Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The Biologic Institute Thread started by Jason Spaceman


Posted by: Jason Spaceman on Dec. 14 2006,03:44

But is it just a public relations exercise?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design: The God Lab

16 December 2006
Celeste Biever Redmond

PAY a visit to the Biologic Institute and you are liable to get a chilly reception. "We only see people with appointments," states the man who finally responds to my persistent knocks. Then he slams the door on me.

I am standing on the ground floor of an office building in Redmond, Washington, the Seattle suburb best known as home town to Microsoft. What I'm trying to find out is whether the 1-year-old institute is the new face of another industry that has sprung up in the area - the one that has set out to try to prove evolution is wrong.

This is my second attempt to engage in person with scientists at Biologic. At the institute's other facility in nearby Fremont, researchers work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes - a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub. Most of them there proved just as reluctant to speak with a New Scientist reporter.

The reticence cloaks an unorthodox agenda. "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design," says George Weber, the only one of Biologic's four directors who would speak openly with me. "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.

The anti-evolution movement's latest response to Darwin is intelligent design (ID). Its fundamental premise is that certain features of living organisms are too complex to have evolved without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer. In ID literature that designer remains cautiously anonymous, but for many proponents he corresponds closely with the God of the Christian Bible. Over the past few years the movement's media-savvy public face has been the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has championed intelligent design, claiming it to be a legitimate scientific theory, and supported its key architects. It was Discovery that provided the funding to get the Biologic Institute up and running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read it < here. >
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 14 2006,03:49

Reads a little bit like the opening chapter to a Clancy novel.
Posted by: Renier on Dec. 14 2006,04:41

Interesting. Thanks for the post Jason. I think we were all wondering what they were up to.

I just had to cringe when I read that they call themselves "Biologic Institute". However, since the DI appears to be funding this, I would say it is a good thing, since it means less money for them to pump into PR. Funny though, they should have taken the Templeton offer...
Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 14 2006,05:33

Woa, this lab is so secret than ID leaders like Dembski and Behe don't even know about it.
Or why wasn't its existence mentionned in Dover, when defendants were asked about the state of "ID research"?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2006,09:44

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 14 2006,05:33)
Woa, this lab is so secret than ID leaders like Dembski and Behe don't even know about it.
Or why wasn't its existence mentionned in Dover, when defendants were asked about the state of "ID research"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All part of their master plan. they probably all discuss it on their Double-Secret Creationist List. (You know, the one where you're prohibited from discussing the age of the earth.) They were waiting until they had conclusive evidence to crush Neo-Darwinianism, at which point they'll publish their devastating argument that indeed, Goddidit™. At which point all us materialist chance-worshippers will scatter like mice, and Dembski and Davison will take their places as the greatest, most respected scientists in the world. Out of terror, Dawkins will become a fugitive, taking refuge in Iran, Syria and North Korea. Due to his association with this great Cultural Renewal, Dave Scot will successfully run for President in 2008, whereupon his first act will be banning all homos and Judge Jones.

Funny, I always assumed their secret lab would be a scary mountaintop redoubt, like this:  

Posted by: pwe on Dec. 14 2006,10:30

Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Dec. 14 2006,03:44)
Read it < here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link, Jason  :)

Here's the end of the article:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, Steve Fuller, a sociologist at the University of Warwick, UK, who testified in favour of ID in the Dover trial, believes the Biologic Institute's activities could help break down barriers between religious people and scientists. "Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."

Ronald Numbers, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has studied creationism, views it in a different light. The lab's existence will help sustain support within the anti-evolution community, he says. "It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, let's see some output from that lab, before we decide how it'll function.

That you can be a creationist and not get too dirty in lab is as correct as it is that you don't do much in that lab in the first round. The 2nd Law of Laboratorydynamics states that the more you work, the dirtier you get, and that's impossible for the IDists and creationists to circumvent.


- pwe
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 14 2006,12:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
they probably all discuss it on their Double-Secret Creationist List (You know, the one where you're prohibited from discussing the age of the earth.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if HIV causes AIDS.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To do what? Okay, they're in a "lab," but who wants to bet that they'll never come out again?

Wow, Steve Fuller is really full of it. And these people really do not get it! They have created a parody of sciency stuff to look really sciency, but they have no methodology and nothing to work with, and in the meantime true research will leave them in the dust of their Genesis.

ID Dudes. Read this. I am a chick. A chick gets this science stuff. A chick friggin' belly dancer lit-nerd gets it, and you don't. Embarrassed yet?  :angry:
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 14 2006,12:26

The New Scientist reporter who wrote the piece is Celeste Biever, who is the same reporter who attempted the < nefarious infiltration of the Cornell IDEA club. >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 14 2006,17:48

Think they'll hire JAD?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: mcc on Dec. 14 2006,22:06

This was a pretty good article by New Scientist standards.

This really isn't all that surprising, I don't think, even given the DI's loathing for labwork. The dembski/behe technobabble that they came up with in 1995 no longer works now that it's been aired in court. They now have to come up with some new technobabble if they're to continue at all. Using my amazing psychic powers, I predict that one of the following two things will happen:

1. We will literally never hear from these people ever again

2. In a few years Axe and Dixon will start publishing books full of technobabble under some new banner which is not "Intelligent Design", taking the exact places Behe and Dembksi took under the ID banner. This technobabble will be based on the "research" done at biologic over the next couple years; and since the list of research topics in that article is ALL about evolution and nothing about "design", we can assume the DI STILL hasn't learned their lesson and the technobabble will all be of the form "We did some research, and we discovered this thing about evolution that NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN AND NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN. Therefore goddiddit."
Posted by: Renier on Dec. 15 2006,02:13

I can picture this already...

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Ok, I got the petri dish prepped with Bacreria X and firmly placed on a King James Bible. This will work, I just know it. All systems go, I repeat, all systems go!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Prayer group reports they are ready and will start praying in 3...2...1..."

*Moment of holy silence...

*Time passes

* People blink

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "I don't see anything happening. Are you SURE thay are praying?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "I am sure they are praying! Heck, even I am praying..."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Well, nothing is happening, so they must be doing it wrong! Perhaps the King James should be replaced with a New International Version... hhhmmm"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Maybe they should try praying in tongues...."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"You mean they were NOT praying in tongues? How do you expect this to work if they don't pray in tongues??? Idiot!"

*Radio communication...

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Ok, the Prayer group has actived Praying in Tongues mode. I can hear them from here."

*Time passes, voices rise in religious fervor

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : " Still nothing. What are they praying for?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "How the #### should they know? It's tongues, remember! Nobody but God nows what the #### they are jabbering about"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "It's driving me nuts, all this bloddy noise, tell them to shut up. It friggin sounds like a bunch of drunk Swiss yodeling! Even the Bacteria seems uneasy and are scattering to the sides!"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 :Who left the Dakins book on the tabel over there next to the hydrogen container????"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"What, A Dawkins book!! That satanist atheist crap just ruined our experiment! Burn the cursed thing!"

*Bang.. smoke, sparks, lightning

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"It looks like all the Bacteria died! This is great! It means if you burn atheist books, God... er.. the designer will purify the Earth of these disease causing critters! Praise the Lo... I mean, the Designer. Get me more evil books now!!"
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 15 2006,04:19

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Ok, I got the petri dish prepped with Bacreria X and firmly placed on a King James Bible. This will work, I just know it. All systems go, I repeat, all systems go!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Prayer group reports they are ready and will start praying in 3...2...1..."

*Moment of holy silence...

*Time passes

* People blink

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "I don't see anything happening. Are you SURE thay are praying?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "I am sure they are praying! Heck, even I am praying..."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Well, nothing is happening, so they must be doing it wrong! Perhaps the King James should be replaced with a New International Version... hhhmmm"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Maybe they should try praying in tongues...."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"You mean they were NOT praying in tongues? How do you expect this to work if they don't pray in tongues??? Idiot!"

*Radio communication...

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Ok, the Prayer group has actived Praying in Tongues mode. I can hear them from here."

*Time passes, voices rise in religious fervor

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : " Still nothing. What are they praying for?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "How the #### should they know? It's tongues, remember! Nobody but God nows what the #### they are jabbering about"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "It's driving me nuts, all this bloddy noise, tell them to shut up. It friggin sounds like a bunch of drunk Swiss yodeling! Even the Bacteria seems uneasy and are scattering to the sides!"

optional ending #2:

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : Hey everybody, look over there! (points excitedly towards a blank wall, deftly replaces bacteria with a live mouse)

All 3: (looking back at the petri dish) It's a miracle!

optional ending #3:

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : See! It's conclusive. God does not make things evolve! Evolution has just been debunked. Now Johnny, want to go get some meth and a hotel room? (gently strokes his goatee)
Posted by: Renier on Dec. 15 2006,06:44

optional ending #4:

* Sever weeks later, while cleaning the lab, someone spots the petri dish...

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "WTF? Look at this. Fungi! Praise! The experiment worked! ... contamination? .. what do you mean contamination? It's those evil Darwinians that has contaminated your mind! Contaminate this " (sticks up middle finger)

Jad : "I told you it was front-loading... PEH!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "This Meth is good stuff... and... clearly, neon purple and blue fungi is a new species... kind of like a kind kind... good on the eyes."

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Pass me the cheese, I mean Meth, I still can't get that darn yodeling out of my head. God, this is ####!"

JAD : "I don't believe in ####, I believe in Einsteins's God"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Shh! designer... designer.."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "JAD, You ARE BANNED, I mean... uh.. fired"

JAD : "... just proves I am right, Bitch!"
Posted by: stevestory on May 13 2008,22:30

< http://www.idthefuture.com/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May 5, 2008
Science Lab Explores New Intelligent Design Research
CSC

play_button.gif Click here to listen.

On this Episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith reports on the CSC-supported, independent research facility, Biologic Institute. Headed by Dr. Douglas Axe, Biologic's purpose is to scientifically put the claims of Neo-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design to the test in a laboratory setting. Work is already well under way, with Discovery Institute Fellows conducting biological studies to test each theory's assumptions from an unapologetically ID frame of reference. This should prove to be a huge addition to the cause of intelligent design.

Posted by CSC at 10:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anika, we've been talking about this 'lab' for years. No 'new ID research' yet.


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2008,00:56

Phhh! They've got Gil Dodgems now.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2008,12:46

More:

< http://www.newscientist.com/channel....ab.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THE cat-and-mouse contest between science and creationism took a new turn this week with the unveiling of a "God lab" ostensibly set up to search for scientific evidence for intelligent design. The move follows a 2005 US federal court ruling that ID is a religious idea not a scientific one.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“The move follows a US court ruling that ID is a religious idea not a scientific one”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington, has been shrouded in secrecy since it was established more than a year ago by the Discovery Institute, an organisation which claims ID is a scientific theory (New Scientist, 16 December 2006, p 8). Its existence was finally made public on 10 May, when details of the project were published online at www.biologicinstitute.org.

Most scientists remain unimpressed. "A cursory inspection of its staff roster reveals the same ID creationists whose work has already been critiqued and discredited, with a couple of new faces added for novelty," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher who studies the creationist movement at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond.

From issue 2656 of New Scientist magazine, 14 May 2008, page 7
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on May 14 2008,17:20

Man you have to go to their website.  They are out of their minds crazy and not one bit of it makes any sense.

And they are "teaming up" with Dembski to better understand biology.  Why not team up with davescot who clearly has a better understanding of biology than Dembski.  Retarded yes, but he's smarter than Dembski.

edit: someone should take a snapshot of their contact page < http://biologicinstitute.org/contact/ >

They claim the DI is not affiliated with them but on the contacts page they show:

Press inquiries should be directed to:

Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute

206.292.0401 x107
rob@discovery.org
Posted by: JohnW on May 14 2008,17:28

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 14 2008,15:20)
Man you have to go to their website.  They are out of their minds crazy and not one bit of it makes any sense.

And they are "teaming up" with Dembski to better understand biology.  Why not team up with davescot who clearly has a better understanding of biology than Dembski.  Retarded yes, but he's smarter than Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it sounds really sciency.  For their target audience, that's all that matters.
Posted by: J-Dog on May 14 2008,21:20

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 14 2008,17:20)
Man you have to go to their website.  They are out of their minds crazy and not one bit of it makes any sense.

And they are "teaming up" with Dembski to better understand biology.  Why not team up with davescot who clearly has a better understanding of biology than Dembski.  Retarded yes, but he's smarter than Dembski.

edit: someone should take a snapshot of their contact page < http://biologicinstitute.org/contact/ >

They claim the DI is not affiliated with them but on the contacts page they show:

Press inquiries should be directed to:

Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute

206.292.0401 x107
rob@discovery.org
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They hope to win the argument ad doctorum... where Dembski's math degree and philosophy degree qualify him to vomit stuff about evolution.  Works for the rubes, and sells books.  And you are right about DaveScot knowing more biology than Dr. Dr.  Plus, DaveScot can still eat at the Baylor Cafeteria.
Posted by: stevestory on May 15 2008,03:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2008,13:46)
More:

< http://www.newscientist.com/channel....ab.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I only clicked on that link so I could more knowledgeably berate you about how that was an old article, but it's a new article. Good on you.
Posted by: guthrie on May 15 2008,04:30

Their "Research" page says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few key ideas run through all of our work. One is the idea that information is as real and fundamental as physical quantities, like mass or energy. As a measurable substance with real-world effects subject to law-like constraints, information is undeniably the stuff of science. It is also the stuff of technology… which is the stuff of design. Interestingly, the only places in the universe where we see information stored, processed and transmitted in digital code are the complex systems of human design and the even more complex design-like systems of life.

Another key idea is that highly complex functional systems cannot be understood properly just by examining their elementary constituents. The behavior of whole systems might be explained in terms of the behavior of their constituents, but it won’t be understood that way. To grasp the whole picture you have to look at the whole picture.

Both of these ideas suggest a broader principle that we have adopted. As designers, we humans know something about design. So if we really want to know whether the design-like systems in biology were designed, we ought to draw on that knowledge. To take this principle seriously, we need to promote a serious exchange of ideas between biology and the engineering disciplines.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wooohooo, more engineers being told to fantasise.  Thats how you do science for sure.
More interestingly, how exactly is information a substance?
And if you look at their list of selected publications down the bottom of the page, it seems that Gonzalez' entire output is there.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 15 2008,09:16

Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2008,03:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2008,13:46)
More:

< http://www.newscientist.com/channel....ab.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I only clicked on that link so I could more knowledgeably berate you about how that was an old article, but it's a new article. Good on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, though, their 'research' is still at the same point...
Posted by: Kristine on May 16 2008,10:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2008,08:16)
Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2008,03:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2008,13:46)
More:

< http://www.newscientist.com/channel....ab.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I only clicked on that link so I could more knowledgeably berate you about how that was an old article, but it's a new article. Good on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, though, their 'research' is still at the same point...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What else did you expect? :)

Me, I'm hoping that they build up a big expectation in the press that they're going to cure cancer or something. The internet didn't exist when all this "creation science" was around. Now they're leaving a virtual paper trail, and good! I say.
Posted by: lkeithlu on May 17 2008,08:55

Go Here:

< http://biologicinstitute.org/research/ >

Scroll down til you see a figure labeled:

Model proteins based on analogy between the structure—function relationship in written Chinese and in proteins (D. Axe, B. Dixon, P. Lu, manuscript in press).

I almost overdosed on woo. What is that all about? Is it similar to the nun-bun?  :O
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 17 2008,09:04

In press? Steve will will be happy - PCID will be up and running again!
Posted by: Annyday on May 17 2008,10:14

GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
Posted by: godsilove on June 04 2008,06:51

Guess who just got published:

< http://www.plosone.org/article....0002246 >
Posted by: Amadan on June 04 2008,08:51

Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop spreading confucian among the faithful.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 04 2008,09:18

Quote (Amadan @ June 04 2008,16:51)
Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop spreading confucian among the faithful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man who lay woman on ground gets piece on earth.
Posted by: blader on June 04 2008,12:13

Quote (Kristine @ May 16 2008,11:18)
Me, I'm hoping that they build up a big expectation in the press that they're going to cure cancer or something. The internet didn't exist when all this "creation science" was around. Now they're leaving a virtual paper trail, and good! I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




It seems curing cancer is aiming pretty low compared to their obvious objective, which is to use the tools of modern day scientific mimicry to prove the existence of God.

By design, it will keep them in business for an eternity.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 04 2008,13:57

Quote (blader @ June 04 2008,12:13)
Quote (Kristine @ May 16 2008,11:18)
Me, I'm hoping that they build up a big expectation in the press that they're going to cure cancer or something. The internet didn't exist when all this "creation science" was around. Now they're leaving a virtual paper trail, and good! I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




It seems curing cancer is aiming pretty low compared to their obvious objective, which is to use the tools of modern day scientific mimicry to prove the existence of God.

By design, it will keep them in business for an eternity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that's a Deep Thought.
Posted by: Amadan on June 04 2008,15:37

Quote (k.e.. @ June 04 2008,09:18)
 
Quote (Amadan @ June 04 2008,16:51)
   
Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop spreading confucian among the faithful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man who lay woman on ground gets piece on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<Brooklyn Accent>
Hey, if Jesus was a Jew, how come he got a Mexican name?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 04 2008,15:54

Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further confirmation: the Chinese character for a boat contains the number 8,  just like the ark (a boat) had 8 people.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG101.html >
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 04 2008,16:11

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 04 2008,16:54)
Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further confirmation: the Chinese character for a boat contains the number 8,  just like the ark (a boat) had 8 people.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG101.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't zero already go down that road once?

eh, nevermind.  I don't want to know.


Posted by: k.e.. on June 05 2008,09:03

Quote (Amadan @ June 04 2008,23:37)
Quote (k.e.. @ June 04 2008,09:18)
   
Quote (Amadan @ June 04 2008,16:51)
   
Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop spreading confucian among the faithful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man who lay woman on ground gets piece on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<Brooklyn Accent>
Hey, if Jesus was a Jew, how come he got a Mexican name?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He was a Catholic?
Posted by: J-Dog on June 26 2008,07:48

Interesting chart from The Denialism Blog showing links from the DI to almost everywhere.  Damn, they have a lot of sticky little fingers.


< http://scienceblogs.com/deniali....nst.php >

I apologize for co-opting this thread, but I didn't want to go back 20 pages and look for a more applicable DI post.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 13 2008,13:19

Sorry to shock you all, but the Biologic Institute has released its < latest piece of research >.  Or rather Gonzales has written a piece claiming that a new paper shows he was right.

Errr, that's all.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 13 2008,13:25

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 13 2008,11:19)
Sorry to shock you all, but the Biologic Institute has released its < latest piece of research >.  Or rather Gonzales has written a piece claiming that a new paper shows he was right.

Errr, that's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biologic Institute research methodology:

1.  Look at legs.
2.  Notice that they are still the right length to reach the ground.
3.  Post drivel on website.
4.  ????
5.  Overthrow materialism!
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 13 2008,13:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  Notice that they are still the right length to reach the ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What if the chair the person is sitting on is the wrong height for that person? ;)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 13 2008,13:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are these circumstances that allow us to observe the best solar eclipses in the Solar System just a lucky coincidence, or do they point to something larger?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



1)  Guess what just fits in my hand (sorta)?
2)  Guess how that is relevant to the rest of this garbage.  Oh yeah.  Intellectual onanism.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 13 2008,13:42

A banana?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 13 2008,13:46

not only that, but also a wild banana!

FURTHER PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Aug. 13 2008,14:02

Something about Gonzales' speculations makes me think annular eclipse - but I can't put my finger on it...
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 13 2008,14:10

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2008,19:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  Notice that they are still the right length to reach the ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What if the chair the person is sitting on is the wrong height for that person? ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You missed point 1) which was "look at legs". Chairs have legs.

Unless you're positing some kind of weird rocket chair but we know that can't be real because of Intelligent Falling.

QED.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 13 2008,14:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chairs have legs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But can they walk on them? So there!!111!one!!!
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 13 2008,15:09

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2008,20:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chairs have legs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But can they walk on them? So there!!111!one!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on what you've been smoking.

Louis

P.S. Dude....hands....looked at them? Etc
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Aug. 13 2008,15:15

My gosh... this is the chap who the DI moaned about being fired? (which apparently is the same as not getting tenure - hey, I don't make the rules).

He does some research that suggests that by a quirk of mathematics, habitable planets, because of their orbits, are more likely to have the setup for perfect eclipses than uninhabitable ones. This is interesting, and I like it. It's one of those weird mathematical tricks like two people sharing birthdays in a large group.

So he's shown that the fact we have nice eclipses IS NOT SURPRISING OR MAGICAL - in essence, score one for the godless atheist naturalist side.

But then he throws in this utter illogic about eclipses driving scientific discovery. Um, what does that have to do with anything? Archimedes was turned on by bathwater. War has been a highly effective way to advance science. But his whole argument hinges on the suggestion that some intelligence set up the universe and the moon in such an unlikely way as to make science all that much easier for us.

I'm pretty sure I can come up with many, many ways that scientific discovery could be made easier. For one, not having THE DARK AGES. For two, not having people who are trying to bring back THE DARK AGES. For three, how about not having clouds at all, or at least having them move in paths which run around our telescopes? Because I'm one of many people who didn't see the 1999 total solar eclipse BECAUSE OF HUGE CLOUDS. (I went to Cornwall to see it and all).

Like the Explanatory Filter, Gonzales idea relies on being able to go through an infinity of possibilities. In the EF, one has to rule out all natural laws, discovered or not; in the Privileged Planet, one cannot claim that our current position is the best without knowing all possible positions. What if we were in one of those little dwarf galaxies over the Milky Way? The whole Milky Way swirly would fill the sky*. We'd be able to watch stars orbit the central black hole. With an X-ray telescope perhaps we'd detect the streamers and deduce the existence of other quasars easily instead of all that difficult science they had to do.

I suspect Gonzales work is going to be just like Dembski's; sloppy in all the areas where the argument is, rejected by science, but fuel for creationists. Hey, I've already had a creationist give me the eclipse argument.

* Stargate Atlantis shows us what this might be like. Sorry, I just watched the episode with the midway station between the Milky Way and the Pegasus galaxy and it's jawdroppingly pretty.

edit: italic
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 13 2008,15:35

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Aug. 13 2008,13:15)
* Stargate Atlantis shows us what this might be like. Sorry, I just watched the episode with the midway station between the Milky Way and the Pegasus galaxy and it's jawdroppingly pretty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Off topic I know, but I'd disagree with "jawdroppingly pretty".  Half-way to M31, it would be four times the apparent size and have four times the brightness it has from Earth - not big or bright enough to see much spiral structure with the naked eye.  The Milky Way would look more or less the same in the opposite direction, and I haven't checked the numbers but the Triangulum spiral would probably be naked-eye as well.  And that would be it.  Nothing else to see without a telescope.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 13 2008,16:37

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 13 2008,11:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are these circumstances that allow us to observe the best solar eclipses in the Solar System just a lucky coincidence, or do they point to something larger?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



1)  Guess what just fits in my hand (sorta)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU'RES CAN FIT IN 2 A KITENS' HAND. HOMO.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 13 2008,16:42

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 13 2008,11:19)
Sorry to shock you all, but the Biologic Institute has released its < latest piece of research >.  Or rather Gonzales has written a piece claiming that a new paper shows he was right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the new face of ID/C: Vicarious Research.

They don't, like, do any research of their own, but they sure love pointing out how real scientists are inadvertently doing cutting-edge ID research. They like remoras. Or maybe more like, say, liver flukes.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,16:54

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 13 2008,14:19)
Sorry to shock you all, but the Biologic Institute has released its < latest piece of research >.  Or rather Gonzales has written a piece claiming that a new paper shows he was right.

Errr, that's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blogging is essentially all the ID community is capable of.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 13 2008,17:00

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Aug. 13 2008,15:15)
I suspect Gonzales work is going to be just like Dembski's; sloppy in all the areas where the argument is, rejected by science, but fuel for creationists. Hey, I've already had a creationist give me the eclipse argument.


edit: italic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such as in:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   26. Observation of highly complex life and bio/eco system requires a creator.
   a. The size of the sun and moon, while the ratio to earth is hundreds of times distant from earth they are exactly the same size during most eclipses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from < http://www.diduask.com/creation.htm >

There is nothing new under the sun, even the moon.  :O
Posted by: ERV on Aug. 13 2008,17:53

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 13 2008,13:19)
Sorry to shock you all, but the Biologic Institute has released its < latest piece of research >.  Or rather Gonzales has written a piece claiming that a new paper shows he was right.

Errr, that's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... thats just from Privileged Planet.  heh 'new'.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 13 2008,18:34

Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 13 2008,18:38

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,16:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No prob. When the moon is too far away from the sun to form exact eclipses, that's when the moon will cease to be Designed.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 13 2008,21:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, but people weren't here to see it when it was too close for an exact eclipse!!111!eleven!!

(Leastwise, that's roughly what I'd expect one of them to say to that.)

Henry
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 13 2008,21:09

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,18:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed.  And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 13 2008,21:13

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 13 2008,21:09)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,18:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed.  And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that tells us how many days we have. Just calculate when the moon will cease producing total eclipses and you have the day of reckoning.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 14 2008,00:54

Goodness, these eclipse-design people have been looking at the tard side of the moon!

:)
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 14 2008,11:55

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 13 2008,20:09)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,18:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed.  And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could've they have designed a calender in which the months are all the same length, and equal to a integer number of weeks? :p

Henry
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 18 2008,23:14

I think GG could be more successful if he presented his "the universe is set up for discovery" BS in the way Billy Preston did it.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 19 2008,08:40

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2008,11:55)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 13 2008,20:09)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,18:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed.  And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could've they have designed a calender in which the months are all the same length, and equal to a integer number of weeks? :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The solar system was designed to encourage man to discover real numbers.  :D
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 19 2008,09:50

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 19 2008,07:40)
No.  The solar system was designed to encourage man to discover real numbers.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, God wants us to do the math? :O :D
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Aug. 19 2008,10:08

I also want to know why I should accept Gonzales' version over < this >, since this has Stonehenge and aliens in it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Aug. 19 2008,10:11

I hear DI fellow Michael Medved running his bigfoot research center out of the DI's top secret lab.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 19 2008,11:39

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Aug. 19 2008,11:08)
I also want to know why I should accept Gonzales' version over < this >, since this has Stonehenge and aliens in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it doesn't have pyramids and energy bodies, it's not worth bothering with.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 23 2009,09:43

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8FK-QU3ILI&feature=related >
Posted by: J-Dog on April 23 2009,10:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,09:43)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8FK-QU3ILI&feature=related >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like they are finally switching over to reality based vids - good catch. :)
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 06 2009,22:20

The Biologic Institute < is Expanding >!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biologic Institute welcomes three European scientists this month, the first (we hope) of many. [1] Professor Matti Leisola, the Dean of Chemistry and Materials Science at Helsinki University of Technology in Finland, brings a wealth of experience on the structure and function of enzymes, including their responses to engineered changes.  His research team has made a huge impact in their field, with well over a thousand references to their work in the scientific literature.

Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research in the School of Mathematical and Information Sciences at Coventry University, expands our program of research on information theory and search algorithms.  His work in this area has focused on genetic algorithms—search methods that borrow various principles from evolutionary biology.  Connections of this kind between different fields provide opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, which is nearly always a good thing.

The addition of Stuart Burgess likewise brings us to an exciting interface between disciplines.  Professor Burgess is the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Bristol.  He’s a first-rate engineer, but one with an unusual fascination with biology.  That’s the right combination of interests for designing things like robotic versions of flying insects. [2] Our interest, of course, is that you can’t come away from projects like that without new insights into the connection between life and design.

Maybe your expertise will be the next valuable addition.  If so, we’d like to hear from you.  We aren’t big (yet).  But we keep seeing big opportunities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, that's a biochemist, a mathematician (sort of), and an engineer.  Hm.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 06 2009,22:55

Quote (J-Dog @ April 23 2009,10:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,09:43)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8FK-QU3ILI&feature=related >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like they are finally switching over to reality based vids - good catch. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This vid has been pulled due to a copyright claim from the DI. It's fair use / parody.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 06 2009,23:01

you'd think Casey would have learned his lesson by now.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 10 2010,05:44

Hopefully this will make the thread easier to find: the title is the name one might search for.
Posted by: Bob O'H on June 10 2010,14:54

Ah, thank you Wes. For some reason searching for Biologic didn't work. Either that or my search-foo needed more caffeine.

Anyway, < here is Axe being either dumb or disingenuous >. You chose!
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 10 2010,15:51

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 10 2010,14:54)
Ah, thank you Wes. For some reason searching for Biologic didn't work. Either that or my search-foo needed more caffeine.

Anyway, < here is Axe being either dumb or disingenuous >. You chose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I CAN HAS BOWF?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 10 2010,15:55

Arf!


Posted by: J-Dog on June 10 2010,16:46

BTW -  Miscrosoft wants to be notified about "malicious" sites too...

UD, Barry & Clive... are you paying attention?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2010,17:10

April 30th, 2010 Douglas Axe:                    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BIO-Complexity demonstrates its commitment to critical exchange in other ways as well.  For every peer-reviewed article it publishes, it seeks a well-informed Critique of that article.  And for each of these it seeks a Response from the original authors.  Unlike the original articles they comment on, Critiques and Responses won’t be peer reviewed.  The reason for this is that we want to give people appropriate freedom to state informed opinions boldly, without the level of caution that peer review tends to enforce.  And on the subject of peer review, the policy of BIO-Complexity is to seek evaluation from experts who fall on both sides of the ID controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yada Yada Yada.

10 June. Zero well-informed critiques.
                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, you can have your say as well, because everyone who agrees to abide by three common-sense rules can post comments on anything and everything that BIO-Complexity publishes [3].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can have my say? Ok, great. Let's find out what we are dealing with.

The nice folk at < http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/ > are happy to provide their Form 990 "Organization Exempt From Income Tax" from 2006 to 2008 (sort of). Query: "biologic institute".

So what's their primary purpose? In 2006/7 their form said:
< >

Ok. And how were they doing that? Need some specialised equipment for that no doubt. Science stuff and all that.
< >
Hey, well, a freezer! They need them, right! I've seen pictures of labs and they often have what look like freezers in the background! And a Mac.

I guess they must spend a lot on rent instead.
< >
That's good. I mean, they then have plenty of cash left over to spend on research and all that.
< >
Hmm. These forms are new to me but I can't seem to find any other major expenditures then
< >
Oh. And the freezer was quite expensive! It must be a science freezer for sure!
< >

And so, with their trusty Mac, freezer and photocopier they stride into 2007 steeling themselves for the fight and inevitable victory against Darwinism.

So, what progress in next year's form? Well, somebody gave them $725,100. They are still paying the same rent.

Well, doubters (I sense it), something did change! Something major.
< >
Yep! Another Apple! Top notch model at the time by my reckoning. Course it'll be outdated now but that's the way it goes!
New research scientists joined the team that year. That'll be what they've been waiting for. To buy the equipment. To do the research.
< >
A cool 50k. Nice. Guess what with the excitement of the new Mac and I guess the freezer may have been playing up that's why they forgot to file their tax form!
< >
I wonder. Could this "third party" be him? it? The intelligent designer?

Nah. They'd need another Mac. We'll have to wait until 2009 is up to find out! But what did they achieve in 2008?
< >

Woo! Nearly 4000 hits!

But it's like Mr Axe says
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Enough said.  Go explore.  I can’t think of anything bad to say about BIO-Complexity, so I’ll leave that to others.  Let them have their say, and then come back to the question of what science is all about.  If you’re a big fan of science, I think you’ll end up being a big fan of BIO-Complexity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'm a big fan! Oh and 2007/8 saw Axe get a rise, taking in $92,083. I guess it was those 4000 hits. Or, nearly 4000 rather. A 36 % increase? If his website gets a million hits he'll be rolling in it! Imagine!

And next year? 2008? 2009? I think it'll go

Freezer, Mac, Mac, Photocopier, Mac

And after that? Impossible to tell.......
Posted by: sledgehammer on June 11 2010,01:25

I nominate OM for POTW for due diligence and thoroughly enjoyable running commentary!  (does this thread have a POTx? Is Jason Spaceman on earthly furlough?)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 11 2010,01:39

Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.
Posted by: MichaelJ on June 11 2010,02:24

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2010,16:39)
Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes, so if he gets 97k for 40,000 views then you must be a millionaire
Posted by: Quack on June 11 2010,03:10

Thoughts running through my mind but since it boggles I am left speech & write-less.

Edited to use ampersand.
Posted by: JLT on June 11 2010,04:11

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2010,07:39)
Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It says "Nearly 4000 unique visitors accessed the site within the first month of launch, indicating a considerable level of interest."
So, we don't know how many visitors the site regularly gets. But knowing that whoever wrote this probably tried to give their numbers the most positive spin, that every ID-friendly site and - more importantly - a lot of decidedly ID-unfriendly sites linked to the Biologic institute's site after its launch, I think we can safely assume that their monthly visitor numbers are underwhelming.

Over the last year they've had under 3400 visitors in total according to < Compete >.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 11 2010,10:57

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 18 2008,21:14)
I think GG could be more successful if he presented his "the universe is set up for discovery" BS in the way Billy Preston did it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'"?
Posted by: ERV on June 11 2010,11:54

Ah yes, Ann Gauger.  The worlds most preeminent stay at home mom Scientist.

$50,000.

Christ.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 11 2010,13:14

I did dun emailed a PeeZee and he linked:

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....itu.php >

Huzzah!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 12 2010,05:45

Huzzah indeed! Cheers Richard, glad to see this info getting more widely disseminated.

TBH Axe and his "Darwinist Tree Huggers" piece annoyed me, why is he writing tripe like that if he's got serious science to do?

So I thought I'd look into what it is they are doing, and as we've seen it's not a whole lot of science.

Sure, they can do all sorts of cool stuff on their Mac(s) but what they are claiming? No, they'll need more then a Mac and a freezer to do that.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 31 2012,22:33

The < Biologic Institute > has changed its appearance. Seemingly it will be run as a kind of blog now. However, without comments.
Posted by: sledgehammer on April 01 2012,01:12

Spiffy new webpage.  The alpha helices don't look much like the assorted hardware strewn around...




but the wingnut is appropriate.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 01 2012,09:57

Ha! The most recent paper they list is from 2008. So, um no research for 4 years?
Posted by: J-Dog on April 01 2012,10:27

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 01 2012,09:57)
Ha! The most recent paper they list is from 2008. So, um no research for 4 years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha! Ha!  You know perfectly well that's cuz us Darwinists - all praise be to Dawkins - just won't let them!

BTW - Your turn to crush all Dembski's hopes and dreams is coming up soon, so pay attention to the schedule.
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 01 2012,11:25

Quote (sledgehammer @ April 01 2012,01:12)
Spiffy new webpage.  The alpha helices don't look much like the assorted hardware strewn around...




but the wingnut is appropriate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha, wingnut!

I didn't realize Klinghoffer was working for Biologic.  I wonder what happened to Ann Gauger's previous pool boy?
Posted by: Freddie on July 19 2012,07:20

Some good stuff here:

< Biologic Institute Facebook Page >

Get it before it all goes 'poof'!
Posted by: Amadan on July 19 2012,08:33

Quote (Freddie @ July 19 2012,13:20)
Some good stuff here:

< Biologic Institute Facebook Page >

Get it before it all goes 'poof'!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys are sooooo mean.


I hope Casey de-friends all of you.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on July 19 2012,17:09

Quote (Amadan @ July 19 2012,08:33)
Quote (Freddie @ July 19 2012,13:20)
Some good stuff here:

< Biologic Institute Facebook Page >

Get it before it all goes 'poof'!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys are sooooo mean.


I hope Casey de-friends all of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he will forgive us before he does :D
Posted by: J-Dog on July 19 2012,17:59

Quote (Freddie @ July 19 2012,07:20)
Some good stuff here:

< Biologic Institute Facebook Page >

Get it before it all goes 'poof'!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beautiful Pwnage!!!

Casey is sobbing - not for himself, but becasue all us meanies made the baby jesus cry! :)
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 19 2012,20:17

Doc Bill is not shy and jumps in to bite Klinghoffer's ass.  It was not good, btw:


Hey, Klinghoffer, remember when Abbie Smith kicked Behe's balls up around his ears for a lie he published in Edge? Remember that? It was embarrassing because Behe was sloppy and left comments open on Amazon and Abbie got in there and tore Behe a new one. Behe recanted, remember? He admitted he "made a mistake" when we all knew he lied. You might want to call Mikey and ask him how long it took him to get over being pwnd by a "graduate" student, who are awesome creatures, by the way. You're there right now. You've been caught in a lie and you need to pwn up to it or suffer. Personally, I prefer you suffer but I'm a bad person.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 19 2012,20:47

Unless I'm wrong, it is impossible to find this exchange without a direct link. I looked all over the home page.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 19 2012,23:22

Banned!

I think they got a call from Behe who was having Abbie Smith nightmares!

How much of a sociopath do you have to be to open up a social media page on FaceBook then ban people who visit your page?

Sick, I tell you.  I wouldn't their mum or the horse she rode in on.  OK, maybe the horse.
Posted by: Freddie on July 20 2012,00:25

Look on the bright side: the 100 word posting limit means that any and all cut and paste contributions from KF or BA77 are a non-starter so you won't have to scroll past all that crap.
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 20 2012,02:07

Ow, ow, owwwww.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frank Pettit Casey, in the future, when you describe "cutting edge research" that "overturns the current paradigm", can you limit it to only stuff discovered & proven AFTER I was born?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(from the Facebook thread)

Poor Casey.
Posted by: The whole truth on July 24 2012,01:59

Add Frank Pettit's name to the list of people who have been banned from the biologic institute's facebook page, and 100+ of his comments were deleted.

Here is a link to Frank Pettit's FB page:

< Pettit >

And here is a link to the FB thread titled "A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings".

< So much for open and honest discussion >
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 24 2012,02:38

I can see thr BI page but not Pettit's. It's asking for a login.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 24 2012,09:20

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 24 2012,02:38)
I can see thr BI page but not Pettit's. It's asking for a login.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Henry J on July 24 2012,12:55

Strike up the ban!
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 24 2012,14:55

I was quite a bit less scientific and provided no references with my banning comment:

"Nanny nanny boo boo, you can't ban me!!"
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 14 2012,12:44

How can you be moribund on Facebook?


BIO-magick seems to have achieved it!  About 200 "likes" and no comments or postings in weeks. Sums up the state of ID, I'd say.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 14 2012,13:51

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 14 2012,13:44)
How can you be moribund on Facebook?


BIO-magick seems to have achieved it!  About 200 "likes" and no comments or postings in weeks. Sums up the state of ID, I'd say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Took the piss right out of them and cauterized the leak
Posted by: Arctodus23 on Mar. 03 2013,09:22

Their never going to find "evidence" for ID.
Posted by: sparc on June 18 2013,01:23

The books in her back say what?

Have a closer look:

Oh, and she can run gels!

With bands!

And mutations alternative designs!

Therefore Intelligent design must be science. This is the ultimate proof that < Ann Gauger is God! >!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 18 2013,11:33

Quote (sparc @ June 18 2013,02:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if i made a pile of sand on Jax beach with a shovel as a kid, all piles of sand are Intelligently Designed!

Intelligent Design people are not really, really stupid. No Sirree Bob!
Posted by: REC on June 18 2013,18:31

Quote (sparc @ June 18 2013,01:23)
The books in her back say what?

Have a closer look:

Oh, and she can run gels!

With bands!

And mutations alternative designs!

Therefore Intelligent design must be science. This is the ultimate proof that < Ann Gauger is God! >!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her mutated codon has a stop (TAG) 2 up from it.

Nonsense mutations-> very small islands of function?

Unless she's arbitrarily highlighted three bases?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 18 2013,20:49

Quote (REC @ June 18 2013,18:31)
 
Quote (sparc @ June 18 2013,01:23)
The books in her back say what?

Have a closer look:

Oh, and she can run gels!

With bands!

And mutations alternative designs!

Therefore Intelligent design must be science. This is the ultimate proof that < Ann Gauger is God! >!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s how we make designer mutations—it takes equipment, hard work, and intelligent intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her mutated codon has a stop (TAG) 2 up from it.

Nonsense mutations-> very small islands of function?

Unless she's arbitrarily highlighted three bases?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are these base pairs: T-T, A-A, C-C, G-G?

WTF?
Posted by: sparc on June 18 2013,23:28

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 18 2013,20:49)
Are these base pairs: T-T, A-A, C-C, G-G?

WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. This is the output of a program like blast or fasta which compare two sequences. The two sequnences are aligned and identical positions are marked by vertical bars aka pipes.
Posted by: sparc on June 19 2013,00:33

The sequences stem from E. coli. I guess this relates to a "paper" (you know it's from Bio-Complexity) on biotin synthesis  Gauger published with Axe that even YEC Todd Wood judged negatively. < for more see PT >
Posted by: sparc on June 23 2013,23:16

Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his < DiEBlog >.

sorry, wrong thread, will copy it to BI:NP


Posted by: DiEb on June 24 2013,00:10

Quote (sparc @ June 24 2013,05:16)
Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his < DiEBlog >.

sorry, wrong thread, will copy it to BI:NP
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wrong thread, wrong man ;-)

You'll find Tom English at < Bounded Science >.

I hope you will not be too disappointed by my posts....
Posted by: sparc on June 24 2013,02:12

Quote (DiEb @ June 24 2013,00:10)
Quote (sparc @ June 24 2013,05:16)
Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his < DiEBlog >.

sorry, wrong thread, will copy it to BI:NP
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wrong thread, wrong man ;-)

You'll find Tom English at < Bounded Science >.

I hope you will not be too disappointed by my posts....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry.
I am still looking forward to read your posts.


Posted by: Merc on June 27 2013,06:40

Fun!

Posted by: OgreMkV on June 27 2013,08:18

Quote (Merc @ June 27 2013,06:40)
Fun!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even when they "do science" they scramble around for a spin.

Any reasonable person would just say, "well, yeah, I guess it is pretty easy to do, sorry for the confusion".

more please
Posted by: fnxtr on June 27 2013,09:34

I bet it involves triple integrals and such.
Posted by: JohnW on June 27 2013,10:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 27 2013,06:18)
 
Quote (Merc @ June 27 2013,06:40)
Fun!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even when they "do science" they scramble around for a spin.

Any reasonable person would just say, "well, yeah, I guess it is pretty easy to do, sorry for the confusion".

more please
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The money shot:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was surprisingly easy to add a new function based on our knowledge of evolutionary relationships between entire protein families.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to do lab work with a bible in one hand.
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 27 2013,10:49

You guys made me look, and then I had to make a comment... :D

< https://www.facebook.com/Biologi....7268096 >


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 27 2013,12:25

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 27 2013,10:49)
You guys made me look, and then I had to make a comment... :D

< https://www.facebook.com/Biologi....7268096 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too.  :p
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 27 2013,12:35

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 27 2013,12:25)
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 27 2013,10:49)
You guys made me look, and then I had to make a comment... :D

< https://www.facebook.com/Biologi....7268096 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me 3.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 27 2013,18:30

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 27 2013,13:35)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 27 2013,12:25)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 27 2013,10:49)
You guys made me look, and then I had to make a comment... :D

< https://www.facebook.com/Biologi....7268096 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me 3.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I quoted JohnW.

< >
< Making Fun of the Biologic Institute > by < Lou FCD >, on Flickr
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 27 2013,19:15

I'd make a suitably inappropriate comment on their Facebook site but, of course, I'm blocked.

Yes, Gauger's silver banhammer came down on my head.
Posted by: Merc on June 27 2013,20:16

The sad thing is that I've done far more to test her hypothesis than she has--inadvertently, with a completely different goal.

Would someone like to ask her why they didn't cite our papers, given their relevance?
Posted by: Merc on June 28 2013,01:56

Amazing...

John Mercer Pardon me? This was about engineering. You wrote, "Ask protein engineers how easy it is to redesign a protein to a genuinely new function." It starts with the 1999 JBC paper listed at the link Gary provided.

Biologic Institute In that paper you generate a null mutation, meaning a "loss of function" mutation. Not a new function. "As cell–cell junctions are important in morphogenesis, we generated a null mutation in the murine Af6 locus to test the hypothesis that lack of AF-6 function would cause epithelial abnormalities....


John Mercer You are mistaken. I pointed you to the 1999 **JBC** paper. You described our Current Biology paper. The JBC paper is Engineering of the myosin-I? nucleotide-binding pocket to create selective sensitivity to N 6-modified ADP analogs, JBC 274:31373.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 28 2013,08:33

Quote (Merc @ June 28 2013,01:56)
Amazing...

John Mercer Pardon me? This was about engineering. You wrote, "Ask protein engineers how easy it is to redesign a protein to a genuinely new function." It starts with the 1999 JBC paper listed at the link Gary provided.

Biologic Institute In that paper you generate a null mutation, meaning a "loss of function" mutation. Not a new function. "As cell–cell junctions are important in morphogenesis, we generated a null mutation in the murine Af6 locus to test the hypothesis that lack of AF-6 function would cause epithelial abnormalities....


John Mercer You are mistaken. I pointed you to the 1999 **JBC** paper. You described our Current Biology paper. The JBC paper is Engineering of the myosin-I? nucleotide-binding pocket to create selective sensitivity to N 6-modified ADP analogs, JBC 274:31373.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you expect?  She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 28 2013,09:03

How could it be a new function if they didn't grow wings and they're still monkeys?

Huh?

They're still fecking monkeys!
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 28 2013,09:38

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 27 2013,19:15)
I'd make a suitably inappropriate comment on their Facebook site but, of course, I'm blocked.

Yes, Gauger's silver banhammer came down on my head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shall I mention that you're blocked?  I suspect all of us will be soon enough.
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 28 2013,21:03

One observation regarding these online discussions- if there are "like" buttons we should use them. This might seem trivial, but market reserachers have found that they are significant in the opinions of neutral readers.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 28 2013,22:09

Remember when Bio-Logic set all these Facebook rules?

No postings more than 100 words and no off-topic or uncivil or postings that contained letters between a-z.

I didn't say that Gauger "was" related to the troll king in the Hobbit, I said she "might have been."  Sheesh, picky picky!
Posted by: Merc on July 01 2013,01:10

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 28 2013,08:33)
What do you expect?  She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a very stupid kind of lying, though. I could see her not knowing about the relevance of our work, as it was done to test mechanistic hypotheses, but for her to claim to be a "protein engineer" but not know about Shokat's work is just laughable.

And there's her inability to read Google Scholar lists of papers, abstracts, and figures, too...
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 01 2013,03:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say that Gauger "was" related to the troll king in the Hobbit, I said she "might have been."  Sheesh, picky picky!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I liked the troll king.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 01 2013,10:54

Quote (Merc @ June 30 2013,23:10)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 28 2013,08:33)
What do you expect?  She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a very stupid kind of lying, though. I could see her not knowing about the relevance of our work, as it was done to test mechanistic hypotheses, but for her to claim to be a "protein engineer" but not know about Shokat's work is just laughable.

And there's her inability to read Google Scholar lists of papers, abstracts, and figures, too...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is remarkable how little creationists care about lying, or being caught lying.
Posted by: KevinB on July 01 2013,14:56

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 01 2013,03:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say that Gauger "was" related to the troll king in the Hobbit, I said she "might have been."  Sheesh, picky picky!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I liked the troll king.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you allowed to unlike the troll king without being eaten?
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 01 2013,15:14

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 01 2013,03:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say that Gauger "was" related to the troll king in the Hobbit, I said she "might have been."  Sheesh, picky picky!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I liked the troll king.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rumor has it his daughter is available and sleepless in Seattle.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on July 02 2013,10:30

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 01 2013,10:54)
Quote (Merc @ June 30 2013,23:10)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 28 2013,08:33)
What do you expect?  She's got her big fat mammary caught in the ringer, now has to resort to the usual Creationist tactic - lying - to save face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a very stupid kind of lying, though. I could see her not knowing about the relevance of our work, as it was done to test mechanistic hypotheses, but for her to claim to be a "protein engineer" but not know about Shokat's work is just laughable.

And there's her inability to read Google Scholar lists of papers, abstracts, and figures, too...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is remarkable how little creationists care about lying, or being caught lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's that transcendent morality.

Wonderful stuff.


Glen Davidson
Posted by: Henry J on July 03 2013,18:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's that transcendent morality.

Wonderful stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, that's stuff that can't be derived from an algebraic equation!
Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 03 2016,10:28

I wonder if the discotoot will close down the "Biologic Institute" now that Douglas Axe says:

"For me, the book, career-wise, marks a transition from doing a careful extended critique of Darwinism — I reached the point several years ago where I thought, I can’t think of anything else we can do; we’ve done all these careful experiments, we’ve published the results. We get people who bash them, but it’s only in blog articles. Nobody has gone in a lab and done work at the level we’ve done it to critique the work we’ve done. So, I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at some point, and I really want to shift gears."

< http://www.wataugademocrat.com/mountai....fd.html >
Posted by: NoName on Sep. 03 2016,10:34

What, exactly, would shutting down the lab required?
Deleting the stock art picture file and the photoshopped file using it?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 03 2016,12:22

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 03 2016,10:28)
I wonder if the discotoot will close down the "Biologic Institute" now that Douglas Axe says:

"For me, the book, career-wise, marks a transition from doing a careful extended critique of Darwinism — I reached the point several years ago where I thought, I can’t think of anything else we can do; we’ve done all these careful experiments, we’ve published the results. We get people who bash them, but it’s only in blog articles. Nobody has gone in a lab and done work at the level we’ve done it to critique the work we’ve done. So, I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at some point, and I really want to shift gears."

< http://www.wataugademocrat.com/mountai....fd.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh come on Doug, you could do something even less connected with actual evolution and pretend that it means something.

Not much less connected to real evolutionary theory, but still somewhat less connected with the actual science.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 03 2016,12:35

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 03 2016,11:28)
I wonder if the discotoot will close down the "Biologic Institute" now that Douglas Axe says:

"For me, the book, career-wise, marks a transition from doing a careful extended critique of Darwinism — I reached the point several years ago where I thought, I can’t think of anything else we can do; we’ve done all these careful experiments, we’ve published the results. We get people who bash them, but it’s only in blog articles. Nobody has gone in a lab and done work at the level we’ve done it to critique the work we’ve done. So, I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at some point, and I really want to shift gears."

< http://www.wataugademocrat.com/mountai....fd.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DA: What bothers me about the way the debate has played out is that both sides — the sides that I’m referring to here are the intelligent design proponents and the defenders of the orthodox Darwinian view — have tended to perpetuate the idea that this is basically a technical argument for scientists to hash out, and that the general public is to consume only the simplified explanations of what’s happening in that technical argument. That has bothered me for two reasons. One, because the establishment side, the orthodox Darwinian position, will always win if that’s how we frame the debate, because they outnumber us. There are far more people with Ph.D.s at top research facilities who disagree with me than the people who agree with me.
The other reason it bothers me is that I don’t fundamentally think that this is, at rock bottom, a technical issue. Common sense and very universal, simple reasoning actually can show you that Darwin’s story cannot be the true story.
So, I use the term common science to connect to common sense, but also to show that it’s not just that we have these intuitions, we actually have experienced observation models that we build as we go through life, beginning with early childhood, that really are scientific in nature. We don’t just pull these things out of thin air, we base them on our own observations and collective experience. They are really scientific in nature. That’s what I was aiming for with the term “common science.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



'I mean, just look at it. Like, it has to be made by somebody. I mean...just look at it.'
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 03 2016,12:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TM: It’s fairly late in the book before you actually begin writing about God, by name. Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cuz I'm worn out from all this dishonesty and just don't care anymore?
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 04 2016,02:54

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 27 2013,12:35)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 27 2013,12:25)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 27 2013,10:49)
You guys made me look, and then I had to make a comment... :D

< https://www.facebook.com/Biologi....7268096 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too. ďż˝:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me 3.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I couldn't resist making my own comment (under my real name) although I think I am the least academic person in the game. 7 years in school, that's all! It may not be appropriate to praise yourself but just this once, I am proud of my 86 years old brain!
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 04 2016,10:31

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 04 2016,10:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 27 2013,12:35)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 27 2013,12:25)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 27 2013,10:49)
You guys made me look, and then I had to make a comment... :D

< https://www.facebook.com/Biologi....7268096 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too. ďż˝:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me 3.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I couldn't resist making my own comment (under my real name) although I think I am the least academic person in the game. 7 years in school, that's all! It may not be appropriate to praise yourself but just this once, I am proud of my 86 years old brain!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't look like ur comment has seen the light of day yet.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.