RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Disaster in Dover< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,19:24   

Tim Sandefur links to this in a post on Panda's Thumb. I thought we might benefit from a dedicated thread on it here.

Disaster in Daver: The Trials and Tribulations of Intelligent Design. (PDF)

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,19:52   

Reading that PDF is giving me a strong dose of that bracing righteousness that the choir feels when they're being well-preached to.



"I said I'm tired of it."
"Preach on."
"I said I'm Tired of it."
"Preach on."
"I said I'm TIRED of it."
"Whachoo tired of?"
"I'm TIRED...of being...LIED TO...by these mo-rons from Se-a-ttle can I get a Amen."
"Aaaaayyyymen"

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,20:09   

From that PDF:

Quote
The CSC was created in 1995 with a pledge for $250,000 per
year for three years from Howard Ahmanson, Jr.’s family.75 Bruce
Chapman, the DI’s co-founder and president, met Ahmanson
through Stephen Meyer, a philosophy and theology professor who
tutored one of Ahmanson’s children.76 Meyer taught at Palm
Beach Atlantic University in Florida,77 a Christian school that requires
faculty members “believe in the divine inspiration of the
Bible, both of the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly
created by God.”78 Ahmanson himself is a creationist,79 and was
also a supporter and major contributor to the Chalcedon Foundation,
a “Biblical Reconstructionist” group that advocates the replacement
of secular law with legal codes based on Mosaic law,
including the death penalty for such practices as adultery and homosexuality.
80 Ahmanson, who sits on the DI’s board of directors,
has stated his goal as “the total integration of biblical law into our
lives.”81

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,20:12   

I promise I won't repost the entire 30 page PDF, but it's like crack. Here's another hit:

Quote
With Meyer as director, the CSC has become the “No. 1 project”
of the DI, whose yearly budget of some $4 million comes
largely from wealthy fundamentalist Christians and Christian
foundations.82 These include the Maclellan Foundation, whose director
said of its DI donation, “We give for religious purposes.
This is not about science, and Darwin wasn’t about science. Dar-
win was about a metaphysical view of the world.”83 Another DI
donor, the Henry P. and Susan C. Crowell Trust, states its mission
as “[t]he teaching and active extension of the doctrines of Evangelical
Christianity through approved grants to qualified organizations,”
84 while the Stewardship Foundation, which gave DI more
than $1 million between 1999 and 2003, states that it “provides
resources to Christ-centered organizations that share their faith
in Jesus Christ with people throughout the world.”85
Some DI donors, concerned about the DI’s primary focus on
propaganda rather than hard-science research to back up ID’s scientific
pretensions, have withdrawn their financial support. The
Templeton Foundation, which funds a broad range of policy
groups, reportedly asked DI officials to submit proposals for ID
research.86 “They never came in,” said Charles Harper, Jr., Templeton’s
senior vice president.87 “From the point of view of rigor
and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t
come out very well in our world of scientific review.”88

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,22:29   

yeah, I just read it, and all I can really say is pwned.

or Amen. Amen works.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,22:44   

Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2007,19:24)
Tim Sandefur links to this in a post on Panda's Thumb. I thought we might benefit from a dedicated thread on it here.

Disaster in Daver: The Trials and Tribulations of Intelligent Design. (PDF)

Did you mean to spell it "Daver," or is that a Freudian slip? ;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,22:51   

Quote (ToSeek @ June 05 2007,23:44)
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2007,19:24)
Tim Sandefur links to this in a post on Panda's Thumb. I thought we might benefit from a dedicated thread on it here.

Disaster in Daver: The Trials and Tribulations of Intelligent Design. (PDF)

Did you mean to spell it "Daver," or is that a Freudian slip? ;)

Is it still called a Freudian slip if it results from cheap gin?

   
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2007,01:25   

Try perusing the DI's response to Irons' rebuttal.  To me it reads as if they really don't expect those who are on their side* to actually read Irons' paper.  Instead, it seems like they're expecting them** to only read their response and sniff indignantly about Irons' predictable hatchet job. ;)

I especially enjoyed the first two sections:
   
Quote
Irons tries to refute intelligent design (ID) by smear and innuendo rather than substantive argument.

-- Irony meter begins to sizzle and smoke --

   
Quote
Irons misrepresents our critique of Judge Jones. Given his article, it is surprising that Irons accuses us of making ad hominem attacks against Judge Jones. Ad hominem arguments attack a person rather than that person’s position.  Our article assesses Judge Jones’s analysis in light of his judicial responsibilities, but Irons’s rebuttal starts with the alleged motives and personal
failings of the authors. Irons’s claim that we resort to ad
hominem attacks is the height of irony.


Irons wasn't talking about their article when he was referring to their attacks on Judge Jones.  He was talking about their Swift-Boating of Jones back in 2005-6, which clearly was ad hominem.  In contrast, Irons' discussion of the CSC's origin, and their religious motivations in making their claims about ID isn't the same thing as arguing that those claims are false because of their religious and theocratic leanings.

I'm sure that the response will have some staying power.  In a couple of years, go to Google, enter the keywords "indignant hissy fit" and click I Feel Lucky.  Bet it takes you right to their response.




* Tards

** The Tards

-- Edit: corrected typo --

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2007,02:27   

The first article by DeWolf, West & Luskin merely hacked chunks of Traipsing into Evolution (2006 Seattle: The Discovery Institute, David Dewolf, John West, Casey Luskin, and Johnathan Witt) into a law review.

But the classic was their whine offered as a "response" to Irons. What wankers.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,18:43   

Quote
9. One final comment on this exchange: In their initial responses to the Kitzmiller ruling, the DI authors dismissed Judge Jones's opinion as of "minor significance," predicting that it "will recede as an interesting footnote to the history of the scientific and cultural debate" over evolution and intelligent design. Why, then, have they devoted dozens of blog posts, a book, and a law review article to denigrating that opinion and its author? In my view, they recognize that the Dover "disaster" has effectively derailed the DI's long-range plan to persuade gullible school boards to include ID as a legitimate "alternative" to evolution in biology classes. That defeat has clearly provoked the DI authors to their rhetorical excesses. Once again, I urge readers of this exchange to read the Kitzmiller opinion and decide for themselves which side has the more persuasive argument.


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....kin.php

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,19:45   

After reading Irons's piece, I agree with what Irons himself freely admits, namely that Jones does a better job laying out the relevant facts of the case.

As for the decision's aftermath, Irons does a decent job describing the DI's effort to smear Jones.  I do wish he'd refrained from making explicit reference to culture wars; I don't think that really adds anything after he makes clear that there's no substance to the attacks on Jones.

Given that this paper was written for a legal forum, I wish that Irons had taken on the DI's ridiculous claim that
   
Quote
90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’s 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.”41


Assuming you accept the calculation of 91%, is there a clearer way to announce to a legal audience that your side not only lost, but got demolished?

Of course, maybe Irons could let that quote speak for itself.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,19:51   

I have a blog post on the text comparison thing.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,20:00   

Thanks, Wes.  I just love the three significant figures in the DI's claim.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,20:09   

I also just love the opening to the DI's piece:

Quote
The year 2005 was the year the theory of intelligent design (ID) made the headlines. It was featured on the cover of Time magazine, its study was seemingly endorsed by the President of the United States, and it became one of the most talked-about
issues in the public square.


Quite the scientific revolution you've got going on there, folks.  As an undergrad studying psychology, I had my introduction to how science works with the Garcia Effect

The wikipedia article is pretty shabby, but the point is clear:  One study in an obscure journal brilliantly exposed the limits of behaviorism.  No discussion in a vapid newsweekly needed, no lukewarm endorsement from an anti-intellectual president required.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,20:18   

I love this bit:

Casey: (And Wesley asserts that only 38% of the whole ruling was taken from the plaintiffs’ findings of fact.)

Wesley: Not so much “asserted” as “demonstrated”.

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,20:33   

You know, that wikipedia article is so bad, I thought I'd try to do a quick summary for anyone who is interested.  The article does mention one part of the study, namely that if you irradiate mice after letting them drink sweetened water, they quickly learn not to drink the sweetened water because they associate the radiation-induced nausea with the flavored water.  No surprises there, except that the learning took place faster than conditioning models suggested.

But there's more to the story, at least if I recall my professor's summary accurately.  If you rigged the water bottle so that it clicked every time the rat drank, and then irradiated the rat later on, it would not avoid the clicking water.  

However, if you shocked the rat after it drank the clicking water, it would avoid the clicking water.  If you shocked the rat after giving it sweetened water, it would not avoid the sweetened water.

At the time, classical conditioning models held that there didn't have to be any sort of intrinsic similarity between two cues in order to associate them.  The study elegantly showed that some connections are easier to make than others.

I got food poisoning after eating some bad fish in the first grade, and to this day, I simply can't eat seafood.  It just tastes wrong.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2007,20:37   

Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,20:18)
I love this bit:

Casey: (And Wesley asserts that only 38% of the whole ruling was taken from the plaintiffs’ findings of fact.)

Wesley: Not so much “asserted” as “demonstrated”.

LOL

A very old Simpsons quote:

Quote
Yeah well I'll be frank with ya Lisa and when I say frank I mean, you know, devastating. ...

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2007,15:33   

Quote (deejay @ June 07 2007,19:09)
I also just love the opening to the DI's piece:  
Quote
The year 2005 was the year the theory of intelligent design (ID) made the headlines. It was featured on the cover of Time magazine, its study was seemingly endorsed by the President of the United States, and it became one of the most talked-about
issues in the public square.


Quite the scientific revolution you've got going on there, folks.  As an undergrad studying psychology, I had my introduction to how science works with the Garcia Effect

The wikipedia article is pretty shabby, but the point is clear:  One study in an obscure journal brilliantly exposed the limits of behaviorism.  No discussion in a vapid newsweekly needed, no lukewarm endorsement from an anti-intellectual president required.

I should think the DI would want to distance itself from the President's Science Advisor's distancing of the President's position (the next day) from what the President airheadedly blurted about intelligent design.

"I think they should teach the controversy, 'cause then people would know what the controversy is about."

John Marburger: Georgie. We know what the "controversy" is about. Now drink your milk. While I clean up your mess. :p

Thank you very much, Mr. President. :)

Yeah, I don't know why they're bragging about President Bush's endorsement, but I guess we know who comprises part of that 24 (?) percent who still think he's wunnerful.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2009,01:47   

I'm having a bit of an exchange with Beliefnet columnist and law professor David Opderbeck over the decision in the 2005 Kitzmiller case.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
KCdgw



Posts: 367
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2009,05:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2009,01:47)
I'm having a bit of an exchange with Beliefnet columnist and law professor David Opderbeck over the decision in the 2005 Kitzmiller case.

Nice.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3549
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2009,12:08   

I get server error.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2009,22:16   

I have another post up. Let me know what you think.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2009,23:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2009,22:16)
I have another post up. Let me know what you think.

Excellent!

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2009,00:07   

Good reply. Are the comments blocked? Mine seemed to have vanished into the ozone.

Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 01 2009,22:26

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2009,04:04   

Akismet had stuck it in the spam queue. It's approved now.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2009,06:52   

lol! that sci-fi part in the transcript is hilarious (from your answer to Dr. GH's comment)!

BTW, great job so far Wes. Let's see what David has to say. but if he doesn't understand your points, then he definitely has a problem with reading comprehension...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
  25 replies since June 05 2007,19:24 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]