it has. And it's a perfectly good analogy, as far as it goes: man-made vs. natural. The problems arise when you try to apply its logic to living things: watches don't have babies. But what I'm asking you to do is consider NOT Paley's imaginary stone, but a REAL one. Go get one from your garden. Look at it, weigh it, smell it, measure its specific gravity, whatever. Then explain how you can KNOW that God didn't design and even manufacture it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, to be exactly THAT stone and no other. How do you detect THAT? Paley's stone -- that's easy: it's whatever he says it is, because it's his thought experiment. A real rock? Tell us how you can tell. The imaginary one in the analogy has no bearing whatever on the real one in front of you -- just like Einstein's imagined train has no bearing on the speed potential of a real train.

harold said:

Just Bob said: Here is what is wrong with "Paley's stone": It's an imaginary stone. Ray, his stone is an imagined element in a thought experiment, just like Einstein's train traveling at lightspeed. Paley posited a 'natural, undesigned' stone to contrast with his designed watch -- neither of which may have even existed. He may not have been examining any real stone, or watch, for that matter. But it was HIS thought experiment and HIS analogy. So of course his imagined stone was not designed. It's like things in a fictional story: whatever the author says is true, has to be true within the story. So of course nobody challenges the 'undesigned' nature of Paley's stone: it's his made-up stone in his analogy, and for the purposes of the thought experiment it has whatever properties he says it has. And it's a perfectly good analogy, as far as it goes: man-made vs. natural. The problems arise when you try to apply its logic to living things: watches don't have babies. But what I'm asking you to do is consider NOT Paley's imaginary stone, but a REAL one. Go get one from your garden. Look at it, weigh it, smell it, measure its specific gravity, whatever. Then explain how you can KNOW that God didn't design and even manufacture it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, to be exactly THAT stone and no other. How do you detect THAT? Paley's stone -- that's easy: it's whatever he says it is, because it's his thought experiment. A real rock? Tell us how you can tell. The imaginary one in the analogy has no bearing whatever on the real one in front of you -- just like Einstein's imagined train has no bearing on the speed potential of a real train.

Good point. Paley's stone was designed - by Paley. Ray Martinez is point blank wrong.

Now, I'm still interested in where similar stones came from. If the stones weren't designed, and living cells were, that means we're dealing with a deity that did NOT create the Universe but did drop by later to create life on Earth. Now, that does fit with a fair number of non-Christian mythologies. It's fairly common to say that one deity created the universe, or the universe emerged from nothing, but humans were created later by a different deity. Just not in the Abrahamic religions. Is Ray trying to say that he is a Greek mythology literalist or something?

TomS said:

harold said:

Just Bob said: Here is what is wrong with "Paley's stone": It's an imaginary stone. Ray, his stone is an imagined element in a thought experiment, just like Einstein's train traveling at lightspeed. Paley posited a 'natural, undesigned' stone to contrast with his designed watch -- neither of which may have even existed. He may not have been examining any real stone, or watch, for that matter. But it was HIS thought experiment and HIS analogy. So of course his imagined stone was not designed. It's like things in a fictional story: whatever the author says is true, has to be true within the story. So of course nobody challenges the 'undesigned' nature of Paley's stone: it's his made-up stone in his analogy, and for the purposes of the thought experiment it has whatever properties he says it has. And it's a perfectly good analogy, as far as it goes: man-made vs. natural. The problems arise when you try to apply its logic to living things: watches don't have babies. But what I'm asking you to do is consider NOT Paley's imaginary stone, but a REAL one. Go get one from your garden. Look at it, weigh it, smell it, measure its specific gravity, whatever. Then explain how you can KNOW that God didn't design and even manufacture it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, to be exactly THAT stone and no other. How do you detect THAT? Paley's stone -- that's easy: it's whatever he says it is, because it's his thought experiment. A real rock? Tell us how you can tell. The imaginary one in the analogy has no bearing whatever on the real one in front of you -- just like Einstein's imagined train has no bearing on the speed potential of a real train.

Good point. Paley's stone was designed - by Paley. Ray Martinez is point blank wrong.

Yes. And it serves as an example of how design is not enough to account for the real existence of something.

Now, I'm still interested in where similar stones came from. If the stones weren't designed, and living cells were, that means we're dealing with a deity that did NOT create the Universe but did drop by later to create life on Earth. Now, that does fit with a fair number of non-Christian mythologies. It's fairly common to say that one deity created the universe, or the universe emerged from nothing, but humans were created later by a different deity. Just not in the Abrahamic religions. Is Ray trying to say that he is a Greek mythology literalist or something?

If one reads the opening words of Genesis literally, God began his creation by acting on a chaos of water and wind. Tohu v'bohu is not the responsibility of God.

TomS said: If one reads the opening words of Genesis literally, God began his creation by acting on a chaos of water and wind. Tohu v'bohu is not the responsibility of God.

If stones be not designed, what need of God?

Ravi said: ...there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism...and lend support for intelligent design.

Scott F said:In fact, why would the Designer be limited by the laws of physics?

Paul Burnett said:

Ravi said: ...there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism...and lend support for intelligent design.

Questioning (carping about) Darwinism does not in any way lend support for intelligent design creationism. Creationists seem to think that if they could miraculously cause evolution to no longer exist, the biology community would slap themselves on the forehead and say "Oh, intelligent design is the only possible alternative." - which ain't gonna happen.

Paul Burnett said:

Scott F said:In fact, why would the Designer be limited by the laws of physics?

Can God make a rock so big He can't roll it up a hill?

TomS said:

Paul Burnett said:

Scott F said:In fact, why would the Designer be limited by the laws of physics?

Can God make a rock so big He can't roll it up a hill?

Design is a recognition of laws. In two ways. It is the recognition of something being not as the designer wants it to be: necessity it the mother of invention It is the recognition of limits on the ways of solving a problem.

Re "Can God make a rock so big He can’t roll it up a hill?"

If it's big enough to collapse into a black hole, then it would suck up the hill as well, but what the hill.

Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing.

Your multiple wordiness must be that salve of choice to cool the burning itch.

Make no mistake, Dover for your side was nothing but politics.

ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Steve said: ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Steve said: Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing. Your multiple wordiness must be that salve of choice to cool the burning itch. Make no mistake, Dover for your side was nothing but politics. ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Just Bob said: Yep, God can only design animals so that it appears, morphologically and biochemically, that they're related in varying degrees to other animals and, far down the tree, to all living things. God just can't give a mammal insectoid eyes... or even eyes without the retina screwup, which he could manage with cephalopods.

Steve said: Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing. Your multiple wordiness must be that salve of choice to cool the burning itch. Make no mistake, Dover for your side was nothing but politics. ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Steve said: ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Steve said: Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing. Your multiple wordiness must be that salve of choice to cool the burning itch. Make no mistake, Dover for your side was nothing but politics. ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

eric said:

Steve said: ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Any prediction as to when this will occur? Year 11 after Dover? Year 12? Year 111 after Dover?

eric said:

Steve said: ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Any prediction as to when this will occur? Year 11 after Dover? Year 12? Year 111 after Dover?

It’s a lot like whooping cough. It should have been eradicated. But it isn’t, because science denial causes reservoirs of high risk to remain. So there will be occasional outbreaks. They’ll be contained, but they’ll cause a few tragic outcomes and dealing with them will consume resources.

Henry J said:

eric said:

Steve said: ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Any prediction as to when this will occur? Year 11 after Dover? Year 12? Year 111 after Dover?

Year 666 ?

TomS said:

Steve said: Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing. Your multiple wordiness must be that salve of choice to cool the burning itch. Make no mistake, Dover for your side was nothing but politics. ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Please tell us about ID. What sort of thing happens. When it happens. Where, how, why it happens. Tell us about the agent(s) of "design". Do you have any examples of things that are not the result of ID? Could the designer(s) design common descent over billions of years? Could they design nature so that it things happen as evolutionary biology describes? Do you have any evidence backing up the answer about, for example, when it happens, rather than billions of years ago, or thousands of years, or still going on today? Or evidence about your example of it not happening? Or about your political judgement about where design belongs?

If stones be not designed, what need of God?

Malcolm said:

TomS said:

Steve said: Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing. Your multiple wordiness must be that salve of choice to cool the burning itch. Make no mistake, Dover for your side was nothing but politics. ID will put teleology and design back in evolution (an unfolding) where it belongs, regardless of the Dover ruling.

Please tell us about ID. What sort of thing happens. When it happens. Where, how, why it happens. Tell us about the agent(s) of "design". Do you have any examples of things that are not the result of ID? Could the designer(s) design common descent over billions of years? Could they design nature so that it things happen as evolutionary biology describes? Do you have any evidence backing up the answer about, for example, when it happens, rather than billions of years ago, or thousands of years, or still going on today? Or evidence about your example of it not happening? Or about your political judgement about where design belongs?

Evidence? Steve doesn't need evidence! He has a magic book of fairy tales.

Intelligent Design is not at all religious, but that didn't stop the Disco Tute from merging with the Foundation for Though and Ethics. You should take a look at the book on Bill Dembski--what a hoot!!!

Karen s said: Intelligent Design is not at all religious, but that didn't stop the Disco Tute from merging with the Foundation for Though and Ethics. You should take a look at the book on Bill Dembski--what a hoot!!!

Karen s said: Intelligent Design is not at all religious, but that didn't stop the Disco Tute from merging with the Foundation for Though and Ethics. You should take a look at the book on Bill Dembski--what a hoot!!!

...must be a sarcastic observation of yours, since I know you better.

Karen s said:

...must be a sarcastic observation of yours, since I know you better.

You got that right! Did you see the book about Dembski? Just the description is such a hoot! DARWIN'S DEAD IDEA AND THE MAN WHO HELPED KILL IT

I read the same words that you read, yet the words appear to mean to you something rather different than what the words mean to me.

Steve said: Well, Nick don't get too smug. Myer kicked your (Darwin's Doubt critique) ass and its showing.

prongs said: If stones be not designed, what need of God?

Ravi said:

prongs said: If stones be not designed, what need of God?

ID doesn't claim everything in the natural world has been purposefully designed. Some physical features, like mountains and rivers, may well be the result of natural processes set in motion by the designer. However, what separates biology from geology is that the former is identified by the "purposeful arrangement of physico-chemical parts that produce a specfic function". Living organisms are, fundamentally, information processing systems which distinguishes them from rocks and rivers. When you grasp this concept, you realize the truth of ID.

Ravi said: Living organisms are, fundamentally, information processing systems which distinguishes them from rocks and rivers. When you grasp this concept, you realize the truth of ID.

Just Bob said:

Ravi said: Living organisms are, fundamentally, information processing systems which distinguishes them from rocks and rivers. When you grasp this concept, you realize the truth of ID.

I grasp your concept. Interesting concept. And what I realize is that even if that is a valid concept, it does nothing whatever to establish the necessity of ID.

Michael Fugate said:

Just Bob said:

Ravi said: Living organisms are, fundamentally, information processing systems which distinguishes them from rocks and rivers. When you grasp this concept, you realize the truth of ID.

I grasp your concept. Interesting concept. And what I realize is that even if that is a valid concept, it does nothing whatever to establish the necessity of ID.

How true. It is a non sequitur. A computer is an information processing system and a stone hand-axe is not, but both are products of intelligent design.