RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 >   
  Topic: The DI's latest martyr:  Guillermo Gonzalez< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2007,15:08   

Well if those values are cosmological constants we have no idea what the probabilities might be. Unless someone has sampled a large number of different universes and I haven't heard about it.

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,00:10   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 20 2007,07:32)
Quote

Lenny, I realize you are limited to a certain set of cognitions, but I did not write anything about teaching ID.


Lenny's cognitive processes seem not to ignore relevant information, since the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the place where Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow, has written plenty about teaching ID.

Privileged Planet Teaching Guide by Gonzalez and Richards:

   
Quote

We are pleased that Dr. Keas has granted us permission to expand on and adapt his guide for a broader audience. It is appropriate for high school through advanced undergraduate students. It can be used as a supplement for an introductory astronomy or general science course, along with The Privileged Planet and accompanying documentary, an introductory astronomy textbook and perhaps a set of readings on the history of science (e.g., selected chapters from The Book of the Cosmos by Dennis Danielson).


(Emphasis added.)

I suppose a demonstrated inability to ignore inconvenient information could be viewed as a cognitive limitation. To others, it may appear as an essential component of intellectual honesty.


Not everyone affiliated with DI is interested in the politics of ID, and I have seen nothing to suggest Guillermo Gonzalez has pushed his teleological musings in his classes.

Also, you neglect to mention the person they are addressing teaches at a Baptist university.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,00:50   

Quote
Not everyone affiliated with DI is interested in the politics of ID


..and this is based on?

the massive amount of (super secret!) research they haven't published?

their media complaints division?

what, Bob, WHAT?

everyone here is so tired of you pulling your arguments out of your ass.  why don't you go into detail, once, just frickin' ONCE. at least then you could spawn some debate, rather than just coming here to fart every so often.

really, all it does is make you look like an idiot.

you aren't an idiot, are you bobbo?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,01:39   

As I posted to Rob Knop's blog, perhaps the inquisition will soon extend to Owen Gingerich and John Polkinghorne.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,08:13   

Steve s,
† †
Quote
I seem to remember David Heddle claiming that Cosmological ID wasn't a probabalistic argument. Gonzales must not have gotten the memo.

Well, you know how much respect I garner in the ID community!

Anyway, it (cosmological ID) most certainly is not a probabilistic argument (although five years ago I too thought it was), as a simple argument demonstrates. That is: The best thing that could happen to CID is if all the constants were found to have not a tiny probability but the largest possible: unity, i.e. if they are found to be derivable from a fundamental theory. That would be a serious blow to the multiverse explanations of fine tuning, such as the superstring landscape or cosmological evolution, explanations that rely on the fact that there is no fundamental theory, and that the constants are either a random draw or evolve toward a species of universe good at producing black holes. A fundamental theory deriving constants would mean the fine tuning was built in the fabric of spacetime. I'd take that.

Not only did Gonzalez not get that memo, he didnít get the one where I suggested that the main argument from The Privileged Planet is at least slightly anti-ID (in fact, in personal correspondence he disagreed with me on this point). I still think Iím right. The PP argues that observability is correlated with habitability, making arguments like: a large moon is necessary for complex life because it (produces cleansing tides, stabilizes the orbit, facilitates seasons, Ö) and it also helps with observability (eclipses). And our location in Saganís galactic backwater is necessary because (low radiation, stability of the sunís galactic orbit..) and it also helps with observability (a dark nighttime sky.) In other words, they argue that observability rides on the coattails of habitability. (Which, by the way, in and of itself is clearly a premise worthy of studyóif Gonzalez had stayed in the closet that premise, whether or not it proves to be correct, would not have been regarded as pseudo-science.) To me however, a purer ID statement would be that God made the earth habitable and as a bonus and as a tiebreaker in the debate with naturalists, he made it a good observatory, too. †

In other words, if the PP is wrong and obervability is not correlated with habitability, then we have a second prong (the first being fine tuning) on the CID side of the debate.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,10:26   

Quote

Not everyone affiliated with DI is interested in the politics of ID,


First, it isn't necessary that Gonzalez be "interested". I have no way of knowing his inner mental processes to evaluate attention and motivation. That's nothing to do with the subject.

Second, the evidence sure doesn't support the notion that GG is above all that political stuff. One of the DI CRSC's major PR pushes of recent memory was the arrangement to premiere the film, "The Privileged Planet", at the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History. They went so far as to have the PR firm Creative Response Concepts, of "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" fame, manage the negotiations. I don't recall hearing a peep out of GG that the political hullabaloo surrounding that was anything but exactly what he wanted. Quite the contrary, one can read GG's open letter to his critics to see that political engagement is certainly within his repetoire.

Quote

and I have seen nothing to suggest Guillermo Gonzalez has pushed his teleological musings in his classes.


How would that matter, precisely? There is the joke about the lawyer who responded to the news that the prosecution would call three eye-witnesses to testify that his client had killed the victim in front of them with, "Well, I will call THIRTY witnesses who will testify that they did not see him do it!" We have the evidence of GG compiling a study guide and having it disseminated via the DI website, a study guide that he says is aimed at high school classrooms. This  goes well beyond what may happen in ISU classrooms.

Quote

Also, you neglect to mention the person they are addressing teaches at a Baptist university.


How would that matter, precisely? Again, the distribution on that study guide obviously goes beyond "a Baptist university".

I've heard that the Chronicle of Higher Education article on GG and ISU claims that GG has not brought in any external funding to his department. Can someone who has access to the full article confirm or deny this?

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

    
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,11:14   

Quote
That would be a serious blow to the multiverse explanations of fine tuning, such as the superstring landscape or cosmological evolution, explanations that rely on the fact that there is no fundamental theory...


This isn't correct is it?  I'm no cosmologist but theories such as M-Theory and brane worlds do not imply that there is no fundamental theory of everything, right?  In fact, string theory  (as far out and perhaps untestable as it is) is a quest for a unified theory.  So I don't get how disproving any of these is really an argument for CID.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,11:53   

blipey,

Quote
This isn't correct is it? †I'm no cosmologist but theories such as M-Theory and brane worlds do not imply that there is no fundamental theory of everything, right? †In fact, string theory †(as far out and perhaps untestable as it is) is a quest for a unified theory. †So I don't get how disproving any of these is really an argument for CID.


Actually, it is correct. You'll notice that I wrote of the string theory landscape, not string theory proper. The landscape explicitly teaches that the values of the constants would be, effectively, a random draw from something like 10^1000 possibilities. That's how it explains the fine tuning. Susskind, for example, argues that the search for a fundamental theory is something akin to religion (which you might characterize as an announcement of the death of physics), and he also argues that if the landscape theory is wrong, it will be very hard to answer the cosmological IDists.

Susskind, in fact, gives provides some of the clearest writing on fine-tuning. Why? Certainly not because he is an IDist. He detests ID. But rather to show the necessity for the landscape theoryóa theory which does indeed rely on the premise that there will be no fundamental theory uncovered from which the constants can be derived.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,11:57   

Dave, I'm not a physicist like you (but we both went to Cornell) - are there two potential 'planes of infinite' for universe creation: Infinite time (backwards) and infinite universes?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,12:07   

Richard,

I didn't go to Cornell; I went to Carnegie Mellon.

Yes, if I understand your question, a theoretical infinity of universes can arise, depending on the model, either in series or in parallel (or both.)

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,12:12   

Quote (heddle @ May 21 2007,12:07)
Richard,

I didn't go to Cornell; I went to Carnegie Mellon.

Yes, if I understand your question, a theoretical infinity of universes can arise, depending on the model, either in series or in parallel (or both.)

Sorry about the school confusion Dave.  I'm careful playing probability games with anything that contains an 'infinite' and at least one positive occurrence. Do you remember 'Drake's equation' - I guess that was the first time I thought about such things. Personally, I think the universe would be a much more fun place if life and intelligence were common emergent properties.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,12:46   

Yes, I know the Drake equation. I'm not a big fan for two reasons: 1) We don't really know what probabilities to put in and 2) we don't really know when to stop the multiplicative chain--you can keep tacking on additional probabilities under the assumption that they are additional independent requirements for intelligent life. In some cases you might be right--but the end result is you can get any answer you please, more or less.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,13:52   

Quote (heddle @ May 21 2007,12:46)
Yes, I know the Drake equation. I'm not a big fan for two reasons: 1) We don't really know what probabilities to put in and 2) we don't really know when to stop the multiplicative chain--you can keep tacking on additional probabilities under the assumption that they are additional independent requirements for intelligent life. In some cases you might be right--but the end result is you can get any answer you please, more or less.

I'll never see honesty like that from an IDer, Dave.

;)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8883
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,14:24   

Rather than argue with you about your fine-tuner religious beliefs--probably the least productive thing I can imagine doing--I'd be interested in hearing what you think the IDers/Creationists are going to do, post-Dover, in terms of political strategy. We've pondered the question here before, with little success. Are they going to promote summer bible-'science' camps? Focus on more religious 3rd world countries? Change their name and try the courts again?

   
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,15:59   

Steve S,


Quote
Rather than argue with you about your fine-tuner religious beliefs--probably the least productive thing I can imagine doing--I'd be interested in hearing what you think the IDers/Creationists are going to do, post-Dover, in terms of political strategy. We've pondered the question here before, with little success. Are they going to promote summer bible-'science' camps? Focus on more religious 3rd world countries? Change their name and try the courts again?


I have no clue. I can only hope that they stop embarrassing Christianity via unbiblical ends-justify-the-means politicking and their incessant victimhood-esque whining. While I can hope, Iím not optimistic.

Actually, what I'd like to see, short of their going away altogether, is that they redirect their energies to improving science education in Christian schools. I am appalled when I look at the science offerings at many Christian colleges.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,16:05   

Quote (heddle @ May 21 2007,15:59)
Steve S,


† †
Quote
Rather than argue with you about your fine-tuner religious beliefs--probably the least productive thing I can imagine doing--I'd be interested in hearing what you think the IDers/Creationists are going to do, post-Dover, in terms of political strategy. We've pondered the question here before, with little success. Are they going to promote summer bible-'science' camps? Focus on more religious 3rd world countries? Change their name and try the courts again?


I have no clue. I can only hope that they stop embarrassing Christianity via unbiblical ends-justify-the-means politicking and their incessant victimhood-esque whining. While I can hope, Iím not optimistic.

Actually, what I'd like to see, short of their going away altogether, is that they redirect their energies to improving science education in Christian schools. I am appalled when I look at the science offerings at many Christian colleges.


Dave Heddle in strong running for Post-of-the-Week!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8883
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,17:38   

Quote (heddle @ May 21 2007,16:59)
Steve S,


   
Quote
Rather than argue with you about your fine-tuner religious beliefs--probably the least productive thing I can imagine doing--I'd be interested in hearing what you think the IDers/Creationists are going to do, post-Dover, in terms of political strategy. We've pondered the question here before, with little success. Are they going to promote summer bible-'science' camps? Focus on more religious 3rd world countries? Change their name and try the courts again?


I have no clue. I can only hope that they stop embarrassing Christianity via unbiblical ends-justify-the-means politicking and their incessant victimhood-esque whining. While I can hope, Iím not optimistic.

Actually, what I'd like to see, short of their going away altogether, is that they redirect their energies to improving science education in Christian schools. I am appalled when I look at the science offerings at many Christian colleges.

For several years I paid the rent by tutoring high school and college kids in math and science. Once, I briefly had a client in Biology who went to that christian high school in north Raleigh. They were using Biology: God's Living Creation. I recommend flipping through that book, or reading excerpts on the internet, if you don't know what Heddle means when he says he's appalled. Yikes.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8883
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,17:48   

I don't know how many biblical literalists there are. I've seen estimates from around 30% to as high as 63% of the American public. In whichever case, as long as a large fraction of Americans are biblical literalists, there will be a strong and embarrassing anti-science movement.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8883
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,17:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2007,17:05)
Quote (heddle @ May 21 2007,15:59)
Steve S,


     
Quote
Rather than argue with you about your fine-tuner religious beliefs--probably the least productive thing I can imagine doing--I'd be interested in hearing what you think the IDers/Creationists are going to do, post-Dover, in terms of political strategy. We've pondered the question here before, with little success. Are they going to promote summer bible-'science' camps? Focus on more religious 3rd world countries? Change their name and try the courts again?


I have no clue. I can only hope that they stop embarrassing Christianity via unbiblical ends-justify-the-means politicking and their incessant victimhood-esque whining. While I can hope, Iím not optimistic.

Actually, what I'd like to see, short of their going away altogether, is that they redirect their energies to improving science education in Christian schools. I am appalled when I look at the science offerings at many Christian colleges.


Dave Heddle in strong running for Post-of-the-Week!

Heddle's is a good post. It reminds me that although I'm merely amused by the ID wackos, if I were a christian, I'd be downright pissed at them. Salvador above all.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,18:33   

Dave Heddle in strong running for Post-of-the-Week![/quote]
Heddle's is a good post. It reminds me that although I'm merely amused by the ID wackos, if I were a christian, I'd be downright pissed at them. Salvador above all.[/quote]


If Salvador did not exist, Heddle would have to create him.




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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8883
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,13:45   

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: The Gonzales Persecution Case Weakens

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,15:10   

Let us all bask in the warm glow of IDers' ability to shoot themselves in the foot time and time again:

Quote
According to a news item in Nature, Gonzalez is appealing on grounds that his support of ID is part of his religious beliefs, and the university is guilty of religious discrimination against him.


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,15:29   

Arden,

I know what you are saying--but speaking purely theoretically, suppose:

P1) Gonzalez believes ID is science
P2) ISU believes ID is religion
P3) ISU denies tenure on the basis of Gozalez's ID

Would it then follow that it is outrageous to claim that the university based its decision on religious grounds?

I think it's an interesting question. I don't really have an opinion.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,15:45   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2007,15:10)
Let us all bask in the warm glow of IDers' ability to shoot themselves in the foot time and time again:

 
Quote
According to a news item in Nature, Gonzalez is appealing on grounds that his support of ID is part of his religious beliefs, and the university is guilty of religious discrimination against him.

That must be a mistake as the man in question is a fellow of the DI ,I understand, and if anybody would know if ID is religion it would be one of them.

And anyway, that would contradict what DaveSCot, King of the Tards has to say about it
Quote
I understand that Guillermo doesnít believe ID is religion but his personal opinion has no bearing and he neednít make any statement that he personally believes ID is not religion. He only needs to argue that ID is religion in the opinion of federal courts. If the justice system considers ID religion then Guillermo had his civil rights violated by Iowa State University. There can be only two outcomes - the court hearing Guillermo holds that ID is not religion and thus his civil rights were not violated (a win for ID) or the court holds that his civil rights were violated and rules that universities cannot use ID to discriminate against faculty on that basis (also a win for ID). I donít see any downside. Either way ID comes out better for it.

I started to go through and add highlights, but simpler to bold it all. Link
And then there is this

Which was easier to copy then quote :)
Link
And then there is this classic, easier with teh google highlighting

Link
I mean, if a fellow of the Discovery institution says ID is RELIGION, then, well, who am I to argue? Appeal on religious discrimination grounds indeed.
Here's a nice one

Quote
The people that are really bringing religion into the ID/evolution debate are atheists.
Link
And on Dover
Quote
The trial is about whether what is being taught at the Dover HS that is religion or not. If itís religion itís a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause.

Same thread
Quote
Teaching religion may be unconstitutional but teaching nonsense isnít. It doesnít matter one iota whether ID is valid science or not. All that matters is whether or not itís an establishment of religion.

Quote
But the trial isnít about science. ID doesnít need to be science. It needs to be NOT religion and thatís all it needs to be. It could be zen basket weaving as long as it isnít religion. The constitution doesnít prohibit the government from making laws regarding the establishment of basket weaving. What we should really do is pan the science experts altogether and just use doctors of theology to testify that the ID in question is not religion.
Link
Hmm, better get those Zen basket weavers up to speed then DS!
And so on and so forth.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,16:03   

Quote (heddle @ May 24 2007,15:29)
Arden,

I know what you are saying--but speaking purely theoretically, suppose:

P1) Gonzalez believes ID is science
P2) ISU believes ID is religion
P3) ISU denies tenure on the basis of Gozalez's ID

Would it then follow that it is outrageous to claim that the university based its decision on religious grounds?

I think it's an interesting question. I don't really have an opinion.

Well, that begs several questions.

P1: It seems that if GG thinks ID is science, then that would kind of clash with his statement that being anti-ID is equivalent to being anti-religion. I don't know, tho, from GG's perspective, he might think ID is both science and religion at the same time. But it's a vacuous statement anyway: if he allows that ID is science, then ISU can counter that they denied tenure to GG for (among other reasons) his scientific views. Bye bye religious discrimination claims.

P2: except that ISU has clearly stated that several levels of the administration there had multiple reasons for not tenuring GG. It's been possible to tease out several things in GG's track record that would be enough to sink any tenure-track prof: not having any of his students finish their dissertations, coasting for several years on old postdoc research, not bringing in grant money. Thus, the burden of proof is on GG to prove that none of those reasons were at play and that it's all religious discrimination. Not a task I'd envy.

Of course, if GG sticks with the ID-is-religion tactic, it makes it that much harder for others who claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, obviously. So from ID's perspective, it seems to be a rather, uh, short-sighted tactic.

Frankly, the harder I think about it, the harder it is for me to see what exactly GG & the DI hope to accomplish here. I personally think it will be quite impossible for GG to successfully claim religious discrimination, so it's hard to see how any of this will benefit GG. The only angle I can see is that it's being played up for PR purposes.

As has been pointed out many times now, the DI creating this uproar has made GG completely radioactive -- I can't imagine anyone this side of Liberty or Bob Jones picking him up now. Is that something that GG wanted?

Also, another dimension that's only been discussed a little is that it's very hard to imagine that GG didn't see this coming for several years, which makes it look like (a) GG didn't see the point in trying to rectify his situation when he could, and (b) there's something pretty disingenuous about his reaction now. In other words, maybe after Privileged Planet, he just decided to run out the clock at ISU and to deliberately cause a spectacle when ISU turned him down. Perhaps he figured being a martyr/hero to the DI looked like a pretty good option, regardless of what it did to his career.

Either way, there seem to have been several factors in GG's career at ISU that would have sunk hundreds of other profs, and so I'm not too sympathetic about the claim that GG deserves to be judged for tenure on a whole different set of rules from everyone else. As someone pointed out (you? Harbison?), tenure is best viewed as a privilege, not a right.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,16:16   

Ah, Dave Scot, self-taught jailhouse lawyer.

Given Dave's uncanny ability to predict how Dover would go ('we own the courts, now, too'/'Judge Jones won't want to cut his career off at the knees'), we should take him very seriously now.

Let's look at this tard a little closer:

Quote
I understand that Guillermo doesnít believe ID is religion but his personal opinion has no bearing and he neednít make any statement that he personally believes ID is not religion. He only needs to argue that ID is religion in the opinion of federal courts. If the justice system considers ID religion then Guillermo had his civil rights violated by Iowa State University. There can be only two outcomes - the court hearing Guillermo holds that ID is not religion and thus his civil rights were not violated (a win for ID) or the court holds that his civil rights were violated and rules that universities cannot use ID to discriminate against faculty on that basis (also a win for ID). I donít see any downside. Either way ID comes out better for it.


Sooo... let me disentangle this: ID isn't religion, and GG doesn't think it is, but he should claim it IS religion in the courts (isn't that bearing false witness?), so that he can either (a) win a case of religious discrimination, or (b) LOSE his case, thus 'proving' ID is not religion.

No, Dave, you tard, there's a third choice: ISU points out all the other reasons for not tenuring GG, GG's claims of religious discrimination get laughed out of court, GG stays unemployed, and the DI goes on record as saying ID is religion.

Message to Dave: haven't you been convinced by now that ID has been very ill-served by depending on lawsuits instead of research?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,16:28   

ALRIGHT SHUT UP AND LISTEN CAUSE I'M TALKING, ADREN CHATTERBOX. IDISTS DO PLENTLY OR RESEARCH.

1) TEH GOOGLE.

EVERY DAY I PUT "INTELLIGENT", "DESIGN" AND "SCIENCE" INTO TEH GOOGLE AND REPORT BACK TO BILL. TEH GOOGLE IS PEER REVIEWED, RIGHT? SAL TAUGHT ME TO PUT QOUTES AROUND "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" SO THE GOOGLE LOOKS FOR THEM BOTH TOGTHER. I THINK THIS PROBABLY DOUBLED THE CSI OF MY SEARCH AND VIOLATED SLOT A BIT MORE

2) BIOLOGIC LABS.

SADLY, DUE TO BUDGETARY CUT BACKS WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE MUCHROOM CULTIVATION IN TEH IMMOBILE DESIGN CENTER. I'VE BEAN GROWING MUSHROOMS FOR 2 YEARS NOW AND HOW MANY HAVE EVOLVED INTO MONKEYS? GO ON HAVE A GUESS.



ZERO.



ANOTHER HOMO LIBERALIST CHURCG BURNIGN STERNBERGER OF A MYTH ASSPLOADED.

3) TEH BIBLE.

SAL TELLS ME ITS COMPLETELY CORRECT IN ALL BATS AND WHERE IT DOESN'T JIVE (DENYSE TOLD ME TO USE SNAPPY HIP LANGUAGE LIKE JIVE, WHICH SHE TELLS ME "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" IS SUCH A BIG SUCESS") WHERE WAS I THAT COMA BIT WAS TOO LONG.. OH YEAH IF THEY DONT JIVE WITH REALITY THEN ITS BEACUSE WE NEED TO MADE SCIENCE WORK TO AGREE WITH TEH BIBLE OR PERHAPS SATAN AND HIS MINIONS HAVE INTERVENED.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,17:04   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2007,16:28)
(DENYSE TOLD ME TO USE SNAPPY HIP LANGUAGE LIKE JIVE, WHICH SHE TELLS ME "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" IS SUCH A BIG SUCESS")

No, she said that OE was "Such a big suck fest".

Clean out your ears.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8883
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,17:10   

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2007,18:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2007,16:28)
(DENYSE TOLD ME TO USE SNAPPY HIP LANGUAGE LIKE JIVE, WHICH SHE TELLS ME "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" IS SUCH A BIG SUCESS")

No, she said that OE was "Such a big suck fest".

Clean out your ears.

How is OE doing these days?

Quote
Recent comments

   * marketing?
     4 days 29 min ago
   * Wiki Bias
     5 days 1 hour ago
   * content
     6 days 6 hours ago
   * Huh, odd. There "should" be
     6 days 7 hours ago
   * and the real posters too...
     1 week 13 hours ago
   * Sorry To Hear That
     3 weeks 1 day ago


Oh.

   
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,17:31   

If GG won a court case over this based on religious discrimination, wouldnít that ruling be helpful in future cases where ID proponents were claiming it as science?

If thatís the case I almost hope he wins. †:O

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
  226 replies since May 13 2007,01:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 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]