RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,12:18   

Quote (csadams @ Feb. 27 2009,07:21)
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?

I wouldn't know any of the bio faculty but I saw the one creobot representative from the physics dept that I am familiar with.  He routinely defends creationism in the LTTE page of the paper.  Since he is a physicist I sincerely hope that he is atleast an OEC, but I never did ask when the opportunity was available.

--------------
"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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,12:21   

Behe double standards blogged

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

    
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,12:26   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 27 2009,09:59)
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.

Its good to read the print edition tho.  Eugenie Scott got front page(below the fold) the day after her lecture.  Behe was stricken to the B-section(front page, below the fold).

--------------
"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

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,12:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2009,10:30)
He's got nine or ten kids. That's a big job no matter what else is going on in your life.

I was struck by the saintly old grandfather look immediately when he entered stage right.  It couldn't possibly have hurt him with his intended audience.

--------------
"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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,16:33   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2009,18:21)
Behe double standards blogged

Some more blogging about Behe: The Sensuous Curmudgeon
 
Quote
Okay, you know all that. Now here’s the fun part:

     
Quote
After the lecture, an audience member asked, “Where are the testable predictions in intelligent design that we would expect in science?”


Good question! We applaud that audience member. Here’s what Behe, the “internationally recognized” creationist guru, had to say for his answer:

     
Quote
“I don’t have a mechanism to substitute for the Darwinian mechanism, that’s true. But the same was true for Newton or the Big Bang Theory,” Behe answered. “I don’t think you need a mechanism all the time in science.”


Think about that. Behe admits what we’ve always known — that he has no mechanism. But such mechanisms — explanatory mechanisms — are what scientific theories are all about. Darwin had a mechanism to explain the origin of species — variation and natural selection. Any competing theory should do at least as well, because scientific theories are explanations — testable explanations. But Behe has no theory, and although he probably doesn’t realize it, he just said so.

As for Behe’s mention of Newton, that’s a sleazy bit of bait and switch. Newton didn’t propose a theory. His nifty formula, shown here, described the effects of gravity. Similarly, his laws of motion described motion. He never explained these phenomena. That’s the difference — in science — between laws and theories. The former are descriptions, the latter are explanations.

Then there’s Behe’s mention of the Big Bang. That’s sneakier, because it really is a theory — of limited scope. What Big Bang theory purports to explain is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding. The explanation is that the universe began with expansion of a singularity. This makes predictions that are testable by reference to various observations. See: Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology.

But this is where Behe gets super-sneaky. In Big Bang theory, the cause of the initial expansion is unexplained. It really isn’t part of Big Bang theory — indeed, such a cause may be beyond scientific investigation. But this is irrelevant to the almost unanimous acceptance of Big Bang theory, which does explain observable phenomena following the initial moment.

Okay, let’s try to tie this all up to see where Behe’s ID fits in. Newton (like Behe) had no mechanism — but he had a law of gravity. It still works splendidly, in all cases except those extreme conditions where relativity takes over. Behe’s reference to Newton is utterly foolish.

Then there’s the Big Bang. True, it doesn’t have a mechanism for the origin of all things. But cosmological observations are indeed explained by the mechanism of the expansion — that’s the Big Bang theory.

Now what of ID? Behe has no mechanism — which means he has no explanation, no theory. What does have have? Surely he has no law — no tidy description of biological phenomena.

So Behe has no theory, and he has no law. There’s not much left of ID, is there? A bit of smoke, a few mirrors, and that’s about it.


We should invite him/her/them over here, they'd fit right in (and if you're using a feed reader: add this blog).

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,16:50   

Do we know The Sensuous Curmudgeon?  Cause his/her response to Caseys bird made me soooo happy :)

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,16:56   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2009,12:18)
Quote (csadams @ Feb. 27 2009,07:21)
 
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?

I wouldn't know any of the bio faculty but I saw the one creobot representative from the physics dept that I am familiar with.  He routinely defends creationism in the LTTE page of the paper.  Since he is a physicist I sincerely hope that he is atleast an OEC, but I never did ask when the opportunity was available.

I guess I just get discouraged when college science faculty shrug away these events.  I'm not sure they realize the effect of speakers like Behe on voters the general public.

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,13:09   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 27 2009,17:50)
Do we know The Sensuous Curmudgeon?  Cause his/her response to Caseys bird made me soooo happy :)

That's "Patrick Henry", one of the tireless warriors for quality science education who is a regular at Florida Citizens for Science.  I told him to come on over and he said he'll give it a whirl once he cuts back on other sites.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,13:55   

Sorry this took all weekend.  I had to type it from handwritten notes in breaks from work.

Whenever I focused my attention behind me I could hear the near machine gun staccato tapping from Lou's keyboard, so I didn't try to keep an encyclopedic record.  It is also a little more conversational than Lou's record.

::::::::::::::::::::::::

The local christian bookstore is hawking Behe's books in the lobby.(Is this universal?)

WHO(!) in the world thinks that Behe's book belongs on a list of the 100 most significant books of the 20th century?  I want to see this list.  What number is 'My Pet Goat'?

Behe shows disclaimer: the following presentation is my opinion, not that of Lehigh.(I wonder why Behe must DISCLAIMER his presentation?  Is it because his university and his colleagues regard him as a leper?  He did not say.)

He went over the five points of his presentation on ID and IC:
 ID/IC is revealed in the physical structure of the system, definition:a purposeful arrangement of parts(what happened to the original definition of IC?  This new one seems awfully vague.  Why exactly did he have to change it?);
 everyone agrees on the appearance of design(could everyone stop doing this please, life gives the appearance of having evolved not of design); lots and lots of quotes from Dawkins(but I'm sure Dawkins is used to it by now);
 there are structural obstacles to evolution(that's a crying shame since it happens anyway);
 evos have an undisciplined imagination(this struck me as the most defamatory thing he said all evening)
 design is quantitative(YIPPEE, that means he is going to show us some real calculations*,  Did. Not. Happen.)

Lots more bad quotes by evos.  (Question for the AtBC peanut gallery, if you eliminated all other possible tactics by creo's, would their presentations get any shorter?)

Shows Farside cartoon of Livingston caught in a jungle trap.  "Obviously, this was designed"(If you saw Livingston caught in a mansized Venus Flytrap would it still be obvious?)

Shows series of mountain images.  Mount Rushmore is obviously designed.(Only to the people who have the record of the process.  If Martians landed on earth in front of Mount Rushmore after man goes extinct how would they know to it was designed?)

Darwin insisted on gradualness.(Why is Darwin the absolute authority?)

(Absoluting nothing new here, yawn)

Behe goes on and on about cellular machines.(Can we not grant that the language we use was invented before evolution was discovered and does not have good phraseology available for us to use in describing evolution?)

(Can some one tell Franklin Harold that Behe is quotemining him.
'The Way of the Cell' page 205;  evolutionary science is wild, imaginative, claims, speculations)

(Behe is doing Gish proud, galloping away as fast as he can.  If ID truly had a course to offer for study at uni then this would make for a good first day class introduction but there is virtually no detail.)

Bad joke about In-Duck-Tive reasoning with a picture of a duck.  Science claims to use inductive reasoning, Behe claims that that is all ID is doing.

Time to pick on Judge Jones now.  Jones said the weight of evidence is on the side of evolution.(What about the weight of the textbooks in your lap?)

Behe implies that Jones was dishonest about writing his opinion but then claims Jones is not really dishonest.(If the defense had won the case and Jones had used the defense's findings wouldn't you be singing about the sage perspicacity of Jones, rather than bemoaning that he copied your briefs?)

Since Jones plagiarised his opinion he doesn't really know that evolution is correct.  He just picked a side.  Why?(He must have flipped a coin.)

Behe puts up a quote from the Jones opinion where Rothschild characterizes ID as an argument by analogy.  OH NO! I never used the word analogy.  I have been quote-mined.

New quote from Wexler.  Jones should not have ruled on ID is not science.(Pick a quote from a person who opposes ID so you dont have to admit that the defense asked for the ruling to be made.)

(Okay I get it.  The purpose of the presentation is to put on a show for the rubes.  He is completely unconcerned with whether there is even one jot or tittle of consistency to it.)

Time to mischaracterize John Mcdonald now.  Bait and switch.  My new and improved definition of IC(but of course Behe is not telling the audience it is new and improved) is completely proof against the McDonald precursor mousetraps(the original five step ones not the 20-odd step ones)  McDonald says he is not trying to simulate evolution, then why is he making the argument.

Behe grants that common descent is real.  But trivial.(Sounds like a concession, creos have fought CD for 150 years)
Behe grants that natural selection is real.  But trivial.(Sounds like a concession, rinse repeat)
(Granting concessions is like backing up to a cliff when the pride is stalking you.  Eventually you have to fall off the cliff to avoid getting eaten)

(This is when I decide that Behe is not well practiced at his public speaking.  He loses himself too easily even though this is his presentation and his slides, but this may be uncharitable as this is the only time I have seen him.)

Behe lies by omission about the difference between theory and data and how scientists use them.

Getting rid of/breaking genes does not explain where they come from.(I am going to call this the argument by only going half way.  Another lie by omission.  Offer up a preposterous situation and be silent about how science explains it.)

Question time: First question wants a mechanism:  Behe says he doesn't have one, but that's OKAY.  It is okay for ID to say IDK.  Newton lacked a mech so Behe doesn't need one either.  (More dishonesty here.  When science includes caveats and IDK's in its explanations the creo's crow about how science doesn't really know anything but somehow it is okay for the creos to say IDK.)

Behe answers the mechanism question but then keeps talking. And talking.  And talking.  And then talks some more.(He spent more time on this one question than any other.)

In one of then answers to a question Behe claims that the TTSS==>>Flagellum evolutionary pathway hypothesized is actually backward; the the flagellum evolved first and then the TTSS evolved from it.  His explanation is vague and rambling but has something to do with a precursor to the TTSS injecting poisons into other bacteria or something and the fact that the actual propeller part of a flagellum is extruded(though he didn't use the word extruded, I am).(I can't say I remember reading this anywhere is this new?)

The next to last question is from a lady with a son who has what initially sounded like, to me, a dreadful condition.  He was born without a corpus collosum.  She lacks a well formed question but keeps using the phrase 'you are starting with the endpoint' and wants it known that her son is otherwise completely normal.  Behe took her to mean that IC means that parts can't be knocked out and tries to explain that that is not what IC means at all.  He is not claiming the human body is IC.  It would be possible to remove the pancreas, for example, of a person and that person could continue to function.(Of course Behe neglects to mention that is exactly what IC was originally defined to mean.  I think the lady was on the right track to a good question because if you start with the endpoint you are missing all of the evolutionary dead ends that lead to the product being claimed as IC and intelligently designed.)

::::::::::::::::::::::::

Potential questions I had written down:

Dr Behe, you seem old enough to remember a Gene Barry movie from the fifties called War of the Worlds.  If the Martians had landed on an earth devoid of all men and their artifacts but for and right in front of Mt Rushmore how would they know it was designed?

Would you be complaining about Judge Jones plagiarising the defense briefs(and his apparent consequent lack of truly understanding ID) if you had won the case?

You claimed that design is quantitative.  Can you show us some calculations?

In a previous answer to a question you suggested that god could be acting through the boundary conditions of the universe from its creation in the big bang.  This eliminates the special creation of man apart from the rest of creation.  How can you/we find this satisfying when the bible shows man's creation as a personal intervention on the part of god rather than an impersonal action through the forces of the universe?(I like this question because it is vague about who is asking it, a creo or an evo.)

You granted concessions on common descent and natural selection even though creationists have been fighting these concepts for many decades since publication of Darwin's 'Species'.  It seems like everytime creationists draw a line and say no further, science just plows right by.  How many times can creationists backstep and backpedal before they fall off the cliff?  Science will continue to advance and continue to explain things.  Will you ever admit that no more lines can be drawn?(And even then will they even admit they fell off of the cliff?)

I also wanted to asked about ignoring evoluntionary dead ends and only using the endpoint as a source of ID but I did not have a well formed question in mind yet.

*This really did get me excited.  I so wanted to see some real calculations.

--------------
"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

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,13:58   

I had another question in mind, that I hadn't written down, about his misrepresenting John MacDonalds point with the mousetrap 'precursors'.  I still don't know which question I would have asked if I hadn't been cut off.

--------------
"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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3592
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,15:26   

Patrick Henry/aka sensuous curmudgeon was a founder of darwincentral.org. Busy boy. I think his commitment to the political battle overrides mere chitchat.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,16:25   

Quote
Judge Jones plagiarizing


If Behe actually used the word plagiarizing then he is not only stupid but stupidly wrong.

Plagiarizing is taking someone's idea and presenting it as your own without citation.

In Jones' ruling he cites the plaintiff's brief, trial transcripts and other sources in nearly every sentence and, in many sentences, multiple times.

Jones drew heavily from the plaintiff's brief and not so much (or at all) from the defense because the plaintiffs were right and the defense was wrong.

Simple as that.

Behe is, once again, engaging in intellectual slander to imply that Judge Jones failed to understand the basis of the case when his brilliantly written opinion clearly demonstrates that he did.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,17:13   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,17:25)
 
Quote
Judge Jones plagiarizing


If Behe actually used the word plagiarizing then he is not only stupid but stupidly wrong.

Plagiarizing is taking someone's idea and presenting it as your own without citation.

In Jones' ruling he cites the plaintiff's brief, trial transcripts and other sources in nearly every sentence and, in many sentences, multiple times.

Jones drew heavily from the plaintiff's brief and not so much (or at all) from the defense because the plaintiffs were right and the defense was wrong.

Simple as that.

Behe is, once again, engaging in intellectual slander to imply that Judge Jones failed to understand the basis of the case when his brilliantly written opinion clearly demonstrates that he did.

No, Behe first implied that Judge Jones plagiarized the decision, and after the well was thoroughly poisoned after five minutes of scurrilous accusation by implication then said that it wasn't plagiarism but that it was "not considered wrong in the legal profession" (pretty close to a direct quote). ETA: added something like 'it's not like plagiarizing in your high school class'.

Then he went on about how Jones "showed no independent thought" (a direct quote), and how he "didn't know what was going on" (also a direct quote).

Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 01 2009,18:15

--------------
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: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,17:20   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Mar. 01 2009,14:55)
Sorry this took all weekend.  I had to type it from handwritten notes in breaks from work.

Don't sweat it. I've got 11 pages of background written, and haven't even gotten to the talk yet.

lol

On the upside, I emailed a question to Massimo Pigliucci while he was on Atheists Talk radio show today and he answered it on air.

It was about Behe and Snokes' 2004 paper in Protein Science that the Discovery Institute claims is peer reviewed science supporting Intelligent Design Creationism.

He bodyslammed it, and his response will appear in full in my write up.

--------------
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: Mar. 01 2009,17:59   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,16:25)
Quote
Judge Jones plagiarizing


If Behe actually used the word plagiarizing then he is not only stupid but stupidly wrong.

Plagiarizing is taking someone's idea and presenting it as your own without citation.

In Jones' ruling he cites the plaintiff's brief, trial transcripts and other sources in nearly every sentence and, in many sentences, multiple times.

Jones drew heavily from the plaintiff's brief and not so much (or at all) from the defense because the plaintiffs were right and the defense was wrong.

Simple as that.

Behe is, once again, engaging in intellectual slander to imply that Judge Jones failed to understand the basis of the case when his brilliantly written opinion clearly demonstrates that he did.

This is exactly what Luskin-rat did too.  "Judge Jones plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized plagiarized... Not that Im saying Judge Jones plagiarized, but he plagiarized."

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1967
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,18:15   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Mar. 01 2009,11:55)
(Can some one tell Franklin Harold that Behe is quotemining him. 'The Way of the Cell' page 205;  evolutionary science is wild, imaginative, claims, speculations)

Sadly, Franklin Harold did write some rather stupid things in his book. I was very disappointed.

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

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,18:23   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 01 2009,19:15)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Mar. 01 2009,11:55)
(Can some one tell Franklin Harold that Behe is quotemining him. 'The Way of the Cell' page 205;  evolutionary science is wild, imaginative, claims, speculations)

Sadly, Franklin Harold did write some rather stupid things in his book. I was very disappointed.

I wonder if Judith and Donald Voet are aware he's using their illustration of the bacterial flagellum, from their textbook.

He might claim fair use as educational use or something, but if he's being paid to speak, does that still qualify?

--------------
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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,19:44   

Lou, your inconvenient FACTS are getting in the way of my opinion-driven venom for Behe.

OK, I'm over it.

So, really, when pinned by someone who knows Jones' ruling, Behe is screwed.  He relies on the ignorance of others, yet bases his entire thesis on that ignorance.

Personally, I couldn't do it.  No matter my convictions.  I'd cave.

I can only imagine that Behe just doesn't care.  And, why should he?  He's not going to get fired or suffer one whit from his scientific slander.  

Too bad.

  
AmandaHuginKiss



Posts: 150
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,04:17   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,12:44)
Lou, your inconvenient FACTS are getting in the way of my opinion-driven venom for Behe.

OK, I'm over it.

So, really, when pinned by someone who knows Jones' ruling, Behe is screwed.  He relies on the ignorance of others, yet bases his entire thesis on that ignorance.

Personally, I couldn't do it.  No matter my convictions.  I'd cave.

I can only imagine that Behe just doesn't care.  And, why should he?  He's not going to get fired or suffer one whit from his scientific slander.  

Too bad.

I'm not surprised the Behe and co keep reliving Dover. This was the day that ID died. I remember that before Dover, there was a lot of buzz about ID and Behe. It was an intriguing Idea. Imagine somebody proving that evolution could not have brought about diversity of life. I thought it was interesting idea until I looked closer. Almost every mention of ID was at least neutral.

Now the only invites he gets are from organisations that have the words "Church" in them and the only media that is sympathetic is wingnut (even LGF is anti-ID).

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,16:35   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 01 2009,18:13)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,17:25)
 
Quote
Judge Jones plagiarizing


If Behe actually used the word plagiarizing then he is not only stupid but stupidly wrong.

Plagiarizing is taking someone's idea and presenting it as your own without citation.

In Jones' ruling he cites the plaintiff's brief, trial transcripts and other sources in nearly every sentence and, in many sentences, multiple times.

Jones drew heavily from the plaintiff's brief and not so much (or at all) from the defense because the plaintiffs were right and the defense was wrong.

Simple as that.

Behe is, once again, engaging in intellectual slander to imply that Judge Jones failed to understand the basis of the case when his brilliantly written opinion clearly demonstrates that he did.

No, Behe first implied that Judge Jones plagiarized the decision, and after the well was thoroughly poisoned after five minutes of scurrilous accusation by implication then said that it wasn't plagiarism but that it was "not considered wrong in the legal profession" (pretty close to a direct quote). ETA: added something like 'it's not like plagiarizing in your high school class'.

Then he went on about how Jones "showed no independent thought" (a direct quote), and how he "didn't know what was going on" (also a direct quote).

exactly as Lou explained,

sorry I was unclear; plagiarizing was my shorthand for Behe's total spiel.  Poisoning the well is precisely right.

--------------
"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

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,16:40   

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 02 2009,05:17)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,12:44)
Lou, your inconvenient FACTS are getting in the way of my opinion-driven venom for Behe.

OK, I'm over it.

So, really, when pinned by someone who knows Jones' ruling, Behe is screwed.  He relies on the ignorance of others, yet bases his entire thesis on that ignorance.

Personally, I couldn't do it.  No matter my convictions.  I'd cave.

I can only imagine that Behe just doesn't care.  And, why should he?  He's not going to get fired or suffer one whit from his scientific slander.  

Too bad.

I'm not surprised the Behe and co keep reliving Dover. This was the day that ID died. I remember that before Dover, there was a lot of buzz about ID and Behe. It was an intriguing Idea. Imagine somebody proving that evolution could not have brought about diversity of life. I thought it was interesting idea until I looked closer. Almost every mention of ID was at least neutral.

Now the only invites he gets are from organisations that have the words "Church" in them and the only media that is sympathetic is wingnut (even LGF is anti-ID).

And ART professors, don't forget ART professors.

--------------
"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

  
AmandaHuginKiss



Posts: 150
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,17:18   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Mar. 03 2009,09:40)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 02 2009,05:17)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,12:44)
Lou, your inconvenient FACTS are getting in the way of my opinion-driven venom for Behe.

OK, I'm over it.

So, really, when pinned by someone who knows Jones' ruling, Behe is screwed.  He relies on the ignorance of others, yet bases his entire thesis on that ignorance.

Personally, I couldn't do it.  No matter my convictions.  I'd cave.

I can only imagine that Behe just doesn't care.  And, why should he?  He's not going to get fired or suffer one whit from his scientific slander.  

Too bad.

I'm not surprised the Behe and co keep reliving Dover. This was the day that ID died. I remember that before Dover, there was a lot of buzz about ID and Behe. It was an intriguing Idea. Imagine somebody proving that evolution could not have brought about diversity of life. I thought it was interesting idea until I looked closer. Almost every mention of ID was at least neutral.

Now the only invites he gets are from organisations that have the words "Church" in them and the only media that is sympathetic is wingnut (even LGF is anti-ID).

And ART professors, don't forget ART professors.

Was the Art Professor a creobot or a post-modernist? I wonder if he thinks my scribbling is worth the same as a Van Gogh because I call my scribbling art?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,11:32   

I finished and posted the background article for the Behe talk. It's up at Crowded Head.

A Brief History of Moonbats.

 
Quote
Last Thursday evening was a pleasant one. It was mild and welcoming, a good night for a drive to Wilmington. I had been by the University of North Carolina campus there, but hadn’t yet been to visit. I’ve been meaning to head down there to look around for a while now, as that’s where I intend to finish my Bachelor’s degree in Biology. The reason for this trip was mildly ironic given my intentions, as my son James and I were headed there to hear an anti-science advocate speak.

Dr. Michael Behe is a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He’s also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a well known creationist think tank whose purpose is to disguise religious doctrine as science in order to avoid the Constitutional ban on promoting religion in public schools. It was Behe that we were heading down to see.

...


--------------
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

   
AntonMates



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,18:54   

Thanks much for the info, Lou and Paul.  Question:  Did Behe reference the recent creationist activity in the nearby Brunswick school district at all?  Did anyone at the talk introduce themselves as being from or associated with Brunswick?

I suspect the DI wants to stay well out of that one.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,19:10   

Quote (AntonMates @ Mar. 03 2009,19:54)
Thanks much for the info, Lou and Paul.  Question:  Did Behe reference the recent creationist activity in the nearby Brunswick school district at all?  Did anyone at the talk introduce themselves as being from or associated with Brunswick?

I suspect the DI wants to stay well out of that one.

You're welcome. I still have the actual talk to blog, but to answer your questions, no and no.

NB didn't come up. I suspect that the Dishonesty Institute will try to keep a low profile (as they are leaning to try to do), but believe this: they're around somewhere pulling someone's strings.

You can almost hear Luskin whispering in someone's ear, "ixnay on the esusjay".

--------------
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: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,21:54   

Whoa! Outstanding work over there!  Can you give yourself the Post of the Week here for a post on another blog?  Or is that a conflict of interest.  We'll get the Bush Justice Dept Lawyers on it right away - they're not too busy right now.

--------------
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: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,09:21   

Thanks J-Dog.

I look forward to hearing from the Bush attorneys, as I have a few other things I'd like to discuss with them anyway.

--------------
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

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

Pages: (9) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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