RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 >   
  Topic: The Discovery Institute Thread, Everyone's Favorite Propaganda Mill< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2013,15:07   

Gregory is edging closer to the abyss by divulging secrets from the DI's inner sanctum:  
Quote
The Discovery Institute doesn’t publish the names of its supposed ‘next generation’ scholars, i.e. its summer program students. It tells students, on the first night, to intentionally hide their identities, to use pseudonyms, to pretend that they are someone else if they want to be taken seriously. Stephen C. Meyer is part of this planned trickery. PeterJ might have graduated from kindergarten but most likely didn’t finish high school if one measures the relevance of his posts. Yet he has the nerve to yell against accredited scholars who reject IDT. Why? Simply because they reject IDT and because PeterJ has gullibly become an IDist. This is one of the most sickening examples at Uncommon Descent – no willingness to deal with arguments and only a demonstrated desire to attack persons.

If IDists think that most scholars actually assess themselves according to IDist ideology, they are only fooling themselves. So I’m a ‘bad commenter’ on the ‘scale’ of PeterJ. So what? That’s like telling me that my orange juice is sour according to someone who’s never seen or tasted an orange. Not a credible judge.

He won't last much longer.

My bolding

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2013,15:24   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 22 2013,13:07)
Gregory is edging closer to the abyss by divulging secrets from the DI's inner sanctum:    
Quote
The Discovery Institute doesn’t publish the names of its supposed ‘next generation’ scholars, i.e. its summer program students. It tells students, on the first night, to intentionally hide their identities, to use pseudonyms, to pretend that they are someone else if they want to be taken seriously. Stephen C. Meyer is part of this planned trickery. PeterJ might have graduated from kindergarten but most likely didn’t finish high school if one measures the relevance of his posts. Yet he has the nerve to yell against accredited scholars who reject IDT. Why? Simply because they reject IDT and because PeterJ has gullibly become an IDist. This is one of the most sickening examples at Uncommon Descent – no willingness to deal with arguments and only a demonstrated desire to attack persons.

If IDists think that most scholars actually assess themselves according to IDist ideology, they are only fooling themselves. So I’m a ‘bad commenter’ on the ‘scale’ of PeterJ. So what? That’s like telling me that my orange juice is sour according to someone who’s never seen or tasted an orange. Not a credible judge.

He won't last much longer.

My bolding

Brilliant - two benefits in one.  Generates an atmosphere of paranoia and persecution among the punters, and prevents the rest of us from seeing what the "scholars" are studying, and where they're studying it.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Kantian Naturalist



Posts: 72
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2013,15:50   

One of the interesting things about Gregory is how deeply he's been influenced by Steve Fuller.  Fuller is an American sociologist of science who teaches at the University of Warwick.  Fuller considers the strict division of "church" and "state" to be a feature of the American political system that ought to have no bearing on intelligent design.  Rather, on his view, there is no scientific objection to just biting the bullet and saying that biology is divine technology.

Gregory seems to have taken this to heart in a very odd way -- he thinks that intelligent design ought to be a comprehensive metaphysical system, rather than an empirical scientific theory.  (That's what he was getting at in trying to distinguish between "big ID" and "small id."  Gifted with words, he is not.)  

But, unfortunately for Gregory, the entire design movement is premised upon a contradiction -- the cultural-political movement wants to blur the boundary between science and metaphysics, but the epistemic authority of the theory requires a very sharp distinction between science and metaphysics.  

Some of them will insist on a distinction between "the content of the theory" and "what the theory implies" or "what the theory might imply".  But this simply collapses, on closer inspection.  Firstly, no scientific theory has implications which go beyond the boundaries of the theory itself.  A theory just *is* a set of sentences and the implications between them.  So anything implied by those sentences just is part of the theory itself.  Secondly, there are no "possible implications" -- if one sentence implies another, then it does (and, according to some philosophers, does so *necessarily*).  

If they wanted to maintain a strict line between science and metaphysics, then they'd have to say something like, "here's this metaphysical view which has it's own <I>a priori</I> basis, and here's this scientific theory which has its own <I>a posteriori</I> basis, and they sort of line up with one another".   It's a much weaker relation than any sort of implication, and much more like mere association -- and association has an epistemic authority of fuck-all.  (One nice thing about AFBC -- I can curse all I want!)  

They want this to be "just about the science" ("following the evidence wherever it leads"), and they want this to be a culture-war fight for the soul of Western civilization, but they can't have it both ways, and they don't like being told so.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2013,16:20   

Some months ago, there was a lengthy discussion about Fuller's ideas over at UD which I found very interesting. Of course Gregory didn't succeed in convincing the denizens.
Did you read it?

As for swearing, just wait until k.e. imitates Dave Scot, all caps, starting with "HOMO!!!"

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2013,01:33   

I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2013,01:43   

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 23 2013,01:33)
I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

I tend to place atheism in league with solipsism, hard to sell.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2013,01:51   

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 22 2013,23:33)
I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

Sung to the tune of the Oscar Mayer wiener song:


I'm glad I'm not a stephen meyer whiner, that is what I'd truly hate to be
and if I were a stephen meyer whiner, everyone would know I'm a cry-ba-by

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2013,02:06   

Quote (Quack @ April 22 2013,23:43)
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 23 2013,01:33)
I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

I tend to place atheism in league with solipsism, hard to sell.

Yeah, promises of forgiveness, healing, protection, answered prayers, the love of 'God', and an afterlife in a heavenly paradise make for a much more lucrative sales pitch, especially when combined with threats of a miserable life and eternal torment in a lake of fire if you don't buy the snake oil.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2013,16:05   

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 23 2013,01:33)
I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

Shouldn't the DI stop lying. Cdesign propensists, the wedge, now that, has greatly diminished ID to creationism. Stop lying DIdiots.

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2013,16:56   

Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 26 2013,16:05)
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 23 2013,01:33)
I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

Shouldn't the DI stop lying. Cdesign propensists, the wedge, now that, has greatly diminished ID to creationism. Stop lying DIdiots.

evidence for a designer - his undershirt turns from white to red half way through...

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

  
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2013,19:32   

More education nonsense

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4901
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2013,14:52   

Casey Luskin is really annoyed that American law students are learning that IDC lost in the Kitzmiller case in 2005.

Towards the end, Casey notes his source rooting IDC in William Paley's arguments in "natural theology". Casey doesn't like that one little bit.

 
Quote

This is "the 'intelligent design theory'"? Really? Nothing more than how "Paley thereby attempts to explain the creation as the work of God, the watchmaker"? No mention of any modern ID theorists, such as those who have lived in the past 100 years? No mention of irreducible complexity or specified complexity? Just Paley -- and nothing more.


Maybe Casey hasn't read the Rev. Paley's 1802 book, "Natural Theology". I have. The four major IDC arguments are plainly derived from and, in my opinion, are simply elaborations of Paley's arguments. Those include "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", anthropic principles, and the "privileged planet" arguments. "Modern ID theorists" are gilding Paley, nothing more. They write more words in a more obfuscated way, but they don't deliver anything beyond what Paley did. And I don't see the problem with characterizing IDC as neo-Paleyism. It is certainly more accurate than what Casey wants to offer.

If Casey wants to argue that IDC is different from creationism, maybe he should try to find some difference in  the arguments that get used. I sure don't see any.

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

    
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2013,15:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2013,12:52)
Casey Luskin is really annoyed that American law students are learning that IDC lost in the Kitzmiller case in 2005.

Towards the end, Casey notes his source rooting IDC in William Paley's arguments in "natural theology". Casey doesn't like that one little bit.

   
Quote

This is "the 'intelligent design theory'"? Really? Nothing more than how "Paley thereby attempts to explain the creation as the work of God, the watchmaker"? No mention of any modern ID theorists, such as those who have lived in the past 100 years? No mention of irreducible complexity or specified complexity? Just Paley -- and nothing more.


Maybe Casey hasn't read the Rev. Paley's 1802 book, "Natural Theology". I have. The four major IDC arguments are plainly derived from and, in my opinion, are simply elaborations of Paley's arguments. Those include "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", anthropic principles, and the "privileged planet" arguments. "Modern ID theorists" are gilding Paley, nothing more. They write more words in a more obfuscated way, but they don't deliver anything beyond what Paley did. And I don't see the problem with characterizing IDC as neo-Paleyism. It is certainly more accurate than what Casey wants to offer.

If Casey wants to argue that IDC is different from creationism, maybe he should try to find some difference in  the arguments that get used. I sure don't see any.

Paley's outmoded, Dr E.  No-one in (what remains of) the ID movement has used the watch analogy for ages and ages.  A full nine days, in fact.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2013,17:17   

Paley's book is a pretty good read. Much better than any subsequent spinoffs.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2013,22:43   

Wasn't Paley's book written before the contrary data was known?

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2013,12:00   

Quote (Henry J @ May 02 2013,20:43)
Wasn't Paley's book written before the contrary data was known?

Henry

It was required reading when C. Darwin was a student. He wrote that he was totally convinced by Paley, and could quote much of the book from memory.

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4901
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2013,15:42   

Another piece from Luskin's screed relies on Jonathan Witt:

     
Quote

Even if early editions of Pandas had embraced "creationism" in the way alleged by Judge Jones, the removal of creationist terminology should have protected Pandas, not rendered the textbook unconstitutional. While there are no canons of textbook interpretation, traditional rules for statutory interpretation suggest that language removed from an earlier draft of a statute should be understood as a rejection of that language. This form of reasoning is common among scholars of constitutional law, who refer to language rejected from drafts of constitutional amendments in order to determine what was not the intent of the Framers. Had Judge Jones fairly applied such a canon of construction to Pandas, Thaxton's exclusion of the word "creation" should have been properly understood by Judge Jones as a rejection of some aspect of creationism.


This is multi-level nonsense. We aren't interpreting legislation as a result of process involving possibly adversarial factions participating in edits here; we are looking at a book produced privately by known staunch advocates of antievolution. We already have a Supreme Court decision saying that the introduction of "creation science" into school classrooms was a "sham", so courts should be on notice to be watching out for such, which is another good reason not to adopt an eccentric and plainly inappropriate approach to analysis. There was mostly search and replace, not removal. The effect of the word changes did not repudiate any concepts delineated in the earlier drafts, it just changed what labels were applied to the concepts.

Of course, Witt's commentary is exactly what one should expect of someone engaged in a sham who is being called on it.

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

    
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2013,15:53   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 03 2013,13:42)
Another piece from Luskin's screed relies on Jonathan Witt:

     
Quote

Even if early editions of Pandas had embraced "creationism" in the way alleged by Judge Jones, the removal of creationist terminology should have protected Pandas, not rendered the textbook unconstitutional. While there are no canons of textbook interpretation, traditional rules for statutory interpretation suggest that language removed from an earlier draft of a statute should be understood as a rejection of that language. This form of reasoning is common among scholars of constitutional law, who refer to language rejected from drafts of constitutional amendments in order to determine what was not the intent of the Framers. Had Judge Jones fairly applied such a canon of construction to Pandas, Thaxton's exclusion of the word "creation" should have been properly understood by Judge Jones as a rejection of some aspect of creationism.


This is multi-level nonsense. We aren't interpreting legislation as a result of process involving possibly adversarial factions participating in edits here; we are looking at a book produced privately by known staunch advocates of antievolution. We already have a Supreme Court decision saying that the introduction of "creation science" into school classrooms was a "sham", so courts should be on notice to be watching out for such, which is another good reason not to adopt an eccentric and plainly inappropriate approach to analysis. There was mostly search and replace, not removal. The effect of the word changes did not repudiate any concepts delineated in the earlier drafts, it just changed what labels were applied to the concepts.

Of course, Witt's commentary is exactly what one should expect of someone engaged in a sham who is being called on it.

Quote
Had Judge Jones fairly applied such a canon of construction to Pandas, Thaxton's exclusion of the word "creation" should have been properly understood by Judge Jones as a rejection of some aspect of creationism.

"Creationist" was replaced with "design proponent" throughout the entire book, without any other substantive changes being made.  I wonder: what aspect of creationism would Witt claim was being rejected?  Other than the "illegal to teach in public school science" aspect, of course...

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2589
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2013,18:16   

It's exegesis all the way down.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4901
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2013,13:30   

Has Witt ever seen the drafts? It seems unlikely. The court ordered the drafts be kept confidential, and it was a pretty tight list of signatories on that. So anything Witt says about changes in the drafts should be read as being in the highly-speculative-completely-ignorant tense, at least until he develops some substantiation that there is actually some knowledge of the material on his part.

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

    
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2013,17:50   

The DI has a new 'curriculum':
 
Quote
It's brand new and launching today! Discovering Intelligent Design (DID) is the first full curriculum to present the scientific evidence for intelligent design in both cosmology and biology in an easy-to-understand format.

DI link
The authors are husband and wife team Gary and Hallie Kemper (Hallie is a homeschooler, Gary has, uh, "learned the craft of writing"), and yes! - Casey Luskin.
From the DI site:
 
Quote
Who can use DID? In a word (or two), most anyone. While best classified as a textbook, DID reads like a book and is intended for a wide range of ages -- from middle-schoolers to adult -- in settings such as private schools, a general family and home setting, homeschool, church environments, small discussion groups, extracurricular school organizations (such as IDEA Clubs), or personal use. When used as a textbook, DID is not intended to replace standard subject science texts, but instead can supplement them by presenting information not available in many standard textbooks. While DID is strictly scientific in its content, it is not recommended for use in public schools.

Gotta love that last sentence!
There's a nice take on it over at The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2013,21:36   

Not one to shy away from being a fucking bitch, I went after the Kemper's, the authors of this stinking piece of shit.

No credentials, of course.  No indication that the Kemper's even finished college.  Mr. Kemper did a stint as some kind of engineer, possibly an intern, but failed at that and became a "writer."  And frau Kemper, stay-at-home-mom dedicated her time to homeschooling.  Again, no credentials and certainly no science.

So, the question is this.  How desperate is the Toot that they partner up with these undereducated, uncredentialed non-scientists, non-educators, know nothing boobs to roll out their "Educational Package?"

Behe too busy?  Meyer mired in tar?  Wells unwilling?  Dr. Dr. out of the office?  Berlinski, well, jacking off as usual?

The DI is rolling out this "supplemental" material written by a couple of fucking undereducated, religious nut nobodies.

Srsly, have they sunk that low?

Edited by Doc Bill on May 21 2013,21:39

  
Cubist



Posts: 493
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2013,21:49   

Quote (Doc Bill @ May 21 2013,21:36)
The DI is rolling out this "supplemental" material written by a couple of fucking undereducated, religious nut nobodies.

Srsly, have they sunk that low?

Your question strongly implies that the DiscoTute was ever, at any time in the past, higher than it is now…

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2013,22:26   

It could be that the Toot is so desperate that they are using Hallie's feeble connections within the homeschooling community.

Failing with mainstream education perhaps the Toot is targeting homeschoolers who have no regulation and can teach any old shit, and do.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2013,10:11   

Will the NSCE publish a rebuttal: "Discovering Intelligent Design - Naturalism Or Theology"?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2013,11:57   

The DI has a new profound book. With, revolutionary insights. Revealing, science contradicts his work, and Darwin had doubts, of his work. It's called Darwin's Doubt. You're welcome, to join the fun.

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2013,15:04   

Quote (Cubist @ May 21 2013,19:49)
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 21 2013,21:36)
The DI is rolling out this "supplemental" material written by a couple of fucking undereducated, religious nut nobodies.

Srsly, have they sunk that low?

Your question strongly implies that the DiscoTute was ever, at any time in the past, higher than it is now…

Well, they had higher aspirations.

By now, they were hoping to be a good way through the later stages of the Wedge Strategy, and to be a major player in the transformation of the US into a theocracy.  Instead they're just trying to get a small piece of the selling-tracts-to-fundies action.  Sad.  But funny.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2013,13:43   

Quote (Cubist @ May 21 2013,21:49)
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 21 2013,21:36)
The DI is rolling out this "supplemental" material written by a couple of fucking undereducated, religious nut nobodies.

Srsly, have they sunk that low?

Your question strongly implies that the DiscoTute was ever, at any time in the past, higher than it is now…

That's a good point.  I reflected, under the alcofluence of incohol, on the Tute over the years and you're right.

The Wedge Document was actually the High Point because at least it was a plan, it had goals, milestones and all that jazz.

But, what they've actually accomplished is absolutely nothing.  Just a lot of smoke and stink.

Dembski got fired, multiple times and is now even less of a nobody.  Behe is probably smelling retirement, or should be, having become totally irrelevant.  Wells just gets fatter and more disgusting.  Poor Stevie Meyer gets no respect, no traction and, outside of the group of lunatics who follow creationism for a hobby, is totally unknown.  Does Sternberg still have a job?  Who would know?

Books?  Failures.
DVD's?  Failures.
Academic Freedom Bills?  Failures, but one.
ID journals?  Failures.
ID research?  Failure.
IDEA clubs?  Failure.
Sucking donations from people with more money than brains?  Success!

I guess it's not all bad.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2013,03:43   

Quote
Does Sternberg still have a job?  Who would know?

He's listed as part of the Biologic Institute:
Quote
is a Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History. He joined Biologic Institute as a principal investigator in 2007.

And also still affiliated to the museum he was Expelled! from. But that doesn't actually say that the BI is paying him. Curious.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2013,08:41   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 24 2013,11:43)
 
Quote
Does Sternberg still have a job?  Who would know?

He's listed as part of the Biologic Institute:
 
Quote
is a Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History. He joined Biologic Institute as a principal investigator in 2007.

And also still affiliated to the museum he was Expelled! from. But that doesn't actually say that the BI is paying him. Curious.

A FREE TICKET ON THE LAST HELICOPTER OUTA SIAGON BUS OUTA HELL ON EARTH TAHTS WHAT! YOU LEFTBEHINDER.

HOMO!

What I want to know is whatever happened to Dr Berlinski Berlinski?

Did he interview another alter ego?

Did the interviewee ever have a right to response?  

Who was that girl, in the foyer of the Paris Ritz?

Did his Rabbi ever return his foreskin?

...just wondering.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  369 replies since Oct. 10 2006,08:42 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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