RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: IDC Advocates Speak, Experiencing TARD Benders< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2778
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,18:41   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2009,18:36)
Casey is such a crybaby.  He submits Rob Crowther (his superior at DI) a report entitled Pro-Evolution Blogger Abbie Smith Flipped Me Off on Friday Night, and Here’s the Story.  Rob publishes said report on Evolution News & Views.  

And what was this forgiveness spiel about?  Here's a quote from the talk:
     
Quote
I’m not interested in holding grudges. I’m interested in forgiving so we can all move forward in a spirit of civility! …There Is a Better Way: Free Speech, Civility, and Peaceful Co-Existence in the Academy

Peaceful co-existence, huh?  I thought your  Wedgie Manifesto called for "direct confrontation", no?

More spewing from Casey Cloaca (and yes, Casey, I do hope that you include that in your next presentation about AtBCers insulting poor little you)  
Quote
After reviewing some of the problems with the Kitzmiller ruling, my talk focused on the importance of protecting academic freedom. I made the point that Darwinists use a vareity (sic) of tactics to shut down free and open debate on intelligent design (ID) and evolution.

This was posted on a site where comments are not allowed.

You want free and open debate, Casey? Please open comments over there, or come over here.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,19:13   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2009,18:41)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2009,18:36)
Casey is such a crybaby.  He submits Rob Crowther (his superior at DI) a report entitled Pro-Evolution Blogger Abbie Smith Flipped Me Off on Friday Night, and Here’s the Story.  Rob publishes said report on Evolution News & Views.  

And what was this forgiveness spiel about?  Here's a quote from the talk:
     
Quote
I’m not interested in holding grudges. I’m interested in forgiving so we can all move forward in a spirit of civility! …There Is a Better Way: Free Speech, Civility, and Peaceful Co-Existence in the Academy

Peaceful co-existence, huh?  I thought your  Wedgie Manifesto called for "direct confrontation", no?

More spewing from Casey Cloaca (and yes, Casey, I do hope that you include that in your next presentation about AtBCers insulting poor little you)  
Quote
After reviewing some of the problems with the Kitzmiller ruling, my talk focused on the importance of protecting academic freedom. I made the point that Darwinists use a vareity (sic) of tactics to shut down free and open debate on intelligent design (ID) and evolution.

This was posted on a site where comments are not allowed.

You want free and open debate, Casey? Please open comments over there, or come over here.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

WIN!!!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,19:41   

Even I pwnd Casey in a discussion.

Luskin is such a pathetic and, possibly, pathological liar that it's easy to do.  Just read the original article he's misquoting, usually someone who's DEAD, and call him on the facts.

Then he runs like the whipped attack gerbil he is.

Hey, Casey, if you're reading this, Nobody Likes You.  You're an Idiot and an IDiot.

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,19:46   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 21 2009,19:13)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2009,18:41)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2009,18:36)
Casey is such a crybaby.  He submits Rob Crowther (his superior at DI) a report entitled Pro-Evolution Blogger Abbie Smith Flipped Me Off on Friday Night, and Here’s the Story.  Rob publishes said report on Evolution News & Views.  

And what was this forgiveness spiel about?  Here's a quote from the talk:
       
Quote
I’m not interested in holding grudges. I’m interested in forgiving so we can all move forward in a spirit of civility! …There Is a Better Way: Free Speech, Civility, and Peaceful Co-Existence in the Academy

Peaceful co-existence, huh?  I thought your  Wedgie Manifesto called for "direct confrontation", no?

More spewing from Casey Cloaca (and yes, Casey, I do hope that you include that in your next presentation about AtBCers insulting poor little you)    
Quote
After reviewing some of the problems with the Kitzmiller ruling, my talk focused on the importance of protecting academic freedom. I made the point that Darwinists use a vareity (sic) of tactics to shut down free and open debate on intelligent design (ID) and evolution.

This was posted on a site where comments are not allowed.

You want free and open debate, Casey? Please open comments over there, or come over here.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

WIN!!!

I think he has a crush on you - in a heterosexually chaste creepy christian kind of way - because you say tits and let gay people get you drunk. It's the "dangerous boy" syndrome in reverse.

--------------
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: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,19:50   

"attack gerbil"

I had just changed "attack hamster" to "attack gerbil." Maybe I should change it to some other rodent?

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

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2875
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,20:13   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2009,03:50)
"attack gerbil"

I had just changed "attack hamster" to "attack gerbil." Maybe I should change it to some other rodent?

No 'attack gerbil' is fine.

.....a gerbil that's as flash as a rat with a gold tooth.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,20:20   

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 21 2009,19:46)
I think he has a crush on you - in a heterosexually chaste creepy christian kind of way - because you say tits and let gay people get you drunk. It's the "dangerous boy" syndrome in reverse.

That would explain why he was fidgeting nervously with his wedding ring all night.

Also: MOAR TITS!!!!!

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,20:39   

My Evening with the Discovery Institute - Part the Second

Note:I am trying to represent the talks as accurately as possible.  My comments/editorials will be in red.

Myth 2 - ID is repackaged creationism

>   He asks what we mean by creationism?
    o Belief in God?  What about Francis Ayala and Kenneth Miller, are they creationists?  Bill Dembski thinks so, maybe you should have talked to him first, John. Link
    o YEC – literal reading of Genesis? But ID doesn’t require that, so it isn’t creationism. ID is considered a creationist enterprise, not because it necessarily hews to a literal Genesis, but  because it repackages arguments with long history in creationist literature. John also engages in the fallacy of the excluded middle. These aren't the only two options, but it serves his purposes to pretend it is.

>   ID theory holds that some features are better explained by intelligent processes  rather than undirected processes.

>   ID seeks to determine if apparent design is real design. Even Dawkins admits that there is apparent design.

>   He makes a comment about even Darwin thinking some things are outside science and others adjudicable.  I’ve lost the context of this statement.  Not sure what his point was.

>   Philosopher of science Phillip Kitchener thought that declaring that ID is not science was philosophically untenable and a cheap shot.

>   N.B. The next two points are presented here in a different sequence than they were in my notes, which were taken directly from the talk.  I change the order only to attempt to make West’s points clearer. I don’t think changing the sequence changes the point

>   Center for Inquiry has ID timeline – it starts in 1983 (after McLean v. Arkansas?) Not true,  ID goes back to the Greeks and Romans like Socrates and Cicero. Hold this thought because we are going to hit Casey Luskin over the head with it a bit later on. Don't these guys coordinate their messages? Srsly.

>   Everyone says that ID is only a negative argument against evolution, but it is also a positive argument
    o  Positive: From uniform and repeatable experiments, we know that intelligent causes produce certain kinds of highly ordered complexity (specified complexity) I find it an interesting bit of equivocation that he didn’t say that only intelligent causes can produce specified complexity.
    o  Negative: natural selection acting on random mutation does not have such a good track record generating such complexity.  Note again the equivocation.  He is making sure he doesn’t get painted into a corner like Behe did in KvD with regard to the blood clotting cascade.

>   He seems to accuse Darwinists of taking an anti-intellectual view of Western Civilization by not allowing questions. I'll get a little more into West's tactics in the Q&A session that belie the notion that West is interested in questions.  Also see comments above about why doesn't EN&V allow comments.

>   He then wraps himself in the flag by an appeal to American intellectual history when he plays an audio of a quote about regularities in nature taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams.  He makes the point that Jefferson wasn’t a Christian and was often hostile to Christianity.  Props to West for correctly presenting Jefferson’s views on Christianity.  All too often TJ is claimed by conservative Christians as one of their own.  However, West squanders what little capital he gained through this honesty by not mentioning that TJ died 28 years before Origin was published and a case might be made that he would have embraced Darwin’s theory.

>   Alfred Russell Wallace – co-discoverer of evolution but disagreed with Darwin regarding how much natural selection could do.  Didn’t think it could create the human brain and consciousness. He wrote about this to Darwin and it pained Darwin greatly.  West made the “pained greatly” comment twice.  Not sure why but I suspect that he is trying to make it seem like Darwin saw this as a problem to his theory.  But West was rather obtuse here, so I am speculating what he wants us to think here.

>   The ACLU wouldn’t let Jefferson and Wallace into schools to explain their views!  West is overplaying his hand almost to the point of hysteria here.  Both Jefferson and Wallace would be valuable contributors to an educational environment on a wide variety of topics. However, in the narrow area where West claims that Jefferson and Wallace support him (an assertion he makes, in Jefferson's case, on the flimsiest of evidence), they probably wouldn't find themselves contributing to a high school biology class. Indeed, biology has advanced so much in the last century that Jefferson and Wallace would more appropriately be placed behind a desk and not a lectern in such a biology class.West is just hamhandedly pushing emotional buttons by invoking the ACLU.

>    The modern revival of ID is to see what can be known from empirical data without recourse to theology. West might want to have a conversation with Bill Dembski about that whole John 1:1 thing

>    ID, like evolution, may have implications for religion, but does not start from religious premises (this statement figures prominently in the question I asked West during Q&A)

>   Ron Numbers, distinguished anti-ID scholar thinks the ID=creationism equivalence is a rhetorical device to de-legitimize ID and is nothing more than a smear so people won’t look at evidence. West talking about rhetorical equivalences as smears conjures up images of pots and kettles. Making such equivalences will become a recurring theme in the rest of West's talk.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,20:46   

Dr. GH wrote:

Quote
I had just changed "attack hamster" to "attack gerbil." Maybe I should change it to some other rodent?


Pick whichever one has the biggest tits.

:)      :)       :)         :)

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,20:47   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2009,20:39)
My Evening with the Discovery Institute - Part the Second

Note:I am trying to represent the talks as accurately as possible.  My comments/editorials will be in red.

Myth 2 - ID is repackaged creationism

>   He asks what we mean by creationism?
    o Belief in God?  What about Francis Ayala and Kenneth Miller, are they creationists?  Bill Dembski thinks so, maybe you should have talked to him first, John. Link
    o YEC – literal reading of Genesis? But ID doesn’t require that, so it isn’t creationism. ID is considered a creationist enterprise, not because it necessarily hews to a literal Genesis, but  because it repackages arguments with long history in creationist literature. John also engages in the fallacy of the excluded middle. These aren't the only two options, but it serves his purposes to pretend it is.

>   ID theory holds that some features are better explained by intelligent processes  rather than undirected processes.

>   ID seeks to determine if apparent design is real design. Even Dawkins admits that there is apparent design.

>   He makes a comment about even Darwin thinking some things are outside science and others adjudicable.  I’ve lost the context of this statement.  Not sure what his point was.

>   Philosopher of science Phillip Kitchener thought that declaring that ID is not science was philosophically untenable and a cheap shot.

>   N.B. The next two points are presented here in a different sequence than they were in my notes, which were taken directly from the talk.  I change the order only to attempt to make West’s points clearer. I don’t think changing the sequence changes the point

>   Center for Inquiry has ID timeline – it starts in 1983 (after McLean v. Arkansas?) Not true,  ID goes back to the Greeks and Romans like Socrates and Cicero. Hold this thought because we are going to hit Casey Luskin over the head with it a bit later on. Don't these guys coordinate their messages? Srsly.

>   Everyone says that ID is only a negative argument against evolution, but it is also a positive argument
    o  Positive: From uniform and repeatable experiments, we know that intelligent causes produce certain kinds of highly ordered complexity (specified complexity) I find it an interesting bit of equivocation that he didn’t say that only intelligent causes can produce specified complexity.
    o  Negative: natural selection acting on random mutation does not have such a good track record generating such complexity.  Note again the equivocation.  He is making sure he doesn’t get painted into a corner like Behe did in KvD with regard to the blood clotting cascade.

>   He seems to accuse Darwinists of taking an anti-intellectual view of Western Civilization by not allowing questions. I'll get a little more into West's tactics in the Q&A session that belie the notion that West is interested in questions.  Also see comments above about why doesn't EN&V allow comments.

>   He then wraps himself in the flag by an appeal to American intellectual history when he plays an audio of a quote about regularities in nature taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams.  He makes the point that Jefferson wasn’t a Christian and was often hostile to Christianity.  Props to West for correctly presenting Jefferson’s views on Christianity.  All too often TJ is claimed by conservative Christians as one of their own.  However, West squanders what little capital he gained through this honesty by not mentioning that TJ died 28 years before Origin was published and a case might be made that he would have embraced Darwin’s theory.

>   Alfred Russell Wallace – co-discoverer of evolution but disagreed with Darwin regarding how much natural selection could do.  Didn’t think it could create the human brain and consciousness. He wrote about this to Darwin and it pained Darwin greatly.  West made the “pained greatly” comment twice.  Not sure why but I suspect that he is trying to make it seem like Darwin saw this as a problem to his theory.  But West was rather obtuse here, so I am speculating what he wants us to think here.

>   The ACLU wouldn’t let Jefferson and Wallace into schools to explain their views!  West is overplaying his hand almost to the point of hysteria here.  Both Jefferson and Wallace would be valuable contributors to an educational environment on a wide variety of topics. However, in the narrow area where West claims that Jefferson and Wallace support him (an assertion he makes, in Jefferson's case, on the flimsiest of evidence), they probably wouldn't find themselves contributing to a high school biology class. Indeed, biology has advanced so much in the last century that Jefferson and Wallace would more appropriately be placed behind a desk and not a lectern in such a biology class.West is just hamhandedly pushing emotional buttons by invoking the ACLU.

>    The modern revival of ID is to see what can be known from empirical data without recourse to theology. West might want to have a conversation with Bill Dembski about that whole John 1:1 thing

>    ID, like evolution, may have implications for religion, but does not start from religious premises (this statement figures prominently in the question I asked West during Q&A)

>   Ron Numbers, distinguished anti-ID scholar thinks the ID=creationism equivalence is a rhetorical device to de-legitimize ID and is nothing more than a smear so people won’t look at evidence. West talking about rhetorical equivalences as smears conjures up images of pots and kettles. Making such equivalences will become a recurring theme in the rest of West's talk.

Carlson - Outstanding work, and I am sure I speak for all of us, that we really appreciate you giving up your nite and day and reporting back to us.  However, Abbie keeps showing us TITS, TITS AND MOAR TITS.

I just thought you should know.

Carry On!

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,21:03   

Just for variety, some small, cute boobies:

and some moar tits:
to entertain Casey and his little friend Johnny:



--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,21:04   

On the Darwin thing, Charles was quite clear on the subject. This is from a letter Darwin wrote:

Quote
Sir,—I am very busy, and am an old man in delicate health, and have not time to answer your, questions fully, even assuming that they are capable of being answered at all.3 Science and Christ have nothing to do with each other, except in as far as the habit of scientific investigation makes a man cautious about accepting any proofs. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that any revelation has ever been made. With regard to a future life, every one must draw his own conclusions from vague and contradictory probabilities. Wishing you well, I remain, your obedient servant,

CHARLES DARWIN.


The number three refers you to a footnote that explains:

Quote
Mengden wrote to Darwin on 2 April 1879 asking if a believer in his theory could also believe in God. A reply in the affirmative was written by Emma Darwin. Mengden wrote again stating that Haeckel disbelieves in the supernatural, what did Darwin think? This letter was Darwin's response.


So, even if you did know the context I'm not sure that West's argument would be supported by the evidence.

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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

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

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,20:47)
Carlson - Outstanding work, and I am sure I speak for all of us, that we really appreciate you giving up your nite and day and reporting back to us.  However, Abbie keeps showing us TITS, TITS AND MOAR TITS.

Well, my thing is really more LOLCats, but just for you:


   
Quote

I just thought you should know.

Carry On!

Not tonight, but I will keep forging ahead through West's talk tomorrow.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,21:19   

The "intelligent design" timeline... is irrelevant.

The issue isn't whether somebody put "intelligent" next to "design" before 1987, like the old Reese's commercials discussed putting "chocolate" next to "peanut butter". The issue is about the use of "intelligent design" as if that meant a field of human inquiry. Plenty of people before had used "intelligent design" as a descriptive phrase about a property that they attributed to certain phenomena. That sloppy, unfocused sort of rhetoric does indeed have a long, long history.

But "intelligent design" meaning a field of study, a scientific field of study that would have a place in a K-12 science classroom? That usage uniquely first appears in the just-post-Edwards v. Aguillard decision period in the draft manuscript that eventually got published as Of Pandas and People.

West may be able to handwave fast enough in front of a debate audience to obfuscate the vast difference there, but in a courtroom this will be developed at length and such that there is no confusion left for the IDC advocates to hide behind.

So far as I can tell, the Thaxton claim that anybody in the movement had a notion to push "intelligent design" rather than creationism in the pre-Edwards run-up to OPAP is completely lacking in substantiation. If they actually had that, do you suppose they would not have presented it during the Kitzmiller trial?

No, neither do I.

Ron Numbers does think that there is a distinction between creationism and "intelligent design". It's becoming an increasingly fringe position. For almost everybody else who actually studies the antievolution movement, the evidence from the Kitzmiller case completely demolished the notion that "intelligent design" represented a legitimate field of scholarly inquiry. And it wasn't "the Darwinists" that put them in that position; it was the record of their actions, painstakingly analyzed and presented to the court. They only have themselves to blame. They could have taken their own rhetoric in the Wedge document seriously and convinced the scientific community first, if they were going to. They chose to give that a pass and push on with the culture war. It's not our fault that they did their own cause damage that way, and it is not our fault that they absolutely make it necessary to lay all this out in the plainest of terms.

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

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,21:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2009,21:19)
... It's not our fault that they did their own cause damage that way, and it is not our fault that they absolutely make it necessary to lay all this out in the plainest of terms.

Thanks Wes.  I copied and pasted and saved your work.  With proper attribution and date, because your post was so clear & concise.

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 883
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,22:03   

I'd just like to register my personal offence at the title of this thread.

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
simmi



Posts: 38
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,03:46   

You never know, Casey might be into:



(thought I should add some balance to this thread)

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,06:58   

My Evening with the Discovery Institute - Part the Third

Note: My comments or editorials will appear in red.

John West - 7 Myths of the Darwin Debate

Myth 3 - ID proponents want to unify Church and state


>    The Darwinists don't have much evidence is this is what they are reduced to arguing.

>    He is offended!  He wrote a book, The Politics of Revelation and Reason: Religion and Civic Life in the New Nation , published by the University Press of Kansas, that supports the separation of church and state, but makes the case for people of faith participating in civic life.  As described, this is entirely uncontroversial. I am not aware of anyone serious that advocates the disenfranchisement of people of faith. Not even the ACLU, despite what folks like West would have you believe.  See Ed Brayton's blog (link) for more on this.

>     He accused Barbara Forrest of quotemining his book to make it look like he is a theocrat.

>    That is it. The sum total of his defense against accusations that the DI are theocrats, as if the entire case of them being theocrats rests on a quote mine by Barbara Forrest.  I think the case is a bit more complex than that and I would have liked to hear West justify the Discovery Institute's acceptance of significant funding from Howard Ahmanson, Jr.

>   West's book actually looks interesting, although not particularly provocative.  It's premise sounds similar to Jon Meacham's American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, a book I tried to read last year but put down because it read like a series of Newsweek articles, addressing the topic too superficially. Anyone have a copy of West's book they'd be willing to lend me? I wouldn't mind testing his accusation against Forrest with my own read.


Myth 4 - ID proponents are motivated by religion, while Darwinists are motivated by a dispassionate search for truth

>   Darwinists are hypocritical.  90% of people believe in God.

>   Darwinists are motivated by evangelical atheism

>   He plays a video of a bunch of nerds scientists singing an anti-ID song. He likens it to a revival meeting.

>   Dawkins (atheist!) is bad because he says religion is a great evil.

>    Barbara Forrest (atheist!) - 90% of BF's schtick is to examine the motives of ID proponents, but refuses to answer questions about her own beliefs.  A local Lousiana reporter asked her and she refused to answer, essentially telling him to MYOB.

>    Michael Shermer (atheist!) - said that science was his savior and rescued him from religion.

>    Eugenie Scott - she is agnostic or atheist. Don't really know because she answers differently. She signed the Humanist Manifesto.

>    We need to look at their motives

>    Breakdown of biologists in National Academy of Science
     o    65% atheist
     o    29% agnostic
     o    only 6% believers!

>  2003 survey of leading evolutionists by Cornell
     o    87% don't believe in God
     o    88% don't believe life after death
     o    90% don't believe in directed evolution

>    In retrospect, I don't see West's talk as necessarily about dispelling any myths. It seems more a talk building to a specific premise using the myths as MacGuffins.  As the talk progressed, West became more animated in his speaking and he builds toward his premise. Myth 1 was, as advertised, about establishing there is a controversy. Myth 2 and 3 were about establishing the "nice cred" of ID proponents on one side of the controversy.  In Myth 4 here, West turns his attention to demonizing Darwinists on the other side and continues that theme throughout. In the Q&A, I challenged him on this broad brush demonization and he backed away a little, but never really answered the question.  But, we will get to that in due time.

>     The tactic becomes clear here.  As much as West objects to being characterized by equivalences, he is more than happy to engage in that himself.  He reduces the entirety of evolutionary biology down to a few scary figureheads (Dawkins, Forrest, Scott, Shermer- atheists, one and all!) then takes them on. Here he ignores significant personalities like Miller, Ayala, Collins that are not atheists.(umm, I'm not implying that Wes Elsberry isn't a significant personality.  Far from it. He does a yoeman's job fighting antievolutionism and (unlike West and Luskin) actually does real science.  Also, he is our gracious benefactor here and we loves him. Mwwahhh.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,07:17   

Carlson, thanks a lot for the heads-up so far. Nothing really new, but it's always interesting to keep updated about the "latest" ID strategies.

Can't wait for part the fourth. Your report reads better than any TV novellas.

Thanks again, that's commitment!

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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,07:28   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 22 2009,07:17)
Carlson, thanks a lot for the heads-up so far. Nothing really new, but it's always interesting to keep updated about the "latest" ID strategies.

True, I didn't really hear anything new.  But, I found the structure of West's presentation cleverly crafted to evoke specific emotional reactions in the audience and documenting this has really reinforced, for me, West's role as a propagandist. Documenting this has been an interesting exercise that I have enjoyed.  Unfortunately, you guys get to suffer through my musings. I am not nearly as entertaining as Abbie is.
Quote
Can't wait for part the fourth. Your report reads better than any TV novellas.

Just wait for the Abbie on Casey scene.  HAWT!!!!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,07:51   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 22 2009,14:28)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 22 2009,07:17)
Carlson, thanks a lot for the heads-up so far. Nothing really new, but it's always interesting to keep updated about the "latest" ID strategies.

True, I didn't really hear anything new.  But, I found the structure of West's presentation cleverly crafted to evoke specific emotional reactions in the audience and documenting this has really reinforced, for me, West's role as a propagandist. Documenting this has been an interesting exercise that I have enjoyed.  Unfortunately, you guys get to suffer through my musings. I am not nearly as entertaining as Abbie is.
 
Quote
Can't wait for part the fourth. Your report reads better than any TV novellas.

Just wait for the Abbie on Casey scene.  HAWT!!!!

I think PR and propaganda have been ID's strongest (only?) tool so far. No one could deny that West, Behe or even Dembsky (up to a point) are well versed in the craft of public speaches. But by documenting as much of it as possible, the holes and fallacies come out stronger, and a quick debunk is thus made easier.

Your musings are actualy welcome, as they can enlighten the lurker or the casual poster (such as myself) by dissecting and pointing out something that is not always obvious at first sight. That's the beauty of such forums.

As for Abbie, I've been reading her lattest posts on ERV, and the seksyhawt factor sure helps. A cross examination of both your reports will be something to keep and balance against whatever the IDiots can muster.

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

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:10   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 22 2009,07:28)
I am not nearly as entertaining as Abbie is.

But I find your writing is a lot more coherent.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:18   

My Evening with the Discovery Institute - Part the Fourth

Note: My comments or editorials will appear in red.  I apologize that, as we go along my comments tend to become longer and longer vis-a-vis my documentation of West's talk.  But as we go along, his tactics become more evident and I think it bears commenting. A few prime examples below.

John West - 7 Myths of the Darwin Debate

Myth 5 - ID proponents want to teach religion in science classes, and Darwinists only want to teach science


>    Actually it is the other way around. ID proponents want more science taught in science classes, like Lynn Margulis and the Cambrian Explosion.   The Discovery Institute has publicly stated that they don't want ID to be mandated in science class. So, to burnish their "we want more science" theme, they can't invoke ID. So the tactic is to hijack settled science as if it was controversial and say that that is what they want taught.  Early on, West drafts Margulis into his camp as a tacit anti-evolutionist.  Now he trots her back out as a poster child for academic freedom.  I would be curious if anyone familiar with high school biology curriculum (TexasTeach, Albatrossity?) would like to comment regarding whether Lynn Margulis or the Cambrian Explosion really need the Discovery Institute's protection.

>     West references two articles from American Biology Teacher magazine.
       o    First article says goal of teaching evolution is to get students to drop "non-scientific views" like the existence of the soul or if people are created by god.I think West is employing misdirection here.  Prima facie, ID proponents say they only want science taught in science class. Setting aside the issue as to whether ID is science, we can still assume that they would publicly agree with the statement that non-science shouldn't be in science class. Thus, it would seem that West is taking an article that is about teaching students to recognize scientific vs non-scientific ideas and conflating it with making them drop those non-scientific ideas altogether. He is tugging here at the emotions of those who consider their faith an integral part of their life.
      o He references a second article that was indoctrination intended to make people think there is no contrary evidence.

>    He asks: who is teaching religion here?  Another equivalence from West

>   Now he turns his attention to Ken Miller. He mentions how Miller's book is one of the most popular high school biology texts. The presentation on the screen, though, shows a picture of Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. West states that Miller is pushing religion. Here we see West's tactics in full display.  It is certainly true that Miller has written a widely used biology text (Biology:The Living Science with J. Levine). But by showing FDG in the presentation material the audience is invited to think that FDG is the textbook, rather than the mass market book it really is. It seems to me that this seeks to evoke an emotional response in the audience by implying that the Darwinists are using FDG to bring indoctrination into the classroom.  He doesn't state this specifically. In fact, he never actually mentions the book title, but the implication seems clear.

>    He turns back to Eugenie Scott and mentions something about a brainstorming exercise, but I didn't catch his point.  He also shows a screencap of the NCSE webpage showing links to various religious denominations positions on evolution.  He accuses Scott of quoting The Pope out of context, but provides no detail as to what she said and what the Pope really said.

>    He talks about an exercise where students in Minnesota went out and inteviewed their pastors on evolution. He says this is government endorsement of a theological view of evolution.

>    He talks again about the NCSE website on various liberal denominations views on evolution. Yes, he specifically said "liberal". He says this was funded with a government grant and is, therefore, clearly unconstitutional.  Wasn't the University of California sued over a similar website?  Was that case decided on the merits or tossed based on standing?

Okay that is all for now.  The sun is up, it is going to be a beautiful day, and I have horses to ride.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:35   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 22 2009,14:18)
Okay that is all for now.  The sun is up, it is going to be a beautiful day, and I have horses to ride.

Thanks for the write-up!


--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:54   

I think I just lost a significant amount of braincells, reading West's blabbering. It comes to the point where it almost hurts.

Next episode (I hope):

-Is science the work of the Devil?
-Did God create the world using C++ or Python?
-Does Luskin have tits?

Can't wait. What's the rate for neuronal regeneration again? I have to be careful...

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

   
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,09:22   

@Carlson - The Understanding Evolution case was dismissed on standing. Link

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,11:40   

The Caldwells sued the UC system over pages on the Understanding Evolution website. The case got tossed on issues of standing.

But it doesn't look like it would go anywhere even if standing weren't an issue. The government can fund projects that tell students true things about religion. This is trivially true, else all civics classes that mention the first amendment would be right out, as well as history classes that mention the religious reasons some of the original colonies were founded.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,11:44   

One of the people who joined NCSE shortly after I did was more cautious about some of the statements that we made concerning the IDC movement than most. Were they really that bad? Then there was a radio interview pairing them up with John West. After that, there was better appreciation for the depths the IDC movement would sink to.

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

    
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,11:50   

Quote
I would be curious if anyone familiar with high school biology curriculum (TexasTeach, Albatrossity?) would like to comment regarding whether Lynn Margulis or the Cambrian Explosion really need the Discovery Institute's protection.


We cover endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts. We might or might not do the Cambrian Explosion - the curriculum focuses more on mechanisms than on timeline. Maybe I'll work it in there.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
k.e..



Posts: 2875
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,11:53   

Jesus, West is a piece of friggin' work.

A lying steaming pile of work, couldn't lie straight in bed.

A weaseling little shit no balls preacher/theocrat.

Why doesn't he just come out and say Darwin and Evolution is an athiest conspiracy and that he's defendin' Amerika's gods; guns and oil.

And he's an anti tit gay.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

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

Pages: (9) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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