RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: DIs new book ", My irony meter just blew up....< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,08:07   

This is being talked about at TPT, but I am overcome with the irony and I had to post about it here...

A new self published DI book attacking the Jones ruling:

Traipsing Into Evolution

One of the "expert legal" co-authors - David DeWolf

A previous one of DeWolf's "expert" books on legal matters:

Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook

A quote from this DI fellow's brilliant legal mind from that guidebook:

Quote
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.


I need to go to the store now, my irony meter seems to have blown up.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Henry J



Posts: 5758
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,08:41   

Do ya suppose the manufacturers of irony meters might be behind the "controversy", in order to boost their sales? ;)

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,10:57   

I think the scientist's argument against the inclusion of ID would be better accepted if it weren't so obvious that other scientific "findings" are being manipulated or totally excluded in other public school curriculum.  For instance, the overwhelming scientific evidence of AIDS contraction being mainly a homosexual disease or IQ difference between the races would be just two examples.  Then there is the whole issue of abortion versus conception.   Again, where are the scientists in this debate?  Eugenics?  An so on and so forth?  Science seems to be acquiring a value system based on political concerns.  If you can't see it, you don't want to.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:12   

What the heck do ID and science (I mean research) have to do with homosexuality, IQ, abortion and eugenics? How is this relevant to the topic, you f*cking homophobic racist? ???

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:29   

Really.
What is it about ID that leads its supporters to also embrace reactionary idiocies like this? Wanna throw in some Global Warming denial, there dooddy? Got any genocides you can apologize for?

Do they feel an overwhelming need to be wrong about everything?

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

  
Xavier du Barry



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:41   

Thordaddy

If one examines the dialectic paradigm of discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject pretextual nationalism or conclude that sexuality is intrinsically dead, given that neotextual nihilism is valid. If the dialectic paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between cultural discourse and subpatriarchial objectivism. Thus, Sontag uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote not narrative, but prenarrative.

The primary theme of de Selby’s analysis of the dialectic paradigm of discourse is the role of the reader as artist. The fatal flaw of pretextual nationalism depicted in Eco’s The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics) is also evident in The Island of the Day Before, although in a more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘the dialectic paradigm of discourse’ to denote the common ground between narrativity and class.

Any number of discourses concerning expressionism exist. But the subject is interpolated into a dialectic paradigm of discourse that includes culture as a totality.

Derrida uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote a neosemiotic paradox. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the bridge between society and class.

Bataille uses the term ‘the cultural paradigm of reality’ to denote not narrative as such, but postnarrative. In a sense, Baudrillard suggests the use of expressionism to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of reality.

Buxton states that we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of discourse and subconstructive desemanticism. However, the main theme of von Junz’s model of expressionism is the common ground between society and class.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:42   

What professional objective responses?  You've both made my point.  Science is supposed to be an objective pursuit and yet it is clear that the practitioners of science are anything but objective.  

You believe your arguments against ID are on solid foundation when it is clear that other scientific findings are readily available for political considerations.  Why can one not assume that the debate against ID is just another political consideration that has little to do with science?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:46   

Xavier,

I'll bet you money you can summarize your thoughts in a sentence or two?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:47   

Quote
Then there is the whole issue of abortion versus conception.   Again, where are the scientists in this debate?
Apparently holed up in our labs. I had no idea there even was a debate on "abortion vs. conception"!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:59   

How did my most excellent post about the stupidity of one of the the DI's top legal guns get side tracked into abortion, etc?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:01   

Russell,

Does the public school system teach that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the extermination of human life?  Again, the scientists seem to be focused in on one debate while your "findings" are being manipulated and excluded in other aspects of the education system.  Are you unaware of this situation?  Just look at jeannot and O'Brien's responses?  Obliviousness!

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:10   

-Trolldaddy-
Quote
Science proves that AIDS is the result of homosexuality,and also that some "races" are dumber than others.

-Sane persons-
Quote
Science does no such thing, and also you are a racist bigot.

-Trolldaddy-
Quote
Denying the truth I see, and also name-calling. That proves you are not objective; I win at the Intarwebs.


Guys, stop feeding the troll already, and let it get back under whatever bridge he crawled out from. Sheesh.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:11   

:01-->
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18:01)
Russell,

Does the public school system teach that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the extermination of human life?  Again, the scientists seem to be focused in on one debate while your "findings" are being manipulated and excluded in other aspects of the education system.  Are you unaware of this situation?  Just look at jeannot and O'Brien's responses?  Obliviousness!

So, the discovery institute's legal gun, David DeWolf is a complete retard when it comes to the law, he is partially responsible for the Dover school districts 1 million in legal fees and now he has co-authored a book taking Judge Jones to task yet the schools should teach more about abortion?

Yeah I can see the connection there.  Sure...Perhaps we should also examine the relationship between grape jelly and peanut butter.  Two items that modern science seems to be avoiding if you know what I mean.  When was the last time you saw an evolutionist even speak on the topic of grape jelly and peanut butter.  Who are they trying to fool?

Thordaddy, how long will we let them get away with that is my question.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:11   

Mr Christopher,

This thread has nothing to do with abortion per se, but instead engages upon the silliness of the scientist's singular focus on ID.  Scientific findings are regularly used, manipulated and excluded within the public school system based on political considerations.  And yet, we only really hear the scientists when the debate revolves around ID.  Why?

The answer is quite simple.  The scientists are politicized themselves and know what's good and what is not good in regards to their own self-interest.  

So I ask, where are the scientists in the IQ debates, eugenics, AIDS and homosexuality or abortion and conception?  Why don't we hear the triumphant findings of the scientists in these areas of scientific exploration as it pertains to public education?  Where is the objectiveness?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5758
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:16   

Perhaps somebody should look at the title of this bullitin board? ;)

It says: "Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution"

At a guess, people discussing those other things are probably doing it on BB's that were set up for those subjects?

Sheesh.

Henry

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:17   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18:11)
Mr Christopher,

This thread has nothing to do with abortion per se, but instead engages upon the silliness of the scientist's singular focus on ID.  Scientific findings are regularly used, manipulated and excluded within the public school system based on political considerations.  And yet, we only really hear the scientists when the debate revolves around ID.  Why?

The answer is quite simple.  The scientists are politicized themselves and know what's good and what is not good in regards to their own self-interest.  

So I ask, where are the scientists in the IQ debates, eugenics, AIDS and homosexuality or abortion and conception?  Why don't we hear the triumphant findings of the scientists in these areas of scientific exploration as it pertains to public education?  Where is the objectiveness?

thordaddy, the scientists are too busy wasting time and resources addressing the sneaky, lying, cheating, scumbags known as ID theorists who are trying to wedge fundamentalist christianity/creationism in our public school.  THAT is where they all are.

No telling what scientists would be doing if they were not having to devote so much energy to keeping the DI from making all american children scientifically retarded.

By the way, oh never mind.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:51   

Quote
So I ask, where are the scientists in the IQ debates, eugenics, AIDS and homosexuality or abortion and conception?  Why don't we hear the triumphant findings of the scientists in these areas of scientific exploration as it pertains to public education?  Where is the objectiveness?
Let's bear one thing in mind: biology is a really basic part of high school education. Every high school student I've ever known had to take some biology. Evolution is pretty much the heart and soul of biology, so when the wing-nuts take aim at evolution, they get the attention of a large proportion of scientists.

The "IQ debates"? What are they? How do they relate to high school curricula? What subject area should they be taken up in?

AIDS and homosexuality? What do you want the schools to teach? So far as I can tell, it's the same wing-nuts that want to downplay evolution who don't want the schools talking about sexuality at all. Heck, isn't Phil Johnson - the godfather of ID - one of the most outspoken skeptics of HIV as a cause of AIDS? Is that what we should be teaching?  Yes, homosexual men are at somewhat higher risk for contracting HIV than other groups. Most scientists favor more education on the subject, not less. But it's not scientists who stand in the way; it's the wing-nuts with their abstinence-only nonsense.

Abortion and conception? There's nothing particularly "scientific" about assigning an arbitrary definition to "when life begins". Scientists have been trying to tell you that life began more than 3 billion years ago. But again, the wing-nuts don't want to hear about it.

One could argue that scientists should be more active, and more public, about issues like pollution, global warming, etc. but somehow I don't think that would make Thordaddy very happy.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,13:01   

And the simple answer of course is that science has ruled both on claims of AIDS caused and spread by homosexuals alone, and of a supposed difference in IQ between "races".
And that rule is that both claims are complete BS.
The reason we don't hear about it is not because scientists don't try to defend their stance- they don't have to: Unlike with the whole antievolution movement, not even the fundiest fundie funder would be suicidal enough to fund a movement promoting racism.
Their PR department could try and make something with "we don't come from no stinking ape", but would lose their minds if they had to work with "white heterosexuals rule"...
So, thankfully, scientists don't have to spend that extra time  showing to those jerks how they talk out or their arse as well as the IDers.

...But you already know all that, right Trolldaddy? You're just trying to be provoking to gain some extra attention, as it slowly wanes. And it worked, too: You got mine. Good for you. Now go away.








...And no, I'm not discussing abortion with you. If you're running out of "agruments", well, tough luck: You shouldn't have come to a forum whose subject is clearly not your forte. Go find some abortion forum to do your trolling.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,13:18   

Better yet, he should get his mother to have an abortion.
The world would be better off without him.

I heard a rumor that the dance of the virgins in thordaddy's home town was cancelled.  His daughter wasn't eligible and his wife refused to dance alone...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,17:07   

Surely Not,

I realize we take many of the same sides on issues, but I can't say I necessarily agree with your Margaret Sanger impersonation.  Although, I am quite surprised that your posts haven't been met with condemnation.  Maybe you're on to something about the void in values among scientists.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1551
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,21:18   

Quote
Although, I am quite surprised that your posts haven't been met with condemnation.


We're generally a very tolerant bunch, here, Thordaddy, (We tolerate your vacuous, pointless, contentless posts, don't we?). If you would prefer tighter moderation I suggest you try Uncommon Descent or, well, any other blog really.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,09:50   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Does the public school system teach that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the extermination of human life?

If one more anti-choicer says "life begins at conception" my stupidity meter is going to blow up. Is an unfertilized cell not "alive," Thordaddy? Is a sperm cell not "alive"? Is an epithelial cell lining your lower intestine not "alive"?

This whole "life begins at conception" argument has got to be the dumbest argument the religious right has ever come up with. Using the same logic, I could argue that scraping your tongue with your toothbrush in the morning is murder, because of all the living cells you're killing.

Give me a @#$%!ing break.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,10:07   

Clearly, Thordaddy can't make the difference between life and consciousness.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,01:12   

ericmurphy,

That strawman took a #### of a beating from you.  Are those quotes you use around "life begins at conception" supposed to signify something I said?  Are you now claiming that the conventional scientific wisdom is that life does not begin at conception?  When does it begin, scientifically-speaking?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,01:18   

Russel,

Is it your contention that no debate beyond that involving ID and evolution are to be found between science and the public school system?  And you really wonder why some religious people think science is highly politicized?  Are they not witnessing a group of hypocrites?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,04:36   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 26 2006,07:18)
Russel,

Is it your contention that no debate beyond that involving ID and evolution are to be found between science and the public school system?  And you really wonder why some religious people think science is highly politicized?  Are they not witnessing a group of hypocrites?

What does that mean? I have read it several times and cannot make sense of it.

Go ahead and blame it on my reading comprehension if you wish but I can't see a clear point in your post.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,05:11   

I think he is repeating an earlier charge which has already been addressed.  

This charge states that when scientists speak about the scientific method establishing a position of ethical neutrality, that they are being dishonest.  He is trying to say, "it ain't just the facts ma'am, its what you do with them."  

His evidence is that scientific data is used, often by scientists themselves, to promote or refute ideas that may run counter to those promoted by others.  

In other words, since scientists are often political, he seems to think it hyprocritical that they engage in political discourse using scientific data to back their positions, if the data itself is neutral.

More specifically, in light of this alleged hyprocrisy, he finds it reprehensible that scientists should speak in favor of or against particular lessons in public schools.  If science itself is morally neutral, then scientists should keep out of politics.  This goes doubly for any instruction that he disagrees with on the basis his own political or ethical foundations.

In short, scientists should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.  Only religious people unaffiliated with science should have the right to decide public policy in general, and educational policy in particular.

Anyway, that's what I make out of his rambling.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,09:17   

Thordude:
Quote
Russel,
Is it your contention that no debate beyond that involving ID and evolution are to be found between science and the public school system?  And you really wonder why some religious people think science is highly politicized?  Are they not witnessing a group of hypocrites?

Stephen Elliott:
Quote
What does that mean? I have read it several times and cannot make sense of it.
I can't make any sense out of it either. Perhaps, if there is some meaning behind it, Thordude will rephrase it in a non-spluttering way.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:26   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 26 2006,07:12)
 Are those quotes you use around "life begins at conception" supposed to signify something I said?  Are you now claiming that the conventional scientific wisdom is that life does not begin at conception?  When does it begin, scientifically-speaking?

It's something you did say, hence the quotes (yes, I'm aware you're attributing the words to someone else).

The concept of trying to figure out where life "begins" is pointless. If something is alive, it's alive. The whole argument is breathtakingly stupid, and to even ask the question shows you don't have a clue. And given the number of "pro-lifers" who are also pro-death penalty…don't even get me started.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,20:48   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 26 2006,07:18)
Russel,

Is it your contention that no debate beyond that involving ID and evolution are to be found between science and the public school system?  And you really wonder why some religious people think science is highly politicized?  Are they not witnessing a group of hypocrites?

I think I finally understand.

It looks like Thordaddy is saying:

"There are several topics in the public school system that scientists are interfeering in. They are doing so for political reasons and not scientific. Therefore the whole scientific community is dishonest."  


At least I think that is what he saying.

Thordaddys use of language has me pulling my hair out. His refusal to just state things clearly is irritating.

  
  117 replies since Mar. 23 2006,08:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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