RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 >   
  Topic: IDC Advocates Speak, Experiencing TARD Benders< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,09:55   

Quote (DNARules @ Feb. 26 2009,09:01)
I wrote the "fear-mongering flier" Luskin mentioned in his talk and has discussed on the DI website.  This was distributed to no more than 10 Senators, Representatives, or their staff during our discussions about the SB320 legislation.  One of these quickly sent a copy to the OU student paper staff.  The DI soon obtained a copy.  Think there is a connection?  

We did err when stating that lawsuits had been filed in Louisiana and have changed two words to reflect that they have not been filed yet.  Otherwise we stand by it.  Below is the compete text if anyone is interested.
 
---------------------
Oppose SB 320, the “Science Education and Academic Freedom Act”

SB320, authored by Sen. Randy Brogdon of Owasso, has significant potential to harm the education of our students and the future economic security of our state.  This bill is designed to cast doubt on science as a valid way of understanding the world and to promote ideas based on religious faith as if they were valid alternatives to well established science.  

SB 320 contains the following language:
The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy . . . teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

This bill is modeled after similar bills promoted by the Discovery Institute, an organization intent on teaching creationist “intelligent design” in schools.  A nearly identical bill was passed last year by the state of Louisiana and such bills have recently been introduced in several other states.  Newer versions of the text have added  “the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”, apparently to broaden the notion of controversy, but the real target is clearly evolution.  This is a “Trojan horse” bill intended to open the door for the teaching of specific religious concepts in school science classes.

What harm is there in teaching “strengths and weaknesses”?  

Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest.  There isn't one.  Evolution as a process is supported by an enormous and continually growing body of evidence.  Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin's time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found.  The fact that evolution has occurred is accepted by virtually all scientists around the world and is as well established as the fact that the Earth is round.  

There really are no scientific “weaknesses”.  If one looks to the sources of these alleged weaknesses, we find they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution.  One may not agree with the use of atomic weapons but that does not mean that there is some controversy over the physics or that one may simply reject the science as flawed.  

Instead of teaching science, this approach teaches our children that it is acceptable to simply ignore the parts of science they don't happen to like.  Incorporating creationist arguments into the science curriculum will effectively condone their tactics and teach students that it is acceptable in science to:

Use illogical arguments,
Ignore evidence or simply deny that it exists,
Promote untestable ideas,
Selectively misquote scientists to support your point, Support ideas with intuition and faith - they're just as good as evidence,
Cultivate and exploit misunderstandings, and
Assume that the popularity of ideas among the public verifies their scientific validity.  

This will not only confuse students' understanding of science, it will undermine their entire education.  
Discussing alleged strengths and weaknesses implies that so-called alternatives to evolution should also be taught.  The most popular “alternative”, known as “intelligent design”, is dressed in scientific language but is not scientific and is not a valid alternative to evolution.  

Intelligent design proponents claim to be performing research on intelligent design - yet no scientific evidence supporting intelligent design has ever been provided.  In fact, no means for obtaining such evidence has even been proposed.  This is because intelligent design assumes a supernatural designer and there is no way to scientifically test supernatural phenomena.  Intelligent design is by definition an idea based on faith or personal belief, unsuitable for science classes.

This “academic freedom” and “strengths and weaknesses” language represent the latest tactics of creationists, whose efforts to have their specific religion taught as science in public schools have been repeatedly thwarted in the courts.  Despite the clever language of such bills, the religious motivation of the Discovery Institute is obvious and their stated short-range goals, among others, include: “To defeat scientific materialism” and “To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science”.  A primary strategy of the Discovery Institute is to promote teaching intelligent design in schools through legislation.  This tactic effectively bypasses scientists who actually work in the relevant fields, and appeals directly to state legislators, state curriculum committees, local school boards, and their constituencies.

Part of the strategy involves promoting an unnecessary dichotomy between religious faith and science.  This exploits the common misconception that to accept scientific evidence (for topics such as evolution) one must necessarily be an atheist and promotes the ridiculous notion that the scientists of the world are involved in a vast materialist/atheist conspiracy.  Ironically, the vast majority of religions of the world, including most forms of Christianity, find no inherent conflict between science and religious belief.  
Opposition to SB320 is not anti-religious.  Science cannot address issues of faith and morality; therefore, by definition, science cannot support or conflict with any religion.  A majority of scientists, including many who study evolution, are people of faith.  There is certainly no problem teaching the cultural and historical aspects of religion in schools as long as they are not presented as science or in a way that promotes one specific religion over others.  

SB 320 will lead to lawsuits that cost taxpayers money.  In Louisiana, school districts have faced serious problems implementing the law and the prospect of costly lawsuits filed over its constitutionality.  A 2005 federal trial over the teaching of intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania cost the local school district over one million dollars in legal fees.  

Undermining science education will have detrimental effects on the prosperity of the state. A scientifically literate population can make informed decisions on important issues of our time such as on healthcare and the environment and can contribute to efficient discovery and use of energy resources, provide for competitive advantages in agricultural production, and make advances in biomedicine.  This leads directly to increased economic growth and will help attract additional high-tech, energy-based, and med-tech industries to Oklahoma.  Gov. Sebelius and the presidents of state universities in Kansas have specifically acknowledged the negative economic impacts of the creationist-lead decline of science standards in their state.  

SB320 makes the completely baseless association between academic freedom and freedom to teach religion in classes that are not about religion.  Ultimately, forcing teachers to present “strengths and weaknesses” will force them to pretend that we know less than we really do about the natural world and to present ideas based in on one specific religion as if they were science.  The issue is not about fairness or free inquiry; it is about science vs. nonscience.  The bill does not promote academic freedom, rather the bill promotes academic misconduct.  

Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education – www.oklascience.org

Outstanding!   I made a couple of changes that I think will make your point even better, and one correction at the end.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:03   

Sitting in attendance at Behe's talk.

Will be live twittering at LouFCD.

I'm here with my son James, Doc, and Paul Flocken.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:07   

The Hall is filled to capacity, it looks like. Doc hasn't spotted any faculty yet. Once Behe starts talking, I'll be going strictly to twitter, in all likelyhood, just for the speed. I imagine we can collect it all here at some point later.

The crowd seems pretty pro Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax from what I've overheard, but that's not really solid.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:25   

Twitter just cut me off. Over tweeted. I'm in the corner for an hour. Taking notes as Behe moves goalposts and redefines IC (again).

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:29   

Sucks - I just opend a twitter account so I could talk to yu while you were laughing at the "bearded blunder"...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1007
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:32   

Quotemined the dictionary? Bwaaaahaahaahaa!

--------------
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.

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:49   

lol I blogged about you Tweeting

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,20:10   

Lou - JUST REMEMBER TO ASK YOURSELF :  WWAD?
(What Would Abbie Do? - )

Then give him "The ID Salute"
... i.e. hold up the vital middle finger that represents the value of non-verbal communication.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:06   

Ahhh!  No moar Twitters!  No moar updates!

Lou ODed!

Someone take him to the ER!

AAAAAAAAAH!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:23   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 26 2009,21:10)
Lou - JUST REMEMBER TO ASK YOURSELF :  WWAD?
(What Would Abbie Do? - )

Then give him "The ID Salute"
... i.e. hold up the vital middle finger that represents the value of non-verbal communication.

hahaha. Doc said I didn't embarrass him too much, and they cut off questions after about four. All of them were from people who weren't buying what he was selling. He bloviated and pontificated with that arrogant sigh for which he is infamous, but never answered any of them. I never had a chance to even get up there.

My question was going to be: "Dr. Behe, what's changed? In 2005 you testified under oath in federal court that the only way for ID to be considered Science was for Science to be redefined such that it would also include astrology. Since there doesn't seem to be any Science from ID published in any of the relevant journals since that time, what's changed? Why is ID Science now, when it wasn't then?"

Instead, the young ID kid sitting in the row in front of us who stuck around after his buddies got the question. The art prof who invited Behe said after the questions were cut off that Behe would be in the caf tomorrow for lunch to chat. The kid turned to us and said, "sounds interesting." I said, "Yeah, you should go." Then I leaned over the seat and told him he should ask about astrology. "Ask him about astrology. Ask him what changed." and then gave him my question to ask.

I think he just might, because after that he said, "yeah, y'know I wish he would have talked more about the Science behind ID. He spent too much time on that court thing, and he just sounded like a sore loser."

I couldn't help myself any more. "That's because he got his ass handed to him in federal court."

I'll try to get to writing up the whole thing in some coherent manner tomorrow.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:23   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 26 2009,23:06)
Ahhh!  No moar Twitters!  No moar updates!

Lou ODed!

Someone take him to the ER!

AAAAAAAAAH!

He turned me into a newt!














(I got better.)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:28   

This may be the new ID tactic to avoid embarrassing questions.

First, he ran way over his allotted time, reducing the amount of time for questions.

Then, when asked a simple question, he sighed, paused, and proceeded to yammer on and on about the bacterial flagellum without ever answering the question. This also cuts down on the number of questions.

I think a lot of the Christians who came there looking for a messiah with proof of God were pretty disappointed when he flat out said he accepts common descent and evolution, just not "Darwinism". Many of them filed out after that or right at the end of his talk with very unhappy looks on their faces, presumably about the man they had just applauded moments (seemingly hours) before.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:30   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 26 2009,20:49)
lol I blogged about you Tweeting

:) Thanks Abbie.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:43   

Lou FCD:

Quote

This may be the new ID tactic to avoid embarrassing questions.


New?

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

    
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:44   

lol the fundies should find a better poster child for JEebus than a catholic heretic who's grandpaw was a monkey, except God Dunned It.

Lou wish I coulda seen it.  Great job representing the EAC.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,22:49   

Raw notes, from the time Twitter Expelled me to when my battery ran out just before they cut off questions.

I was trying to type as fast as I could to get it all down and not miss anything, so it's a little hard to tell where I've interjected my own comments.

where it says (up to) means that the quote appeared without ellipses to that point. I didn't have time to type the whole quote out as it appeared, so I would type the beginning, then (up to) then the part right before the ellipses, the ellipses, the part right after the ellipses (up to) and the end of the quote.

Forgive the typos.

I'll try and clean it all up tomorrow.

20090226
Michael Behe @ UNCW.

Sitting with Doc and Paul Flocken and JP

200ish in attendance, Doc spots no Bio dept faculty.

Twitter just cut me off after watching the definition of IC evolve (again) right before my eyes.

Peter Atkins review of DBB on infidels.org graphic

brags about lack of imagination, says evolution is fantasy.

Quotes Ken Miller. “Behe argues that MacDonald's (up to) Behe would be right.”

“If simpler version (up to) as well... elipsis and this means that (up to) precursors.

Says Ken Miller misquoted him. Puts up Miller's photo of the tie clip.

Repeats lie, and just changed the definition of IC again. (twice in one night)

Now it's “if any of the parts are missing, they don't function the same as a system any more”.

I was going to talk about Edge

I want to move beyond the “he said she said”

Over his alloted time.

“Darwinism” is a multipart theory. Some parts may be right others wrong.

Common descent (interesting  but trivial)
Natural selection (interesting but trivial)
Random mutation
The critical claim of Darwinism

Infection of a human by the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum

People have evolved resistance to malaria. Sickle cell. Some IDiot laughed. Whoops. Guess he didn't know Behe accepts evolution.

Red blood cells “If you get two doses of sickle cell..”? Did he just say “two doses”? Funny.

Hemoglobin, G6PD, some others listed missed them

Much Darwinian evolution proceeds by breaking old genes
Disabling a gene will occur at a rate hundereds of times faster than making a specific change in a gene
Very very few of possible accessible mutatioins are helfpul.
Random changes are incoherent
Random mutation in a china shop. (image of a bull)
Lenski and his 20 year experiment on E. coli.

40,000 generations some idiot is laughing, because he has no idea what'sgoing on.


Lenski has seen beneficial mutations. Behe just admitted this? Yes, he did.

But that doesn't tell you how you make a new gene. “you can get something helpful by breaking something”

He just chucked ID under the bus. Don't worry, nobody noticed. Plenty of books sales to follow.

Still yacking, way over his time, limiting Q and A (DI's latest tactic?)

Shows a blown bridge, compares it to “Darwinian Evolution” but that doesn't give an idea how to build a bridge.

Just one lie after another, and not one new argument.

“I have answered what I consider to be more interesting objections on my blog on Amazon”

Doesn't mention the censoring of critics.

Finished.

Q and A?

Two guys lined up at the microphones.  Art dude lays down ground rules that amount to “don't ask inconvenient questions”

First question: You don't reject the view that diversity of species owes to evolution but you're not on board with creation? What is the physical process of ID and what are the steps to get from one species to another?

The short answer is 'we don't know'. In the history of science, that's ok.

Creobot in front of Doc says “it's better than BSing.” I say, “You just sat through an hour and a half of BS” Dude:  “that's your view' Me: “No, that's the science” Him: “”. lulz

Behe still blathering, big bang, blah not answering the question.  Big bang started by something outside of nature. Still blathering. Been 5 minutes, still hasn't talked about species. Cannonballs? We still don't know what caused the Big Bang.  “To answer your question, I don't know what the answer is” Unfolding of a planned universe. Or maybe something happened along the way.

Dude is still after him. “You're an evolutionist, but God could have shown up went on vacation and left”

I don't like evolutionist as a term for me, I think the earth is old accept common descent. Minnesota Fats can sink pool balls, just extrapolate.

ID is not concerned with process as much as end product. Purposeful arrangement of parts. Jungle trap. We don't know who did it.

You need more evidence to answer the who what where when why.

Disemble, disemble,

Next question

So you don't like the mechanism darwinian evolution, but you don't haave aa mechanism for it... genrate testable predcitions, evilution can do it, but I would think as a scientist, I would think you would support an even better theory. Where is the evidence?

Behe: blah blah Mechanism. “I don't have a mechanism to substitute for the Darwinian mechanism.” Direct quote. Newton. Newton didn't know. “You don't you need a mechanism. It'd be nice.” Quantum mechanics.

Testable predictions: That's lumped in with falsifying. Popper. ID is easily falsified. Conversely, Darwin claims are not easily falsifyable. Flagellum.

I said the BacFlag was IC and therefore requires design, all someone has to do is show that it could arise without design.

Lenski. No bacs grew a flag or complex motility system. But if lenski grew a bunch of bacs that didn't do much, would he say that Darwin was wrong? No, he'd make excuses.

Evidence for common descent is not evidence for Darwinism. Teleological process, Darwin's claim to fame was that it could happen without design.

ID doesn't challenge evolution. It just focuses on unintelligent design. People confuse common descent with darwinism.

New dude: spontaneous order, an individual loses their eyesight, senses transfer to hearing, isn't this an example of Darwinism?

Behe: No, not because of random mutation nat sel, the ability was already present, not what Darwin meant.

New Dude: HIV, someone in the family died this week. Evolutionary Biology, according to evolutionary biology says that HIV comes from some predecessor. That provided a research program. Let's look at the closest relative. Cousin doesn't kill chimpanzees. So I question this, this is an example that Darwinian evolution producing a research program to help people. What's ID done?

Behe: big sigh, I want to stress, but the talk goes quickly, but ID doesn't say that Darwinian evolution can't do anything, just not everything. Accepts genetic change, common descent, but at the molecular level,, evolutiion is breaking things. Doesn't explain molecular machinery.

In Hiv it evolves, rapidly, and it looks like it came from chimps, made the leap, rabies, not unique, at the molecular level just takes a couple changes in a preexisting protein....

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,00:06   

Lou FCD:

Quote

Behe: big sigh, I want to stress, but the talk goes quickly, but ID doesn't say that Darwinian evolution can't do anything, just not everything. Accepts genetic change, common descent, but at the molecular level,, evolutiion is breaking things. Doesn't explain molecular machinery.


Nice job on the notes.

The particular bit I've quoted there shows Behe continuing to not get why IDC is not falsifiable. IDC is making a pure existential claim. Popper himself discussed this, and explicitly said that pure existential claims are unfalsifiable.

I brought this issue up in 2001. Behe was right there in the room when I went over this bit of ignorance on the part of both William Dembski and Behe. The video is linked from here.

To make a falsifiable claim, you have to point out what must be true if your hypothesis is true. Behe, Dembski, and hordes of IDC cheerleaders seem to think that pointing out what must be false gets them warrant to call something falsifiable. That's not how modus tollens works, and it is modus tollens that underlies falsifiability.

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

    
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,06:21   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2009,22:49)
Sitting with Doc and Paul Flocken and JP

200ish in attendance, Doc spots no Bio dept faculty.

Why no Bio dept faculty?

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:27   

I'm bummed out dude.  You didn't get a chance to give Behe the ID salute...:(

But thanks for going and sitting through the root canal without novocaine  Behe talk.

OUCH!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:31   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2009,23:28)
...the man they had just applauded moments (seemingly hours) before.

Behe definitely made the hours seem like days.  I'll put something together later too.  And if Lou does not object I'll riff off of his notes too.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:39   

Thank you Wesley. I was just trying to get all the major stuff down, so that I didn't miss the part where he discussed the brand new peer-reviewed Science that ID has put out.

Sadly, I seemed to miss it anyway, though, sorry.

FAIL.

csadams,

I'm not sure that there were no Bio faculty there, just that Doc didn't see any he recognized from his time there. It's entirely possible that there was faculty in attendance that came there since that time, or that Doc just missed them, or whatever.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:40   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2009,09:31)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2009,23:28)
...the man they had just applauded moments (seemingly hours) before.

Behe definitely made the hours seem like days.  I'll put something together later too.  And if Lou does not object I'll riff off of his notes too.

You have my express written permission to do your thing, Paul.

Edited to direct my permission in the right direction.

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2009,09:42

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:47   

The thread's warrant seems to go beyond the one talk at OU, so the title has been adjusted.

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

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:51   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 27 2009,09:27)
I'm bummed out dude.  You didn't get a chance to give Behe the ID salute...:(

But thanks for going and sitting through the root canal without novocaine  Behe talk.

OUCH!

Yes, it sux, but two things here:

One: It was obvious by the time the Q&A started that he wouldn't be getting through the people already lined up down there. Paul went down and stood in line in the hopes of getting a question in, but he was on deck for the next question when they cut the Q&A.

Two: I intend to finish my bachelor's at UNCW, so there was a certain amount of ... whatever.. that I think would be better conducive to my acceptance there. Probably wouldn't be a good idea to go *too* ballistic in front of all those nice professors (assuming there were some there). I certainly wasn't going to softball the lying bastard, but I'm probably not in a position to be as honest and frank as Abbie.

My son, however, had some interesting suggestions. Ah, to be 14 and have a built in defense for brutal honesty...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:59   

Amanda Greene at the Star News seems to have a less unfavorable opinion of Behe's talk last night.

Edited to correct the spelling of Ms. Greene's surname.

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2009,10:00

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,09:03   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2009,08:31)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2009,23:28)
...the man they had just applauded moments (seemingly hours) before.

Behe definitely made the hours seem like days.  I'll put something together later too.  And if Lou does not object I'll riff off of his notes too.

I KNOW, right?

Of the 3 IDiots Ive seen, all of them have made me just start gnawing my arm off out of boredom (though I admit last week it was partially out of hunger-- no dinner).

I hear so much shit about how 'persuasive' and 'charismatic' Creationists are, but they are just plain dull.  Doverdoverdover, flagellaflagellaflagella, expelledexpelledexpelled, paleypaleypaley, nazinazinazi, darwinismdarwinismdarwinism, gaggaggag, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,09:08   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 27 2009,08:59)
Amanda Greene at the Star News seems to have a less unfavorable opinion of Behe's talk last night.

Edited to correct the spelling of Ms. Greene's surname.

Holy shit!  Behe looks, like, 85!  What the hell happened to him??

Also-- Thanks Wes!

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,09:28   

Behe yesterday:

Quote

“It wasn’t the judge’s opinion. He showed no independent thought,” Behe added. “If you want to understand this (the debate about evolution), you can’t rely on somebody else, you’ve got to look at it yourself and come to your own conclusion.”


Behe in 2005:

Quote

[164]Q. And here we've got chapter called "Evolution." Then we've got Fundamental Immunology, a chapter on the evolution of the immune system.

[165]A lot of writing, huh?

[166]A. Well, these books do seem to have the titles that you said, and I'm sure they have the chapters in them that you mentioned as well, but again I am quite skeptical, although I haven't read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.

[167]Q. You haven't read those chapters?

[168]A. No, I haven't.

[169]Q. You haven't read the books that I gave you?

[170]A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.

[171]Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?

[172]A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.


Such consistency.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,09:30   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 27 2009,09:08)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 27 2009,08:59)
Amanda Greene at the Star News seems to have a less unfavorable opinion of Behe's talk last night.

Edited to correct the spelling of Ms. Greene's surname.

Holy shit!  Behe looks, like, 85!  What the hell happened to him??

Also-- Thanks Wes!

He's got nine or ten kids. That's a big job no matter what else is going on in your life.

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

    
KimvdLinde



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,11:53   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 27 2009,09:08)

Holy shit!  Behe looks, like, 85!  What the hell happened to him??

Looks like he is going for the Darwin look..... (ducks and runs)

  
  266 replies since Feb. 17 2009,12:28 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (9) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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