Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: DI EN&V started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2011,10:32

The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog is < taking a step into uncharted territory >. They are permitting comments. Moderated, of course.



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

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

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



This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 20 2011,10:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis in the original.

Having looked through the top 5 articles, I have not found one with comments allowed. We shall see.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,10:45

(reads)

(breaks out into sarcastic sniggering)

If I had an irony meter, it might have hit elevenses on that one.  Can these yoiks possibly manage to avoid an own-goal with this stuff?  Or are the deafened by the sound of so many points whizzing over their heads?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 20 2011,10:49

uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 21 2011,09:44

The simple fact of Kris being here attacking AtBC about its horrible moderation policy and not being moderated for doing so is ample evidence that his arguments are flawed.

And he's been offered a thread of his own, where he could go and discuss in a civilized way.

1 post from him there so far...

Kris; as long as you don't actually spam (look at Mabuse for a "how not to do it" chart), you won't be moderated. Restricted to the BW for a while if you start being really insulting, at worst.

But no one will ever silence you here for your opinions. Hell, I've had a few harsh disagreements with some folks here, and was never, ever silenced.

or Expelled©...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 21 2011,09:47

I've split out the concern trolling to its own thread. Please try to keep this topical to the DI EN&V comment experiment.

The "split" function apparently doesn't actually move comments, it copies them. So I'll be deleting from here till the move operation is finished.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,09:49

Moved to appropriate thread
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 21 2011,09:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you referring to swallows, here?

:)

And Wes: yes, good idea, thanks.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 21 2011,09:55

[Squashing the pagination bug.]
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,10:01

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 21 2011,04:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you referring to swallows, here?

:)

And Wes: yes, good idea, thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, missed that one. It was Lampyris noctiluca!

ETA Oops Sorry Wesley. Feel free to move to correct thread.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2011,00:50

Casey Luskin < doesn't like it > that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was < published after we submitted our essay to Synthese >. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 26 2011,00:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 26 2011,00:50)
Casey Luskin < doesn't like it > that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was < published after we submitted our essay to Synthese >. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No?  Or is this a trick question?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 28 2011,23:29

At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 29 2011,00:32

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 28 2011,23:29)
At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can comment on the < the post on Flannery's book on Wallace > (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.

ETA < ENV's comment policy >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 29 2011,04:29

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2011,01:32)
You can comment on the < the post on Flannery's book on Wallace > (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.

ETA < ENV's comment policy >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have posted the following. Let's see if it appears:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It all sounds impressive until Pinker tries to actually make a case for any of this. The narrative quickly degenerates into a trivial recounting of what humans currently do and then into a collection of speculative scenarios about how certain primordial hominids "might have" done this or "perhaps" did that."

Wallace's claim too may be characterized as a recounting of what humans currently do coupled with the assertion that these capabilities cannot have arisen by gradations. The argument for this assertion inheres in characterizations of these activities, e.g. their level of abstraction, and the follow-on claim that lesser forms of such capabilities cannot have been useful to our hominid ancestors, and therefore cannot have arisen step-wise. This is a conceptual argument, not an empirical one - which is why it is characterized as a "paradox."

When a conceptual claim is made, a conceptual response may be sufficient to dispute that claim. Wallace - and now ID proponents - argue not that these things did not happen (broadly an empirical claim), but that they cannot have happened - that to assert otherwise is to invoke a paradox (a conceptual claim). To refute an argument of this kind all one need only show that such events can have happened - that the claim is not in fact paradoxical. That is the level of Pinker's argument (as you summarize it here). Qualifiers such as "may have been," "may serve as," "perhaps," "may connect" are appropriate when mounting a conceptual response to a conceptual claim.

That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable - a difficult proposition given that the hypothesized cognitive attainments occurred tens of thousands to millions of years in the past, and by their very nature can have left no physical traces other than cultural artifacts. The most interesting work in this field, which is far from new, draws not just upon characterizations of the skills in question but also upon predictions arising from a "triangulation" between findings in cognitive science, primatology, and human developmental psychology (ie. the unfolding of cognitive abilities in individual children). Perhaps we can never attain a high level of confidence regarding particular hypotheses. But a conceptual response alone can refute the bare conceptual claim that such hypotheses cannot be correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 29 2011,08:13

RB: My Spidey Sense says your comment will not see the light of day at EN & V:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your comment is intelligent, to the point, makes sense, and therefore is a threat to ID...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 29 2011,16:35

My comment < has appeared. > I'm not sure when, as I was looking for it at the end of the comment list until I noticed that the most recent comments appear just under the OP.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 29 2011,16:53

Bwahaha!!!

Egnor chimes in:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet... >
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 29 2011,18:13

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53)
Bwahaha!!!

Egnor chimes in:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet... >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists.
I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?
Posted by: Sol3a1 on Jan. 30 2011,07:29

Why is it the more I read of the tactics and personal of the DI the more I want to punch something?

Oh yes, really, really hard.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 30 2011,09:08

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,18:13)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53)
Bwahaha!!!

Egnor chimes in:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet... >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists.
I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From their comment policy


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

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess the egnoramus comments are considered civil, and not ad hominem. But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 30 2011,10:46

Egnor was the guy that said the brain was like a cell phone and God was ATT, or something along those lines.

He flounced away screaming like a little girl about "ad hominem, uncivil, viewpoint discrimination" when it was pointed out that his analogy was STUPID.

I mean, not even fucking STUPID, just regular STUPID.  What a Nancy.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2011,16:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What if the venom is merely evolved saliva?

Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,17:56

The time has come to examine EN&V's initial < foray > into the wilds of open comments.

Following a flurry of pro-ID regulars discussing a point irrelevant to the OP, I posted a comment. Flannery responded by counting the ways in which my argument miscarried (4). I responded...

And that's it. Flannery didn't seem to have much stomach for defending his thesis once challenged, never responded further, and now the thread is closed.

And regretted, one expects, as I don't see any other threads in which comments are open.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,18:57

< Second comment >, cached:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reciprocating Bill | January 30, 2011 7:11 PM
Flannery -

Thank you for your response. I'll address your points in turn.

"Pinker is invoking the cognitive niche as an explanatory mechanism for the human mind, and as such it is surely reasonable to expect some empirical evidence on its behalf"

I agree. As I stated below, "That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable."

As I also stated below, some extremely interesting work is being done on these very difficult questions, for example at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and by researchers such as Tomasello, Call, Povinelli, Hare, and many others. Hard won specific, testable hypotheses regarding the nature and evolution of primate theory of mind (a pillar in the foundation of human cognition) are being addressed through thoroughly experimental means (see Brian Hare's elegant work on the distribution among primates of an understanding that one's conspecifics 'see' and act upon what they have seen). The results have unmistakeable importance for the evolution of social-cognitive intelligence and the foundations of many of the human capabilities we both admire. Further, the cross-fertilized work in developmental psychology stimulated by this perspective has yielded significant, unexpected discoveries regarding the unfolding of human cognition in infants, empirical findings that have unmistakable relevance to our understanding of human cognitive evolution. Whether or not you find that work "convincing," a large community of primatologists, developmental psychologists and cognitive scientists find it a fertile, productive and progressive area of empirical research, a framework that guides research in a way that has yielded important discoveries and posed additional researchable questions. I find it wholly inaccurate to characterize this work as "hand waving and hedges."
Any reader who wishes may begin to judge for themselves by visiting

< http://www.eva.mpg.de/english/index.htm >

"Wallace never argued that humans couldnt acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection, he simply said that such an argument lacked evidence"

At the outset you quote, approvingly I gather, Wallace as characterizing the distance between human beings and other species as "unbridgeable," and that "nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man" (my emphasis). That statement precisely is a claim that human beings can't have acquired higher mental attributes by means of evolutionary mechanisms, and not an assertion regarding the evidence.

"Wallace pointed out that the uniquely human attributes of abstract reasoning, humor, mathematical ability, musical aptitude, artistic talent, etc. are inexplicable in terms of ordinary survival needs."

Of course, this again is a wholly conceptual claim, one that assumes it's conclusion. And, once again, it is a claim that "humans couldnt acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection," a argument you say Wallace never made.

Moreover, these abilities are at bottom elaborations of the powerful human capacity for representation, both as displayed by individuals and as deployed through the shared "distributed cognition" that characterizes our way of making a living. The capacious representational abilities that characterize human cognition have everything to do with the "survival needs" associated with the way human beings have made their living throughout their history. To say otherwise is tantamount to asserting that flight can't have evolved in birds because flight has nothing to do with basic survival needs.

That said, all of these skills have been hugely elaborated by means of cultural rather than biological evolution over the past several tens of thousands of years, and therefore do have many elaborate characteristics that are traceable to processes other than natural selection.

"The observational and experiential power of Wallaces position is underestimated."

Ultimately, again, the science lies in the very hard work of generating testable hypotheses concerning the origins of these abilities and devising empirical research (both experimental and field) capable of answering the questions posed. It is the experimental power of Wallace's ideas - or rather the lack of same - that should concern its advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,20:25

< David Klinghoffer > at EN&V sustains a higher level of discourse in a post on Richard Dawkins entitled, Richard Dawkins, Worthless Bully. Some excerpts:

"What's really contemptible about Dawkins's article"

"Nothing could be more shoddy and dishonest"

"Dawkins showed his own blind cowardice in his most recent book"

"The man is just a pathetic and worthless bully, nothing more."

Then we have the comment policy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis.

Doesn't apply to OPs, or to Klinghoffer, apparently.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 03 2011,16:18

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2011,17:56)
The time has come to examine EN&V's initial < foray > into the wilds of open comments.

Following a flurry of pro-ID regulars discussing a point irrelevant to the OP, I posted a comment. Flannery responded by counting the ways in which my argument miscarried (4). I responded...

And that's it. Flannery didn't seem to have much stomach for defending his thesis once challenged, never responded further, and now the thread is closed.

And regretted, one expects, as I don't see any other threads in which comments are open.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, the wonderful world of facts! Speaks louder than the most vociferous creationist.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 04 2011,18:07

Hmm... Casey Luskin has put a new < post > up criticising the DI's latest favourite bogeyman, Stephen Hawking. (He complains about Hawking using fallacious logic - oh the ironing.) It ends with a question...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What else would you expect from the guy that said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 04 2011,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No comment!!111!!eleven!!
Posted by: paragwinn on April 10 2011,08:51

I forgot to crosspost a comment I submitted to Nelson's OD II post which has been in moderation going on 24 hours now. (I guess nobody scans submissions on the weekends). I asked why Nelson decided to use "natural selection" as shorthand for the theory of [neo-Darwinian] evolution. I pointed out that such use makes it difficult to determine whether each of his arguments is referring to the process of NS or to the theory of evolution as a whole. I asked for clarification. Maybe I should have added "please with sugar on top"
Posted by: Sealawr on June 07 2011,18:14

Anybody hear anything about this?

Que pasa?

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....21.html >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2011,22:13

Casey invokes my name:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....61.html >

I was pleased that AML was responsive to David's letter. I have been less pleased that AML chose to issue an apology over a manuscript that is substantially a re-publication of stuff Sewell has done elsewhere. It's an issue that Casey (wisely) fails to take notice of, since it is hard to argue that re-publication is a good thing and the fact that Sewell had already published his stuff elsewhere would make it tougher to push the "censoring Darwinists" line like he does.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2011,22:15

Oh, yeah, and comments are not open on Casey's post. What's the matter, Casey?
Posted by: olegt on June 07 2011,22:26

After some huffing and puffing, Casey gets to the point of contention:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Sewell is fully aware of objections made to the classical version of the second law of thermodynamics argument, and that's why he is not offering the classical (unsophisticated) version of the argument. In particular, Sewell accepts as true the observation that entropy/disorder can decrease when energy is input from outside the system is true--but he argues that this fact is only relevant when the what is being input tends to create the type of order we're seeking to increase.

In the peer-reviewed article he wrote for Applied Mathematics Letters, Sewell argued that the basic principles underlying the second law of thermodynamics, when properly applied, might be a bar to Darwinian evolution after all. I'll further discuss Sewell's thesis in a second article later this week.

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



I look forward to the next installment. Casey does physics. This should be fun.
Posted by: Seversky on June 07 2011,22:31

The DI owes me a new irony meter for allowing Luskin to write



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already know that Sewell would love to have this debate in the journals. But having a real scientific debate is the last thing the Darwin lobby wants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



in an article for which comments are disabled.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2011,22:46

Casey Luskin, expert on everything:



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

There's an old unsophisticated argument against Darwinian evolution that goes something like this: The second law of thermodynamics holds that entropy/disorder always decreases. Darwinian evolution holds that entropy/disorder has increased. Therefore, Darwinian evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

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



Emphasis added.

Say what you will about Duane Gish, but at least Gish knew which way the 2LoT went.

But Casey inadvertently said something correct, which I highlighted in italics. Evolution means that entropy increases, as Brooks and Wiley discussed in their book, "Evolution As Entropy".

Casey does get the direction right in the next paragraph.
Posted by: sparc on June 07 2011,23:36

The < UTEP handbook of operating procedures > doesn't list re-publications as scientific misconduct. However, plagiarism, though not self-plagiarism, is listed.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 08 2011,06:01

The journal's listed standards puts self-plagiarism into a maybe-it-is, maybe-it-isn't light. If Sewell informed them up front that, oh, yeah, this manuscript is substantially the same thing that I published before, then it is up to editorial discretion as to whether they accept it on those terms. If he didn't inform them of that fact, though, that would be against the journal's policy.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 08 2011,06:48

My response:

< http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2011....ie.html >
Posted by: Bob O'H on June 08 2011,08:56

Has anyone heard from the journal about this?

Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.

I've tweeted Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and Reuters), hopefully he'll follow up.
Posted by: Sealawr on June 08 2011,11:45

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 08 2011,08:56)
Has anyone heard from the journal about this?

Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.

I've tweeted Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and Reuters), hopefully he'll follow up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stumbled across this yesterday when my Google Alert for "Intelligent Design" activated.

There was no other mention of this on the internet and the publication itself seems silent. Of course, I believe nothing from EN&V without independent verification from knowledgable and honest sources, but I've heard nothing so far.

I'm wondering if there had been a "nuisance settlement" and the DI let confidential terms out of the bag. Often such settlements are limited to a public announcement of "Neither side admits libaility, we did nothing wrong and we won't do it again."

It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.
Posted by: olegt on June 08 2011,11:52

Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45)
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 08 2011,12:10

Quote (olegt @ June 08 2011,11:52)
Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45)
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Granville got something better than money. He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 08 2011,13:02

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 08 2011,12:10)
Quote (olegt @ June 08 2011,11:52)
Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45)
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Granville got something better than money. He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Granville got something better than money. He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think you are right. He should be in line for a lot of extra book / dvd sales, bad cookies and worse lemonade in church basements all over the USA.

And since ID is All About The Science, this could even move him up on the Rapture Scale!


Posted by: Doc Bill on June 08 2011,18:21

I'm a stupid son-of-a-bitch for missing a chance to snag a beautiful line written by that moron of morons, John West, on the DI site.

In his blather about Granville, West wrote something to the effect that "Smithsonian journal editor Richard Sternberg lost his job because he published Meyer's paper."  I'm quoting what I remember not the actual text which I should have snagged, but didn't because I'm a StUpiD SoB!

I'm sure that's the way the DI views Sternberg but it was so wrong in all aspects that I spit my coffee OVER my screen.

It's been changed, now, and the original is probably lost to history.  It was sweet while it lasted.
Posted by: olegt on June 09 2011,10:40

As promised, Casey takes up the defense of Sewell's argument from the second law. Behold! < Digging Into Granville Sewell's Peer-Reviewed Paper Challenging Darwinian Evolution >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I noted in a < previous article >, many have argued that the second law of thermodynamics is not a valid argument against Darwinian evolution since the law holds that order can increase in an open system, and the earth and its biosphere do not comprise a closed system. While that is correct, Granville Sewell, author of < In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design >, argues there is more to the story. Sewell's article written for Applied Mathematics Letters argues that the second law of thermodynamics may be a problem for Darwinian evolution after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey makes some statements distancing himself from the second-law argument:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I am not personally convinced that the second law of thermodynamics is the right way to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution, and I prefer < Dembski's formulation >. But I think that Sewell's article makes interesting points that contribute to this discussion, and it certainly did not deserve to be withdrawn just because some Darwin lobbyists didn't like its conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He defends Sewell nonetheless. (Why would a tenured professor of applied math need defending by a lawyer whose knowledge of physics ended with Physics 102?) Anyway, Casey does not advance any new arguments, just quotes a few passages from Sewell's manuscript. Here is the gist of it (emphasis mine):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sewell observes that materialists claim that a reduction in entropy in a part of the universe can occur if it is compensated by an increase in another part. As he quotes Peter Urone: "it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases." Sewell then argues that this "compensation" rejoinder fails:


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

Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.

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



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



This is totally, completely wrong. It shows that Sewell does not understand thermodynamics. (Neither does Luskin, but that is hardly a surprise.)

Here is a simple counter example. Pour a glass of water and drop a cube of ice into it. The water will get colder. The motion of water molecules will slow down and its entropy will decrease. We can even calculate by how much. Suppose the temperature of water drops by 1 degree centigrade. 200 g of water gives off about Q = 0.8 joules of heat. That flow of heat takes away entropy S_w = -Q/T_w, where T_w is the absolute temperature of water. Let's say it is 27 degrees centigrade, or 300 K. Let's also convert the entropy to bits by dividing it by the < Boltzmann constant > k and the natural logarithm of 2:

S_w = -Q/(kT ln(2)) = -2.9 x 10^20 bits.

This is an enormously large decrease in entropy. The probability of that happening spontaneously is 2 to the power S_w, roughly one in 10^(88 000 000 000 000 000 000). This is very, very improbable. What gives?

Of course, the decrease in the entropy of water is more than compensated by an increase in the entropy of ice. Ice receives the same amount of heat but does so at a lower temperature T_i, 0 centigrade, or 273 K. Its entropy increase is S_i = +Q/T_i = 3.2 x 10^20 bits.

The total entropy change,

S_w + S_i = Q(1/T_i - 1/T_w) = 3 x 10^19 bits,

is positive because ice is colder than water, T_i < T_w.

So in this example, water goes into an incredibly less probable state as a result of cooling. That probability decrease is compensated, and then some, by the heating of ice. In fact, the full system (water + ice) ends up in a much more probable state as a result of the overcompensation.
Posted by: olegt on June 09 2011,11:03

Here is Sewell's silly paragraph again:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The premise is wrong. An extremely improbable event can be made less improbable if a compensating event happens nearby. The cooling of water by ice is an everyday example.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.

Garbage in, garbage out.
Posted by: Henry J on June 09 2011,11:07

But that explanation of the physics doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is after all a side effect of the reproductive process, which is observed, so T D can't prevent evolution without preventing reproduction, which even they know it doesn't do.

Henry
Posted by: Robin on June 09 2011,11:21

Quote (olegt @ June 09 2011,11:03)

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




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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.

Garbage in, garbage out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation of the microscopic state of molecular distribution (disorder) in a give system and the macroscopic properties associated with the system. In effect, he's trying to imply that disorder as used to describe energy and molecular distribution is the same thing as disorder of a broken vase.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 09 2011,12:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It seems to me that all of neoPaleyism is equivocation. It's all they have.
Posted by: Henry J on June 09 2011,13:24

So they aren't beyond the Paley?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 09 2011,13:29

Quote (Henry J @ June 09 2011,13:24)
So they aren't beyond the Paley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is a nice play on words - succinct and truer than any fact would ever be.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 09 2011,16:39

< http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.discovery.org/ >
Posted by: Robin on June 10 2011,08:25

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 09 2011,12:31)

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




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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It seems to me that all of neoPaleyism is equivocation. It's all they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good point.
Posted by: sparc on June 10 2011,15:41

A visualization of Sewell's self-plagiarism generated with
< WCopyfind >.
Identities are displayed in red

left = American spectator
right = Applied Mathematics letter

left = Mathematical Intelligencer
right = American Spectator

left = Mathematical Intelligencer
right = Applied Mathematics letter


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on June 10 2011,16:02

Sparc, I think you have way too much time on your hands...

Still, delicious!
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 10 2011,18:05

Have you noticed on the EN&V site since they opened up comments (restrictedly) that  

1.  There are few comments.
2.  What comments there are sounds like UD or Joe G's site or Ham's AIG.

No real commentary, just cheerleading from the socks.

Pathetic level of detail if you ask me.
Posted by: sparc on June 10 2011,22:59

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 10 2011,16:02)
Sparc, I think you have way too much time on your hands...

Still, delicious!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I was trying the program anyway becasue I am tired of getting protocols with only minor changes or verbatim quotes from Wikipedia from our students again and again. In the future I will check their writings before reading. In contrast to Dr. Sewell students caught red-handed will have to face consequences, though.

ETA pm me if you need the same with a higher resolution or pdfs.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 11 2011,10:00

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 10 2011,19:05)
Have you noticed on the EN&V site since they opened up comments (restrictedly) that

1. There are few comments.
2. What comments there are sounds like UD or Joe G's site or Ham's AIG.

No real commentary, just cheerleading from the socks.

Pathetic level of detail if you ask me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see ~five or six threads that allow comments, out of the hundreds posted since January.

ENV, if so timid, why bother at all?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 13 2011,10:19

Casey Luskin, science kibbutzer:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Despite the high levels of skepticism of claims of arsenophilic bacteria, Nature reports that few scientists have taken the initiative to attempt to experimentally reproduce the claims made in the original paper:

However, most labs seem too busy to spend time replicating work that they feel is fundamentally flawed and is not likely to be published in high-impact journals. So principal investigators are reluctant to spend their resources, and their students' time, replicating the work. "If you extended the results to show there is no detectable arsenic, where could you publish that?" asks Simon Silver of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who critiqued the work in FEMS Microbiology Letters in January and on 24 May at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans. "How could the young person who was asked to do that work ever get a job?" Refuting another scientist's work also takes time that scientists could be spending on their own research. For instance, Helmann says he is installing a highly sensitive mass spectrometer that can measure trace amounts of elements. But, he says, "I've got my own science to do."

Such admissions do not bode well for those who blindly believe in the perfectly objective, self-correcting nature of science. Indeed, in this case, it seems safe to experimentally critique these claims since so many respected scientists have already expressed vocal skepticism. Yet experiments are apparently not yet forthcoming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually it bodes very well for science. Nobody is stopping Wolfe-Simon from further supporting their argument with more experiments (that is how you answer arguments, not with a verbal nuh-uh!). What this means is that the original paper was, how should I put it, lame.



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

What about areas of science where scientists are not able to express their dissent freely?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Translation: fields where we IDiots can't get unsupported crap published very easily. Help, help, we're being expelled!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, who would take time to experimentally critique claims that are central to neo-Darwinian theory, especially if doing so could be dangerous to one's career?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Someone who wants to make a big splash, like Wolfe-Simon? Jeez, an example on hand, yet Luskin ignores it with his IDiotic rhetorical question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One hopes that science will become more self-correcting when it comes to claims made in support of materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, one hopes that Wolfe-Simon either backs up her claim, or admits the obvious - she is inadequate to the task. Like IDiots have already proven to be over how many years now?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 13 2011,18:16

Yea, DI, more Hitler!

My son:  Who's Hitler?
Posted by: noncarborundum on June 13 2011,18:23

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:16)
Yea, DI, more Hitler!

My son: Who's Hitler?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say that like it's a good thing. It's not, you know, unless he's very young.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 13 2011,18:48

Well, you know, my son knows "Hitler" as an historical figure, although vaguely, but I know of Hitler from all the b/w war movies I saw as a child.

The DI is appealing to me and my parents, dead or shortly dead, as a "bad thing."  Boomers like me remember the Hitler influence although we didn't experience it first hand.  The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.

The likelihood that my son will contribute to the DI because of "Hitler" is zero.  Hitler who?
Posted by: fnxtr on June 13 2011,20:43

I'm still flabbergasted when I meet someone who's never heard of The Dark Side of the Moon, but that's getting more and more common, too.

edit slash & typo
Posted by: Henry J on June 13 2011,21:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My son:??Who's Hitler?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? ;)

Henry
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 13 2011,22:07

Tell your son that he was a Darwinist.  

Be prepared for the next question: What is a Darwinist?
Posted by: noncarborundum on June 13 2011,22:12

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:48)
The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you couldn't prove it by my daughter. She's 15, and she's fascinated by the question of why people do evil things, to the point where she's taking an elective next year in school called "Facing History and Ourselves", one of the main topics of which is the Holocaust. I remember discussing Hitler and the Holocaust with her when she was maybe 8 or 9, and she read "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" in (I think) 6th grade. Hitler really does remain relevant.

(And not just because Nazis make great action movie heavies.)
Posted by: sparc on June 13 2011,23:34

According to < retraction watch > Applied Mathematics Letters has published an apology for retracting Granville Sewell's article "A second look at the second law".
Judge yourself if Elsevier's move is in accordance with < their ethical guidelines for author's >.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 14 2011,16:01

For those of you willing to sit through to the end of
< http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm >

you can see a screen shot of Dr Rodin's letter to Dr Sewell, informing him of the decision to rescind the paper. That last sentence says it all.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 14 2011,16:12

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 14 2011,16:01)
For those of you willing to sit through to the end of
< http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm >

you can see a screen shot of Dr Rodin's letter to Dr Sewell, informing him of the decision to rescind the paper. That last sentence says it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sounds like George W. Bush!
Posted by: csadams on June 16 2011,16:44

Oh, see.

Oh, see Casey.

Funny, funny Casey.

See funny Casey run.

Run, Casey, run.

See Casey < running away from the evidence >.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 17 2011,07:54

Looks like Casey and Steve Matheson are mixing it up on the same thread.

Hey, DI, is Luskin the Gerbil the best you have to explain "intelligent design" creationism?  I hope the little boy gets paid by the word!

< Luskin at bat. >
Posted by: Amadan on June 17 2011,19:06

Casey preaches to the converted:


Posted by: J-Dog on June 17 2011,20:31

Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


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


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...
Posted by: fnxtr on June 17 2011,23:32

Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


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


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


`twas probably in the craigslist personals.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 18 2011,07:33

Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


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


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


`twas probably in the craigslist personals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 20 2011,11:15

Continuing to poke Granville with a stick -

< http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416514 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 20 2011,11:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 18 2011,07:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
 
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


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


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


`twas probably in the craigslist personals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's in the picture.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 20 2011,20:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 20 2011,09:18)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 18 2011,07:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


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


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


`twas probably in the craigslist personals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's in the picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the far right (of course), in blue.
This is like a fairy version of the cover of "Satanic Majesty's Request" or "Sgt. Pepper".
Posted by: olegt on June 21 2011,07:55

Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog < Egnorance >. Srsly.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome!

This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

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


Posted by: Quack on June 21 2011,08:36

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55)
Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog < Egnorance >. Srsly.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome!

This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

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


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


The least they could do would be to understand that whatever questions they think may be raised because there is a scientific, well founded theory of evolution, it is completely irrelevant WRT what they think and claim are secondary effects of the existence of the theory.

That is, the question of whether evolution is true or not is a different question from questions about whatever influence the theory may have on people and society.

If the theory is true, maybe our approach should comprise some reorientation among the religiously overconfident people?

But the theory is obviously true, the belief that something did something somewhere sometimes (in addition to the obvious  effects of natural forces at play as we are able to show that they really are even today) , until now has not generated any evidence to support that faith.

The fact that Egnor doesn't know or doesn't want to acknowledge that acceptance of the ToE does not equate with atheism reflects rather unfavourably on his integrity.

His religion is not everybody's religion, far from it. It just confirms what we already know, ID is religious creationism.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 21 2011,13:28

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55)
Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog < Egnorance >. Srsly.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome!

This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

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


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


Let me guess: Faux News talking points!

ETA: Checked and sure enough I was right!
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 21 2011,18:12

I checked out Egnor's site and he has nothing to say.

The guy's another opinionated moron of which the Blogosphere is full.

I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance.  Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs.  Behe could be Weasel Words and Dembski could be Coward's Corner.  The Gerbil Tube for Luskin.  The mind boggles.

I'll wager 100 quatloos that Egnor doesn't get even a snarky comment in a year, and 200 quatloos that his site is moribund in 3 months.

Unless ... unless he starts blogging about food.  Who knows, he might corner the Blogosphere with tripe recipes.
Posted by: Louis on June 21 2011,19:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance. Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks....wait.....is that actually a compliment?

Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 21 2011,22:13

My kind of compliment goes like this:

"The flesh of your buttocks ripples nicely to the tip of my whip."

Like the French say, no grain no pain.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2011,10:04

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 21 2011,23:13)
My kind of compliment goes like this:

"The flesh of your buttocks ripples nicely to the tip of my whip."

Like the French say, no grain no pain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


whoa that is seriously focked.  i dig it
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,09:50

< Jonathan M on OOL >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*Edited to complete the quote
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 17 2011,09:55

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,07:50)
< Jonathan M on OOL >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Well, that settles it, then. Everybody go home.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 17 2011,10:15

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,09:50)
< Jonathan M on OOL >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*Edited to complete the quote
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Their information is uniformly associated with intelligent causes.

However, the rest of the world is perfectly capable of showing their intelligence to be somewhat less than that of termites (Hi Joe!).

It's truly amazing that these people can't even see that information does not equal meaning and that information can come from random events.

Morton's demon indeed.

I won't even bother trying to correct him.  The evidence is persuasive enough, ID proponents will never see it.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,10:30

I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.
2. A is information.
3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 17 2011,10:35

Information is data that has been collected by an intelligence.

The phenomena that is the subject of that data isn't affected by whether some intelligence has collected information about it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2011,10:37

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,10:30)
I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.
2. A is information.
3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Problem of induction and all that.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. (In our very limited experience). And for the level of information required (does not the sound of the wind whistling through the trees tell me its windy?) we can safely replace 'Intelligence" with "man", which is both more honest and precise, but removes their opportunity for analogy wankery.

If they were to try and robustly define 'information' and 'intelligence', one suspects there are a flock of black swans waiting to pounce.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,10:50

The problem is one of equivocation.

First you abstract biochemistry as "information."

(Isn't that reductionism? I get so confused.)

Then you reason backward, assigning limits to chemistry based on the formal properties of "information."

(Isn't that some form of circular reasoning? I get so confused.)

It's a bit like asserting that people have two eyes showing in profile because Picasso painted people.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2011,11:14


Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 17 2011,11:42

Of course, in ALL of that and ID and UD (and similar groups)

Information is equal to meaning

Which is, of course, 100% incorrect.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,12:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information is equal to meaning
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:

1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer
2. Evolution produces CSI
3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.

This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 17 2011,12:15

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,12:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information is equal to meaning
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:

1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer
2. Evolution produces CSI
3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.

This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, I've been saying for months.

Joe just doesn't understand the concept.  Which is odd...

the ID types refuse to speculate on the designer, but they KNOW the designer isn't a natural process.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 17 2011,12:58

I guess circular reasoning is their way of avoiding going off on a tangent?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 01 2011,09:19

ENV  seems to have returned to the policy of blocking comments.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 08 2011,19:20

Casey goes to bat again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

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



Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

< Link >
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 08 2011,22:45

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

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



Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.
Posted by: rossum on Sep. 09 2011,06:35

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,22:45)
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A hit, a hit, my kingdom for a hit!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzl6LEfouEE">Shakespearian Baseball</a>

rossum
Posted by: Lowell on Sep. 09 2011,10:38

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,19:20)
Casey goes to bat again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

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



Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 09 2011,11:37

Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.
Posted by: Lowell on Sep. 09 2011,14:01

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,11:37)
Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Sep. 09 2011,14:08

Quote (Lowell @ Sep. 09 2011,10:38)

Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genesis. God's eyewitness testimony, dictated to Moses.

Cross-examination's going to be a bit of a problem, I'll admit.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 09 2011,14:10

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 09 2011,16:34

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

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



Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alas, no joy in Udville.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 09 2011,18:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey is not stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No way, Jos!  Luskin the Attack Gerbil is quite stupid, quite possibly mentally deficient.  I'm sure he's paid in nickels because he's been told that they're bigger than dimes.

Although he managed to pass the low bar in California and possibly Washington, which is like the Arkansas of the northwest, Luskin has never "worked" as a lawyer, does not represent the DI or anyone as counsel and demonstrates the barest understanding of, well, anything.

If it weren't for the DI paying him in nickels his most frequently uttered phrase would be "May I take your order, please."

Not stupid?  Casey?????  Please, pull the other one!

p.s.  That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI.  But, that's because viciousness requires cunning which Luskin lacks in spades.  He's just a poor, dumb foot soldier.  I wonder how many times in staff meetings Luskin blurts out, "I like bowling!"
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 09 2011,18:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,22:34)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

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



Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alas, no joy in Udville.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fexache Bill!

Courtesy of this discussion I had just discovered the gem of Americana that is Thayer's opus major, and was about to spend my evening writing a parody of it featuring monobrows and unresolved sexuality, the whole pivoting on a witty pun on 'Mudville'.

And you stole first base, so to speak.

Bitch.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 09 2011,19:23

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 09 2011,19:43

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2011,10:23)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 09 2011,22:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 10 2011,18:17

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 10 2011,22:01

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,16:11)
That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah? Wait until he starts < forgiving you >.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 11 2011,01:25

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 10 2011,18:17)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the handout in response to Wells was authored by Nick as "Nic Tamzek". Nick stopped using the pseudonym shortly after that, IIRC.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 16 2011,21:13

< Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing >

He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 17 2011,08:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 16 2011,21:13)
< Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing >

He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey is unfamiliar with the concept of a < preprint >. In the good old days, preprints were circulated by mail prior to publication. More recently, they are put on the web for people to comment.

Here is < a case > where the preprint and the published paper were 6 years apart. Both are highly cited and no one complains of self-plagiarism.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 18 2011,11:25

I left a link to my blog via the < Discovery Institute Facebook page >.

Should we have a pool concerning when a DI flunky will turn up to delete it?

Given that it is Sunday, I'll take a guess of about 2:30 PM PDT.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 19 2011,21:00

According to the DI, the butterfly is the new (cue radio voice) ICON OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (/cue radio voice)!

Yes, the flagellum of the bacteria, let's face it, is not very photogenic.  How about a nice butterfly?  Ohhhhh, look at the wings, the eyes, the throax and the little hooky feet!  Must have been DESIGNED because Charles Darwin couldn't make a butterfly!  

DUH!

And which better scientists to decry the design of the butterfly and talk about all it's biological parts than Paul "I'm not a scientists nor do I play one on TV" Nelson and Ann "What, me science?" Gauger.

Seriously, I hope the DI realizes eventually that their ultimate mascot is the shark since they've jumped it so many times.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2011,21:08

Well. the flagellum is am icon of Intestinal Dysentery, not to mention, reducible.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2011,23:06

Aren't butterflies just a kind of moth?

Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 21 2011,17:46

Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I say "fuck 'em."
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 21 2011,18:46

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 21 2011,17:46)
Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I say "fuck 'em."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first rule of decorum is to insult your guests before they even arrive.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 22 2011,08:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say "fuck 'em."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, they're not my type.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 25 2011,11:35

Google Alerts tells me EN&V has another post up trying to make the Granville Sewell thing all about me.
Posted by: paragwinn on Sep. 25 2011,18:26

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 25 2011,09:35)
Google Alerts tells me EN&V has another post up trying to make the Granville Sewell thing all about me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin is practically frothing at the mouth in that post.
< Link >

Some revealing quotes indicating his awareness of the issue:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Early in his response, titled "Educating Casey on Publishing," Dr. Elsberry concedes my point that he self-plagiarized his recent paper in Synthese.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently, since Granville Sewell has published his arguments in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and then tried to republish some prior material in his now-withdrawn Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) paper, Sewell is supposedly guilty of some grave sin that Elsberry hasn't committed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the "gaming the system" accusations, whatever that means I see no evidence that Granville Sewell did it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



eta: as per SOP, no commenting allowed
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 26 2011,16:59

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....51.html >

I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.

At least he has JoeG on his side.
Posted by: paragwinn on Sep. 26 2011,22:28

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2011,14:59)
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......51.html >

I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.

At least he has JoeG on his side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Careful, if he gets too close, JoeG might decide to send in some intelligent agents like termites to probe Luskin's eyebrows for signs of design.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2011,11:43

He needs to protect his prose from termites.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 27 2011,11:53

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2011,16:59)
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......51.html >

I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.

At least he has JoeG on his side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would like to quote from a document that Casey's employers(?) produced some years back.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To replace materialistic explanation with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder what happened to 'we must defeat scientific materialism'?

These guys flop around more than a bass in the bottom of a boat.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 28 2011,17:15

Casey at bat again:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....1404051 >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 28 2011,20:35

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,17:15)
Casey at bat again:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is going to be no joy in UDville!
Posted by: raguel on Sep. 28 2011,21:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem 1: The first problem is that the examples Venema offers did not demonstrate new genetic information arising in the form of, as Meyer asks for it, fundamentally new genes and proteins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




That's dangerously close to "homology disproves evolution".  Or is there a more fair interpretation? Apparently not, since teh gerbil failed to provide one.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 28 2011,22:28

Why not ask him why the relative absence of new genes and proteins in, say mammals, doesn't render the new information argument moot?

If evolution didn't need to invent a lot of new proteins to make men different from mice, doesn't that reduce the improbability factor?

It a genuine question. I would like to hear from someone who knows more than I do.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 28 2011,23:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is going to be no joy in UDville!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's an UDmpire when you need one?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 29 2011,08:25

Case swings:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So SELEX experiments do not demonstrate that selection can occur prior to the origin of life. Rather, they show that in the absence of natural selection, intelligence is the only other selective agent. Since there was no natural selection prior to the origin of life, this doesn't leave many options for the materialist.

Thanks.

Casey
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on Sep. 29 2011,10:16

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15)
Casey at bat again:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Swingggggggg and a miss!

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 29 2011,11:31

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2011,10:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15)
Casey at bat again:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Swingggggggg and a miss!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems Casey is unfamiliar with the phrase "Teaching old genes new tricks."
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 29 2011,11:53

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 29 2011,17:31)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2011,10:16)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15)
Casey at bat again:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Swingggggggg and a miss!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems Casey is unfamiliar with the phrase "Teaching old genes new tricks."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that ain't the only thing Casey is unfamiliar with...

Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 29 2011,11:53

The shorter Casey:

Anything Darwinists have done is not good enough.

All experiments are evidence of intelligent design by definition.

Cambrian Explosion.

QID
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 05 2011,20:31

Behe weighs in:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 05 2011,20:46

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:31)
Behe weighs in:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


A TADL tale?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 05 2011,20:52

Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 06 2011,19:18

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 05 2011,20:46)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:31)
Behe weighs in:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


A TADL tale?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, does Behe mean Tiktaalik or something more recent?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, whales do not re-evolve gills, even though they are aquatic creatures who descended from fish, because gills are a lost, complex trait in that lineage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 07 2011,00:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:52)
Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me more of this new science...


Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2011,02:45

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 07 2011,00:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:52)
Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me more of this new science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Retrospective astonishment is a term employed by the Sensuous Curmudgeon. I don't know if he invented it.

It roughly means that the odds against any specific thing happening are so high that it couldn't possibly have happened, except by magic.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2011,09:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It roughly means that the odds against any specific thing happening are so high that it couldn't possibly have happened, except by magic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And never mind that the number of specific things that might happen is so large that there isn't any one specific thing that doesn't have enormous odds against it. Yet something has to happen.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2011,12:00

I've decided to call Behe's new law Time Asymmetric Reality Denial.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2011,19:15

Retrospective astonishment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, Behe erroneously equates evolving non-deterministically with impossible to evolve.  He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve.  This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom....hornton >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 07 2011,21:55

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 07 2011,19:15)
Retrospective astonishment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, Behe erroneously equates evolving non-deterministically with impossible to evolve. He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom.......hornton >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now if they had said the Yankees season was willed by Satan, I'm a willing believer!  :)
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2011,22:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AMEN!!111!!!eleven!!!!

(Or something like that.)
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 24 2011,18:37

< "A Weirdly Naked Appeal to Racism from the National Center for Science Education? >
10.24.2011 4:35PM

David Klinghoffer is one of the most vile shit-for-brains in the entire Discotute stable of whores.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 01 2011,11:12

BREAKING NEWS (HOMOS!)  !!!!

This just in from Evo Nooze and Snooze:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The online encyclopedia triumphantly points to resistance to myxoma virus among Australian rabbis as one piece of evidence, among others, for common descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Oy, vey!  Who knew??
Posted by: paragwinn on Dec. 03 2011,21:22

from the "We Get Love from Leading Darwinist Group Blog" post:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This [Jack Scanlan's Panda's Thumb post] has put us in such a good mood we're almost tempted to open the great Black Gate that allows comments so all the other Darwinists can write in and tell us how much they love us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuckin' cowards!

frikkin' clarification frakin' mine
Posted by: Seversky on Dec. 04 2011,07:49

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 24 2011,18:37)
< "A Weirdly Naked Appeal to Racism from the National Center for Science Education? >
10.24.2011 4:35PM

David Klinghoffer is one of the most vile shit-for-brains in the entire Discotute stable of whores.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That goes without saying although, since they played the racism card, it did lead me to wonder how many members of the DI are not white.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 05 2011,18:54

We are now a "Not So Privleged Planet"...

But don't hold your breath waiting to gonzalez to recant his truly bad book.  He is an IDist after all.

< New Habitable Planet Found >
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 06 2011,20:14

< David Klinghoffer >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Rod reminded me of a saying from the Talmud. Attributed to Rabbi Yochanan, it makes an observation about the Hebrew Bible: "Wherever you find mention of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, there you will also find mention of his humility."

Rod insisted on this point about God's humility, a kind of shyness or modesty, almost, that seems to be a characteristic of his personality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It makes you wonder if Rod or David or Rabbi Yochanan have ever actually read the Hebrew Bible. The words 'shyness' and 'modesty' don't exactly spring to mind when you read the following:


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

Job 38

1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 Where were you when I laid the earths foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt?

12 Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.

16 Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

19 What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orions belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up Gods[e] dominion over the earth?

34 Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, Here we are?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?

39 Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?

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


On and on without a single humble word until the end of chapter 41, when the soliloquy mercifully ceases.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 06 2011,20:37

Klinghoffer goes on to explain that God's shyness is the reason that the evidence for intelligent design is so, shall we say, understated:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 06 2011,21:01

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 06 2011,20:37)
Klinghoffer goes on to explain that God's shyness is the reason that the evidence for intelligent design is so, shall we say, understated:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


No, oddly enough it hits you over the head and says life evolved without intelligent direction.

But if you properly "prepare" your mind to "accept" design, you can always close your eyes and mind to the evidence of evolution, and say that it was all designed.

Exactly why the Lord of Truth would make minds that "work" like that isn't clear, however God's shyness no doubt explains that, too.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 06 2011,21:53

Klinghanger is a fucking idiot.  Why would anybody care what he writes?

Luskin is like a Nobel Prize winner next to Klinkdropper.
Posted by: Seversky on Dec. 07 2011,00:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shy?

We're talking about the Great White Sky-Dude who tossed Adam and Eve out of Eden for disobeying orders, who turned people into pillars of salt for looking at him the wrong way, who wiped out whole cities and races because they wouldn't grovel before him and who finally drowned out almost all life on Earth in an amazing fit of pique.

"Shy" is not the first word that comes to mind to describe him.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Are you serious? The whole case for design in Nature from Paley onwards has been that it's so blatantly obvious that only a fool could deny that it screams out for explanation.

Someone needs to have a quiet word with Corporal Klinghoffer about staying on-message.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because before the trial we heard a lot of bluster along the lines of



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I therefore await the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views.

[...]

What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them.

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



But all we actually heard at Dover then is what we've heard from the DI ever since - the sound of pips squeaking.
Posted by: Robin on Dec. 07 2011,12:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should this quality (assuming your god exists and actually does have it) be surprising? Why would any characteristic in a god be surprising?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, because all shy people are primitive and superficial? Are they all passive females too? Any other erroneous generalizations you'd like to imply?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait...what? I thought Christians had received their redemption. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity vs Judaism?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, because shy people design things that don't look designed? Or is it that shy people's designs are more subtle - and thus creative - which then begs the question of what you implied earlier about shy people being primitive and superficial. Can you make up your mind?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly because we don't carry the baggage of your presupposed generalizations about shy and in-your-face people, to say nothing of lacking any expectations about the characteristics that gods and nature must have.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh please...blame that fiasco on yourselves. It's not our fault you all imploded and looked inane. Further it isn't our fault that none of your representatives brought any actual evidence for this "obvious" design you keep yammering about. We keeping waving Judge Jones in your face to remind you of those facts.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh...see Kitzmiller vs Dover (see what I did there). You can make this claim all you want, but when push comes to shove, you guys have no way to substantiate the claim.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There in lies your problem then, huh?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Dec. 08 2011,21:37

Quiz time:
Who is being quoted here, and who is the speaker referring to?



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

... That's what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key termsthe terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle.

...If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they'll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model buildingnot by wordplay and sleight-of-hand.

...This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see... Dawkins talking about Dembski? PZ, about Meyer? Miller on Behe?
Those would be < wrong. > But the last one is close.
Posted by: paragwinn on Dec. 15 2011,03:33

Ironic AnalogyFAIL:
< "Darwinian Biology Is to Spelling as Intelligent Design Is to the Art of Writing" >

If i remember my analogy formulation right, it should have read:
Darwinian Biology Is to Intelligent Design as Spelling Is to the Art of Writing

for as we all know
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In one case you're looking at the micromechanics of how you put letters together to make words but in the other you are looking at higher-level principles that allow good writing to take place, the principles you have to master in order to write well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the post title is anything to go by, good writing is not taking place.
It so happens that the post stems from an ID: The Future podcast titled "Key Figures in Intelligent Design Measure the Impact of Discovery Institute", which could be analogized as "a man measures the size of his own dick."
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 23 2011,19:51

Casey < whistles past the graveyard >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn't know it from reading the Wedge Document, either. Here are the DI's 5-year scientific goals for the period 1999-2003:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Woodbine on Dec. 23 2011,22:52

2011....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, some of us who write for ENV got a laugh this past Wednesday morning when we arrived at the office and someone pointed out that it was the sixth anniversary of the Dover ruling....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2009....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To say the least, we at the IDEA Center got a good laugh reading these IDEA Center death certificates fabricated by these highly imaginative internet Darwinists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much laughter, so little awareness.
Posted by: didymos on Dec. 23 2011,23:02

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 23 2011,20:52)
2011....
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, some of us who write for ENV got a laugh this past Wednesday morning when we arrived at the office and someone pointed out that it was the sixth anniversary of the Dover ruling....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I call bullshit on that one.  As obsessed with Dover as they are and they somehow didn't notice the anniversary?  Yeah. Right.
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 23 2011,23:23

I left the following comment at EN&V:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The current impact of ID becomes obvious at < Google trends > and < Google insight >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Dec. 24 2011,00:18

EN&V's < comment policy > may prevent my comment from seeing the light of the public:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

emphasis mine
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 24 2011,12:09

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 24 2011,00:18)
EN&V's < comment policy > may prevent my comment from seeing the light of the public:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

emphasis mine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right - It will never see the light of day.

Everyone knows that facts have a well-known scientific bias.*


* adapted from A Great American Stephen Colbert
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 25 2011,23:53

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 23 2011,19:51)
Casey < whistles past the graveyard >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn't know it from reading the Wedge Document, either. Here are the DI's 5-year scientific goals for the period 1999-2003:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EN&V's main page still asks you to  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be the first to comment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

on "How bright is the future of Intelligernt Design?" although Casey already moved to "< Post-Dover Education Victories for Intelligent Design >" in which he is re-writing history.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 26 2011,17:35

"Be the first to comment" should read:

Be the first to suck up.

Be the first to praise jeebus.

Be the first to kiss Luskin's furry butt.

Be the first to use the use the word 'evotard.'

Be the first to Meyer*.

Be the first to fart.



*Meyer - write a sentence with 500 irrelevant references.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 27 2011,19:46

"< It's time for some folks to get over Dover >," said Casey, without a trace of irony.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 27 2011,20:02

Here are the articles by year referencing or mentioning Kitzmiller on the Disco Tute Evo Whine and Cheese website:

2011  18
2010  16
2009  22
2008  26
2007  45

In contrast, Pharyngula mentioned Kitzmiller once this year, and the PT three times.

Project much, Gerbil?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 05 2012,22:48

Can anybody identify what is displayed on the slide left of Behe? And what could the writing on the white board relate to?

Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 06 2012,01:39

The chances of bumblebees happening by accident, apparently.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2012,04:59

It's a slide related to the film Transformers.

Behe sure is a pathetic shit. Transformers indeed.


< http://tinyurl.com/6rqrqv9....6rqrqv9 >
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 07 2012,00:09

Thanks for the information. I can't help the feeling that I am getting old.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 19 2012,23:16

It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during < Robert Marks' > talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 21 2012,17:38

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 19 2012,21:16)
It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during < Robert Marks' > talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect it is another manifestation of Bob Marks' juvenile sense of humor. He is not giving this lecture to a live audience, so he's probably filling in what he imagines is going through the minds of his target audience. If so, he obviously doesn't think much of the intellectual capabilities of his audience, or maybe those are the thoughts that go through his mind.
It kind of follows along the lines of those disturbing drawings of "people" that he populates his slides with. I have a very hard time looking at those. The artwork is so starkly ugly, they remind me of adolescent male pen-and-ink doodling. And then he puts the same cartoon on several successive slides, like he's proud to show them off. They make me wince, and want to look away.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 22 2012,20:45

David Klinghoffer is < upset > about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 22 2012,21:46

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,18:45)
David Klinghoffer is < upset > about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey forgives you for that comment, Wes.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 22 2012,21:46

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,20:45)
David Klinghoffer is < upset > about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. "Gleick" also sounds pretty German, which is what Hitler was*

< http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2010....at.html >

*Almost.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Feb. 22 2012,23:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,20:45)
David Klinghoffer is < upset > about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Leaking strategy memos is just awful - people might find out what you are up to! Where could I look for an example? Could it be.... < SATAN? >
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Feb. 23 2012,00:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2012,21:46)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,20:45)
David Klinghoffer is < upset > about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. "Gleick" also sounds pretty German, which is what Hitler was*

< http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2010.......at.html >

*Almost.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I followed your link: Whatever this guy claims to be, he can't be a True Christian .
Posted by: sparc on April 26 2012,23:42

Stop the presses:
< Granville Sewell censored! >
< AGAIN!!! >


Bob Lloyd of < Trinity College Dublin > debunked Sewell's oft-repeated several times < self-plagiarized > claims regarding the second law in his article:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is There Any Conflict Between Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sewell's arguments have been shredded
< time > < and > < again > before before. However, Lloyd dared to publish his work in The Mathematical Intelligencer < (Volume 34, Number 1 (2012), 29-33) > thus in the very same journal Sewell sneaked the first version of his article in and the editors refused to publish Sewell's reponse.

On a side note: Is it really a good idea to attack a journal run by the same publisher who is currently re-reviewing Biological Information: New Perspectives in which Sewell is repeating his claims.
Posted by: keiths on May 30 2012,20:34

Where does the DI get these yahoos?

< Stephen Batzer writes >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on May 31 2012,08:29

Another "Darwin on Trial" mechanical engineer from Arkansas, aka future DI senior fellow.
Posted by: Starbuck on May 31 2012,13:57

<a href="">These guys</a> aren't even trying to hide their creationism anymore.



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

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

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



How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once.  We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.
habilis.  But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.
Posted by: Starbuck on May 31 2012,13:58

Messed that up. Referring to here < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012....91.html >
Posted by: Woodbine on May 31 2012,14:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The story of our own journey to upright bipedalism, as recorded in the fossil record, is discontinuous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would seem she's on board with common descent for humans - if that's Gauger's actual position she's a lot closer to us than the rest of the ID crowd.
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 31 2012,16:00

Barham's latest post, cross-posted between ENV and TBS, prompts me to say that < TBS has joined the DI link farm >.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 31 2012,17:22

Quote (Starbuck @ May 31 2012,13:57)
<a href="">These guys</a> aren't even trying to hide their creationism anymore.



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

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

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



How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once. We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.
habilis. But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, and what the hell does

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Faith the Dog is not evidence for the ability to evolve bipedalism, she is evidence for achievement in the face of adversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

have to do with anything?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Australopithecine fossils were ape-like in posture and gait. Their ribcage, hips, legs, spine, and feet were closer to chimp than human. While these hominins may have spent some time on the ground, they were not built for speed or running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Australopithicines contain some traits linking them to the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and some traits linking it to later Homo? This is called, unless I am mistaken, a transitional fossil.

Luskin has been flogging the same two articles Gauger cited for years, guess he was indisposed and let Ann have a chance to misunderstand them...
Posted by: sparc on May 31 2012,21:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is called, unless I am mistaken, a transitional fossil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Really. You will have to admit that it is flanked by gaps on both sides. ;)
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 01 2012,03:23

Quote (keiths @ May 30 2012,20:34)
Where does the DI get these yahoos?

< Stephen Batzer writes >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Why not go the whole hog and demand a crocoduck?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 01 2012,03:27

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 31 2012,16:00)
Barham's latest post, cross-posted between ENV and TBS, prompts me to say that < TBS has joined the DI link farm >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pathetic incest - sending their readers back and forth between blogs might increase the traffic but not the actual amount of followers.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 01 2012,13:42

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 01 2012,03:23)
Quote (keiths @ May 30 2012,20:34)
Where does the DI get these yahoos?

< Stephen Batzer writes >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Why not go the whole hog and demand a crocoduck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if a ducodile is discovered, evolution (which predikts crocoduck) is teh disproved!
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 06 2012,13:35

Hey kids!

< http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc >

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.
Posted by: Robin on June 06 2012,14:08

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 06 2012,13:35)
Hey kids!

< http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc >

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This kind of says it all:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Center for Science & Culture
1,310 likes 37 talking about this 2 were here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anyway to "unlike"?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 06 2012,14:09

And right at the top the "Donate" button.
AFAIK you can block persons.
Posted by: The whole truth on June 07 2012,08:31

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 06 2012,11:35)
Hey kids!

< http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc >

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I looked at that page and a bunch of my brain cells committed suicide. There's a lot more tard there than should be allowed by law.
Posted by: Woodbine on June 07 2012,10:06

So ID has a Facebook page.....Waterloo!

Is anyone else reminded of Dembski's typically tragic clarion call from the good old days?

< http://tinyurl.com/c7zojm8....c7zojm8 >



Student activism, eh?

Hey, let's pay a visit to the front line of a bona-fide social, scientific and cultural revolution....

Here's MySpace - surely an ongoing hot-bed of radical ID thought....



2007? It has indeed been a while!

Ahh....never mind. Surely XANGA will blow us away with the sheer weight of enthusiasm for the promised cultural renewal....



Mmmm....I know, LiveJournal. Ah, yes. Where else would we find the white hot core of a revolution but at LiveJournal?



Fuck. Well, what about BlogSpot.....



:(

Oh, William.
Posted by: Texas Teach on June 07 2012,20:40

Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.
Posted by: sledgehammer on June 07 2012,20:49

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2012,18:40)
Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Segundoded!
Posted by: NormOlsen on June 07 2012,21:17

Quote (sledgehammer @ June 07 2012,20:49)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2012,18:40)
Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Segundoded!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Oh yeah, it's lame I know, but it's still POTW! Err, anyway, where's Kattarina98 when you need her?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 08 2012,01:13

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 07 2012,21:17)
Oh yeah, it's lame I know, but it's still POTW! Err, anyway, where's Kattarina98 when you need her?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right here to join the public demand for POTW for Woodbine; he must have an exhaustive archive of TARD.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 08 2012,03:44

Quote (Woodbine @ June 07 2012,10:06)
Is anyone else reminded of Dembski's typically tragic clarion call from the good old days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the time (IIRC) I looked into who created/registered those and IIRC IDEA clubs. It turned out to be the same person, Mario something, who has been active in ID for a long time.

So just more astroturfing...
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 08 2012,06:11

Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while?  Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 08 2012,09:45

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 08 2012,04:11)
Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while? Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 08 2012,11:07

Don't forget Carolyn Crocker!

David Coppedge will be on the payroll soon.
Posted by: Sealawr on June 08 2012,14:56

Coppedge will be available to start as soon as the judge issues his ruling.  I'm on pins and needles.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 08 2012,15:02

Quote (fnxtr @ June 08 2012,09:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 08 2012,04:11)
Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while? Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of those students must have graduated, woodbine.  Surely they have their PhD's by now, toiling away in ID laboratories.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 09 2012,10:19

Ann Gauger been spilling nonsense on the DI BI blog. I poke back with
< Someone Teach Ann Gauger How to Google >
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 19 2012,13:30

David Klinghoffer likes James Barham's latest essay at TheBestSchools.org.

I don't.

< http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2012....to.html >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 19 2012,13:44

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 09 2012,10:19)
Ann Gauger been spilling nonsense on the DI BI blog. I poke back with
< Someone Teach Ann Gauger How to Google >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They had a thread on this at UD a little while ago. Predictable enough outcome.

Good stuff!
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 20 2012,11:10

< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
Posted by: Amadan on June 20 2012,11:32

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,17:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean, how Wegener's appealing theory wasn't accepted as scientifically sound until someone went and produced the pathetic level of detail stuff?

Yeah, that would be a good read alright.

But enough of this banter. We mustn't distract the IDiots from their very technical experimentation showing the evidence for design.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 20 2012,11:40

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution.  Is that true?  If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 20 2012,12:06

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 20 2012,12:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. Is that true? If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 20 2012,12:48

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2012,12:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 20 2012,12:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. Is that true? If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that the same joke as the officer asking why he's looking for his keys under the street lamp and the guys says, "Well, I dropped my keys in the street way over there, but the light is over here."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 20 2012,14:08

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When do you expect design to overturn Darwin then?

Do you have an ETA?

10 years?

50?

100?

EDIT: As it's only a mirror if design does overturn Darwin. Until then it's "no evidence, no movement". Just like ID.


Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 20 2012,15:04

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on June 21 2012,06:06

Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 20 2012,16:04)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
< Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views >

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it was ultimately a farting flash animation that put tectonics over the top, wasn't it?
Posted by: olegt on June 21 2012,08:43

A new book by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey "< Where's the Wrist? >" Luskin: < We ain't come from no monkeys >. Brought to you by Discovery Institute Press.
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 21 2012,10:48

That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gauger concludes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



My, oh my, how fascinating.
Posted by: JLT on June 21 2012,11:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whales evolved from something like this:

to something like this in approximately the same timeframe:


I find the change from a terrestial to an aquatic lifestyle somewhat more impressive.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 21 2012,11:26

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,10:48)
That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gauger concludes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



My, oh my, how fascinating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, I ask... why not quit trying to find problems with evolution and start talking about ID.

I've asked you a number of questions about ID and you have completely ignored them.

You're here.  The rest of your ilk are to chicken to come here and I'm not about to go to a place with restricted access and a group that doesn't mind changing words written by someone else.

So, how about it?  Are you actually interested in talking or are you just trolling?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 21 2012,11:51

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,10:48)
My, oh my, how fascinating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes indeed. But you'll find that when the bucket is empty you won't be able to simply drop in your favoured replacement without any actual evidence to support it, regardless of how empty the bucket is.

So, how did humans arise? Did the designer tweak DNA directly or was it something else?

Does the fact that you don't know a single thing about how, when, where or why with regard to the designer or the design never worry you?
Posted by: olegt on June 21 2012,12:00

Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 21 2012,12:38

High-Larry-Ous!

The DI's stated, written objective is nothing short of the "renewal" of American culture and science to incorporate a Biblical Christian worldview in everything that's done.

No, the DI does not care about science one whit which is why they employ the witless (Klinkleklopper, Luskin the Gerbil, Axe, Gauger, et al).

"My granddaddy ain't no monkey" is just their way of keeping the flaps of the big tent open wide enough to fleece the credulous and feeble minded.  Alas, those people would be most of our elected representatives!
Posted by: SLP on June 21 2012,12:45

Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?
Posted by: NormOlsen on June 21 2012,13:00

Quote (SLP @ June 21 2012,12:45)
Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's got a masters degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California at San Diego (according to his website).
Posted by: Texas Teach on June 21 2012,13:47

Quote (SLP @ June 21 2012,12:45)
Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because he once made a volcano out of baking soda and vinegar.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 21 2012,13:59

Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.
Posted by: NormOlsen on June 21 2012,14:43

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 21 2012,13:59)
Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pardon my utter lack of Photoshop skills (or in this case, Paint.NET).

Posted by: Quack on June 21 2012,14:53

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 21 2012,14:43)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 21 2012,13:59)
Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pardon my utter lack of Photoshop skills (or in this case, Paint.NET).

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


Lovely!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 21 2012,15:01

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 21 2012,14:43)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 21 2012,13:59)
Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pardon my utter lack of Photoshop skills (or in this case, Paint.NET).

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


That's hilarious - I needed that laugh!
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 21 2012,15:23

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Again, motive mongering is a two-way street.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 21 2012,15:32

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,15:23)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Again, motive mongering is a two-way street.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And again, we have no supporting evidence for anything you've said.

Do you really think that people believe in evolution because it makes it OK to not believe in God?  I've got some bad news for you buddy... you are massively confused.

Evolution is not a belief.  It is science.  There is evidence.  Whether you agree or disagree with the evidence is one thing, but there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution.  Further, the theory of evolution can successfully predict future occurrences.

evolution is science
science is not a belief
therefore evolution is not a belief

I don't expect you to understand.  After all, you think "because it looks complicated" is evidence that supports ID.

Of course, everywhere but in your head, people actually study a subject, then come to a decision about it.  You guys decide how you want it to be, then try to find things that you think supports your opinion.

Again, I would like you to point out, in detail, where in the definition of evolution that it says "God does not exist".

If you want to discuss religion, I can do that too.  But religion is not science.  Science is not religion.  Evolution is not religion, because it is science and ID is religion, even the inventors of ID say that ID is religion.

Remember this quote "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."?  I wonder who said that?

Now, do you want to talk about religion or do you want to talk about science or (much more likely) neither?
Posted by: olegt on June 21 2012,16:00

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,15:23)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
Posted by: Henry J on June 21 2012,18:03

Funny, I thought Homo Sapien was put in the ape family before evolution theory was established. Not only that, but the only reason for not putting humans and chimpanzees in the same genus was basically the ego of the ones doing the classifying.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 21 2012,18:27

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,11:48)
That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gauger concludes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



My, oh my, how fascinating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is really cute when Ann, Doug, and Casey get together and pretend to do science, don't you?

Let's start by fudging a number based on an asexual organism (but no HGT allowed!) and then apply it to a sexually reproducing organism! Wow, evilution is teh disproved!!1!
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 21 2012,18:42

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
Posted by: Texas Teach on June 21 2012,19:02

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?
Posted by: NormOlsen on June 21 2012,19:06

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 21 2012,19:02)
 
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes please do, and remember an anti-evolution argument is not de facto, a pro-ID argument.
Posted by: olegt on June 21 2012,19:21

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Jared, no comment on what moves the BioLogos people?
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 21 2012,19:26

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am thrilled that the ID side is arguing via evidence and logic.

Care to actually tell us some of this evidence?

How about a link to some of the evidence?
Posted by: fnxtr on June 22 2012,00:49

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: The whole truth on June 22 2012,06:17

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Others have already asked but I'll ask too. Will you present at least some of the "many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life"? It should be easy if there are "many".

And hey, that's just regarding the origin of life, which leaves all the rest of the stuff that actually pertains to evolution and the theory of evolution. Maybe you will present some "valid" pro-ID arguments about all that too?

It's obvious that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ogre, and others, have asked you relevant questions, but you ignore them and keep bringing up worldviews. Are you ever actually going to respond to the questions or are you going to continue to play games?

I can't help but notice the crap in your signature. Do you really think that Dawkins, or Moran, or any other non-IDiot is scared of IDiots? If so, you've got a lot to learn.

If you're genuinely concerned about who is scared, why don't you ask the powers that be at UD and all the other IDC sites that either don't allow any comments, or don't allow some or all dissenting comments, or ban people for no good reason, why they are so scared of facing challengers? And no, the lame and dishonest claim that all comments from non-IDiots are vulgar or some other allegedly horrible thing just won't cut it. Besides, UD welcomes joe g, and no one is more vulgar than he is, well, on second thought, many of the IDiots are just as vulgar whether they use four letter words or not. For example, the constant, sanctimonious, dishonest, vicious attacks by kairosfocus (gordon e mullings) on anyone who doesn't kiss his massively pompous ass are as 'vulgar' as anything I've ever seen.

What's really vulgar are all the lies, arrogance, bald assertions, illogical fairy tales, false accusations, libelous attacks on real scientists and science supporters, hypocrisy, deceptive quote mines, self-serving distortions of scientific hypotheses, theories, and findings, and the malicious denigration of anyone who disagrees with the IDC dogma, that are constantly spewed by the so-called "Christian", and self-proclaimed "moral", IDiots. And their cowardice, sneakiness, and censoring just adds more layers to their vulgarity.


Posted by: fusilier on June 22 2012,07:27

Quote (Henry J @ June 21 2012,19:03)
Funny, I thought Homo Sapien was put in the ape family before evolution theory was established. Not only that, but the only reason for not putting humans and chimpanzees in the same genus was basically the ego of the ones doing the classifying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not Quite.  

"I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history. I certainly know of none... If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science."
-from a letter by Linnaeus to Johann Gmelin
Posted by: Quack on June 22 2012,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Links, links!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How strange, just the same question popped into my mind the moment I read Dr. Jammer's claim. Except I am real old and can't expect enlightenment in this lifetime.

The evidence for ID must be one of the world's best kept secrets.

Whereas the cluelessness so characteristic of ID proponentsists is known to us all. It transpires from everything they write. Discourse-wise, they are like an elephant in a china store.

But as I have said so many times, faith beats facts.

Dr. Jammer, want to offer a surprise as we gather at Stonehenge to celebrate, say, Odin?

_
ETA name correction.


Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 22 2012,09:29

First, I'd like to remind commenters that Dr Jammer is not Jerad (who is very much reality based).

And Dr Jammer, please don't reduce the issue to a conflict of worldviews. It looks suspiciously like a way to avoid discussing evidence. Besides, it's rather boring. There is quite enough of that going on over at UD.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 22 2012,09:37

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 22 2012,09:29)
First, I'd like to remind commenters that Dr Jammer is not Jerad (who is very much reality based).

And Dr Jammer, please don't reduce the issue to a conflict of worldviews. It looks suspiciously like a way to avoid discussing evidence. Besides, it's rather boring. There is quite enough of that going on over at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kattarina,

Now that's not fair.  If he can't talk about worldviews, he really doesn't have anything to talk about at all... does he?
Posted by: rossum on June 22 2012,09:44

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I doubt it. Is the Designer alive? If yes, then there is no ID explanation for the origin of life currently available. If no, then you are proposing that something dead is capable of intelligence. While an advanced supercomputer may well be possible, that begs the question of the origin of the advanced supercomputer.

ID does not explain the origin of life. It assumes life, and uses that assumed life to explain other life.

rossum
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 22 2012,12:44

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 22 2012,10:29)
First, I'd like to remind commenters that Dr Jammer is not Jerad (who is very much reality based).

And Dr Jammer, please don't reduce the issue to a conflict of worldviews. It looks suspiciously like a way to avoid discussing evidence. Besides, it's rather boring. There is quite enough of that going on over at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


UD commenter Jerad is certainly not Dr Jammer, who did go by Jared Jammer at some point.
Posted by: JohnW on June 22 2012,12:57

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1.  Looks designed to me.
2.  To me, it looks designed.
3.  In my opinion, it has the appearance of design.
4.  I'd say that looks like it was designed.

Did I miss any, Dr Jammer?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 22 2012,13:12

Quote (JohnW @ June 22 2012,12:57)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. Looks designed to me.
2. To me, it looks designed.
3. In my opinion, it has the appearance of design.
4. I'd say that looks like it was designed.

Did I miss any, Dr Jammer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


5. No island-hopping for beneficial mutations.
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 22 2012,14:52

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,20:21)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Jared, no comment on what moves the BioLogos people?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I've stated previously, I'm non-religious, thus, I don't concern myself too much with the creeps at BioLogos. They're all Darwinists to me.

I have seen religious arguments made by theistic evolutionists for why they reject I.D. One is that it posits what they call a "tinkering" God, which they believe discredits/disrespects God's power, or some such nonsense. This is a favorite of Ken Miller.

Anyway, if you're concerned with what I.D. proponents think of the folks at BioLogos, there's < no shortage of material at Uncommon Descent >. Stephen B, nullasus, and company routinely rip them to shreds.

Thanks.
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 22 2012,15:00

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 21 2012,20:02)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life. Anything else is (ir)religious assumptions masquerading as science; atheism is a cheap tuxedo.
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 22 2012,15:01

atheism in a cheap tuxedo*

Is there not an option to edit your posts? Wow. Just when I thought this place couldn't get any worse...
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 22 2012,15:06

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is that explanation?

How does that explanation help us describe the rest of the world and the things in it?

What is the evidence for that explanation?

BTW: There have been problems with... unscrupulous people editing their own posts.  Think of it like a permanent record.  Anything you say can and will be used against you.  Speak carefully.
Posted by: rossum on June 22 2012,16:14

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. Or are you again asserting that the ID's Designer is not alive? You are starting with an Intelligent designer, so you are starting with unexplained complexity, intelligence, information etc. If you were proposing a theory of Unintelligent design, then you might have a chance of explaining the origin of these things. However, we already have a good theory of Unintelligent design...

rossum
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 22 2012,16:46

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,16:00)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,15:23)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Jammer is so good at playing dumb, he should receive an Oscar.

A simple, straightforward question, is the Biologos bunch atheists.

If so, then why do they pretend otherwise?

If not, Dr. Jammer is proven to be "mistaken" about "Darwinism = no God".
Posted by: MichaelJ on June 22 2012,17:44

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,09:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Jammer is saying that the thousands of Hindu biologists in India and Muslem Biologists in Indonesia, Shinto biologists in Japan and Christian Biologists in America are dogmatic while a handful of American Fundamentalists are driven by logic and evidence. FAIL
Posted by: Glen Davidson on June 22 2012,18:04

Quote (MichaelJ @ June 22 2012,17:44)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,09:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Jammer is saying that the thousands of Hindu biologists in India and Muslem Biologists in Indonesia, Shinto biologists in Japan and Christian Biologists in America are dogmatic while a handful of American Fundamentalists are driven by logic and evidence. FAIL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why yes, only open minds consider the particularist point of view based on revelation (to be serious) that has no evidence for it to be the best answer to the questions posed by life.

Only bigoted points of view fall for universalist, evidence-based answers.  Pathetic level of detail and all.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 22 2012,18:13

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please give us your definition of 'information' as it is found in life.

Please give a way to objectively measure this 'information'.

I'd hate to think you're just another clueless wonder tossing around IDiot buzzterms he can't explain in his own words.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 22 2012,19:13

Is Jammer JoeG, or Josep, Mullens or FL?

Seriously, Jammer's posts are quite stupid.

So, Jam baby, what is your explanation for information in non-living substances.

Take a granite outcrop near Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Any information in the granite?  Hmmm?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: The whole truth on June 22 2012,23:30

< klinghoffer the coward >

Reproduced so that you don't have to add clicks to ENV:

When You Can't Answer the Argument, Attack the Credentials of the Person Offering It
David Klinghoffer June 22, 2012 4:29 PM | Permalink

Some critics of < Science and Human Origins > charge that the authors have no business writing about the subject because they aren't paleoanthropologists. One anonymous critic posted on Amazon that because Ann Gauger, Doug Axe and Casey Luskin have degrees in the wrong fields, they can be safely ignored. What a relief that must be for Darwin defenders!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Three ID creationists, none of whom have a background EVEN REMOTELY related to physical anthropology, purport to write a book on "Science and Human Origins," published by their own execrable propaganda mill, the notoriously dishonest Disco 'Tute. Why should anybody not a drunk-the-koolaid devotee of fundamentalist wingnut pseudoscience care?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, this critic started his discussion thread before the book was even released, so obviously he didn't read it. Oh well, we've come to expect these kinds of attacks on books and authors that challenge Darwinist orthodoxy. Still it's worth using this example -- outlandish though it is -- as an occasion to respond to the objection.
First, if the critic had read Science and Human Origins, he would have learned that there's a lot more in it than just physical anthropology. In fact, three or four of the book's five chapters arguably aren't about physical anthropology or paleoanthropology at all -- they're about molecular biology and genetics. And two of the three authors of those chapters -- Gauger and Axe -- are biologists with strong backgrounds in those subfields.

So as far as the subject matter of the book is concerned, they have scientific training in precisely the topics they're writing about.

For example, in Chapter 2, Doug Axe writes about the ability of the mutation-selection mechanism to produce, in humans, features that require multiple coordinated mutations. Since Axe has < published peer-reviewed research on the evolution of multimutation features > as well as experimental research showing that these features exist in nature, he's well suited to address the subject here. His chapter argues that it would be mathematically impossible for multimutation features to arise by mutation and selection in humans in the six million years since their most recent alleged common ancestor with apes.

Likewise, in Chapter 5, Ann Gauger addresses a specific subfield of biology called population genetics. Dr. Gauger has a strong background in molecular biology, genetics, cell biology, and developmental biology, having studied at MIT as an undergrad, the University of Washington for her PhD, and as a post-doc fellow at Harvard. As credentials go, those are not bad.

As for other parts of the book, Casey Luskin wrote Chapter 3, which is the chapter that by far deals the most with paleoanthropology. Luskin holds two degrees in earth sciences from UC San Diego, took many courses covering evolution -- including courses studying fossils relevant to human origins -- during undergraduate and graduate studies, and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. While it's true that Luskin doesn't hold a formal degree in paleoanthropology, he's scientifically trained in closely related fields. A few years back he published a technical paper titled < "Human Origins and Intelligent Design: Review and Analysis" > in the ID journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.

Luskin is an informed outsider and perfectly well suited to consider the evidence, bringing a fresh perspective and drawing a credible conclusion. Trained as an attorney, he does a fine job of spotting logical problems in the evolutionist's case for human/ape common ancestry. Casey's chapter on the fossil record is the longest in the book, with well over 100 citations to mainstream technical scientific articles and books related to human origins. Critics need to respond to his discussion of the evidence.

Will they? If past experience is a guide, there's reason to doubt it. Critics of intelligent design are more comfortable attacking people than they are answering arguments. So it goes with the community of Darwin boosters. Their ranks are heavy with bullies and their leaders are almost all cowards, who flee from a fair fight on the merit of the ideas that are up for debate.

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

All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.


ETA: fixing some formatting glitches.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 23 2012,07:42

That's a funny thing for Klinghoffer to say. In 2005, all of the plaintiffs expert witnesses showed up or were ready when called; three out of five of the DI's expert witnesses for the defense withdrew from the case.

Who is it that runs away from a fair fight? Evidence says... DI Fellows!
Posted by: Robin on June 23 2012,08:40

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tsk tsk tsk...an argument isn't evidence, Jam. Care to try again? Should be pretty simple if there's mountains of it...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 23 2012,11:00

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 22 2012,20:13)
Is Jammer JoeG, or Josep, Mullens or FL?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


none of the above.

Jammy is certainly a reader of UD, but if you look at who he likes there, it is Stephen B, nullasalus, and UprightBiped. That's the Catholic, smug wing of the big tent. Jammy himself is certainly smug and condescending. If he's a sock for any of the regulars at UD, my vote would be StephenB.
Posted by: Quack on June 23 2012,11:03

Dr. Jammer, we miserable Darwinistas suffer from our insatiable thirst for facts and evidence.

Since you have let it transpire that you know such things, would you be kind enough to open the door to enlightenment or are going to keep us in suspense indefinitely?

The only thing we want from you and you refuse to give. Say then, why then are you here at all?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 23 2012,11:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.

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



Klinkerklanker is being way too modest when he points out that his fellow creationist and scammer, Dougie Axywaxy, has published in a PEER-REVIEWED journal!  Yeah, take that, bitches!

And not just Any PEER-REVIEWED Journal, but the esteemed

B-I-O   C-O-M-P-L-E-X-I-T-Y

(an unholy owned on-line journal of the Discovery Institute and Biologic Labs (also unholy owned by the Discovery Institute) whose managing director is Dougie Axywaxy and 40% of the articles written, reviewed, and peered at by Dougie Axywaxy, and that peering was really, really reviewed, I swear.)  Haven't these guys heard of Facebook?

The remaining 60% of the articles "published" to date were written by members of the Editorial Board, a peeringly fine board of peers that ever peered at a review.  Srsly.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 25 2012,22:55

Quote (Robin @ June 23 2012,06:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tsk tsk tsk...an argument isn't evidence, Jam. Care to try again? Should be pretty simple if there's mountains of it...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fahrenheit or Celsius?
Posted by: olegt on June 26 2012,07:26

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 23 2012,11:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.

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



Klinkerklanker is being way too modest when he points out that his fellow creationist and scammer, Dougie Axywaxy, has published in a PEER-REVIEWED journal! Yeah, take that, bitches!

And not just Any PEER-REVIEWED Journal, but the esteemed

B-I-O C-O-M-P-L-E-X-I-T-Y

(an unholy owned on-line journal of the Discovery Institute and Biologic Labs (also unholy owned by the Discovery Institute) whose managing director is Dougie Axywaxy and 40% of the articles written, reviewed, and peered at by Dougie Axywaxy, and that peering was really, really reviewed, I swear.) Haven't these guys heard of Facebook?

The remaining 60% of the articles "published" to date were written by members of the Editorial Board, a peeringly fine board of peers that ever peered at a review. Srsly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And with all that chummy peer review cycle, BIO-Complexity* only manages to eke out three papers a year!

*What's with the all caps? Does BIO not mean biological? What's hiding behind these letters? Boring Intellectuals Online? Bozos In Overalls? Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Henry J on June 26 2012,08:11

Quote (fnxtr @ June 25 2012,21:55)
Fahrenheit or Celsius?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought about saying that, but never got a round to-it.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 26 2012,10:23

Quote (olegt @ June 26 2012,07:26)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 23 2012,11:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.

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



Klinkerklanker is being way too modest when he points out that his fellow creationist and scammer, Dougie Axywaxy, has published in a PEER-REVIEWED journal! Yeah, take that, bitches!

And not just Any PEER-REVIEWED Journal, but the esteemed

B-I-O C-O-M-P-L-E-X-I-T-Y

(an unholy owned on-line journal of the Discovery Institute and Biologic Labs (also unholy owned by the Discovery Institute) whose managing director is Dougie Axywaxy and 40% of the articles written, reviewed, and peered at by Dougie Axywaxy, and that peering was really, really reviewed, I swear.) Haven't these guys heard of Facebook?

The remaining 60% of the articles "published" to date were written by members of the Editorial Board, a peeringly fine board of peers that ever peered at a review. Srsly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And with all that chummy peer review cycle, BIO-Complexity* only manages to eke out three papers a year!

*What's with the all caps? Does BIO not mean biological? What's hiding behind these letters? Boring Intellectuals Online? Bozos In Overalls? Enquiring minds want to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BIO-Complexity translated: Bible Institute of Complexity.

Hat tip : Biola
Posted by: olegt on June 26 2012,10:33

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 26 2012,10:23)
BIO-Complexity translated: Bible Institute of Complexity.

Hat tip : Biola
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or Breathtaking Inanity. Hat tip: Judge J. E. Jones, III.
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 27 2012,19:28

Quote (Robin @ June 23 2012,09:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tsk tsk tsk...an argument isn't evidence, Jam. Care to try again? Should be pretty simple if there's mountains of it...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. Every time I've seen it used, whether by Upright Biped, kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, or otherwise, it's called Darwinists to grow red in the face and bluster about how they don't understand information, or semiotics, or they'll plead to blind faith in natural forces. "We don't know yet, but we'll get there!"

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.
Posted by: Dr. Jammer on June 27 2012,19:32

Sleazy Ken Miller is at it again.

< Science and Religion at the Portsmouth Institute - Evolution News & Views >

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 27 2012,20:00

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,19:28)
Quote (Robin @ June 23 2012,09:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tsk tsk tsk...an argument isn't evidence, Jam. Care to try again? Should be pretty simple if there's mountains of it...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. Every time I've seen it used, whether by Upright Biped, kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, or otherwise, it's called Darwinists to grow red in the face and bluster about how they don't understand information, or semiotics, or they'll plead to blind faith in natural forces. "We don't know yet, but we'll get there!"

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already done.  Look around.

As far as information, I may have already challenged you on that one.  If not, it's because you never have responded to any of my other questions.

You define information and EXACTLY how it is measured in terms of living things and I will prove to you, mathematically, that increases in information can occur... however you choose to define information.

However, you won't do it.  You won't because you can't.  No one in the ID movement has ever defined information and stuck to it.

Their definition of information is almost as variable as their definition of intelligent design itself.

So, tell me how you define information and how it is to be measured and I will provide you mathematical and physical evidence that increases in information occur without intelligent input.

I'm waiting.

BTW: How are you coming on those other questions I asked of you?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 27 2012,20:12

Interesting article by Dembski.

His new version of his departure from the defense team is incompatible with what TMLC submitted in court documents during the case.

His suggestion that a round of debates with lawyers involved would be a suitable rematch fails to convince. Was TMLC incompetent? I certainly couldn't muster much enthusiasm for taking the negative on that, but Dembski's alternative of shining legal splendor didn't do so well in the Kansas Kangaroo Court of 2005, and at the time he was on the privileged side of the aisle.

No, I think an essential feature of the Kitzmiller case was the legal system's ability not merely to subpoena people, but to make them actually respond to the questions that were asked, as the key to the whole thing. That would be missing from the sort of mock court Dembski fantasizes about now.

I've long advocated the notion that in any future court case involving something where Dembski has been involved should have the plaintiffs subpoena Dembski as a hostile witness, specifically so that he can't be removed when the defense figures out just how large an embarrassment his participation would create.

And I don't think Ken Miller needs a backup team to take on Dembski, Behe, and Meyer. I've seen Ken eviscerate the arguments posed by Behe on two separate occasions, and had the privilege to be on a panel with him when Dembski and Nelson were representing the DI. Dembski's notion that he has any hope in such a matchup goes well beyond simple delusion.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 27 2012,20:13

And, of course, comments are closed on Dembski's article.
Posted by: olegt on June 27 2012,20:15

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,19:32)
Sleazy Ken Miller is at it again.

< Science and Religion at the Portsmouth Institute - Evolution News & Views >

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't it Dembski who had a grandiose "Vise strategy" to interrogate teh Darwinists and then < failed to show up > at Kitzmiller v. Dover?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 27 2012,21:06

I like "Dr." Jammer, a cute little creationist credential inflating peckerwood!  Such pure delusion.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller.  TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up.  Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it.  Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on.  There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO!  But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is.  By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch?  That's probably nagging him, too.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 27 2012,21:21

Yes, it was Dembski who proposed the "Vise Strategy" with the accompanying photo of a Darwin stuffed toy with its head being compressed in a vise. This was not long after PT started posting photos of Prof. Steve Steve as its mascot. The creepy-factor of Dembski's foray into what he now asserts himself as an attempt at humor was immense (perhaps getting into the range of large numbers like < the Dmb >).

I already said < my piece > on the fabulous disappearing witnesses of the defense at the Kitzmiller trial.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 27 2012,21:33

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 27 2012,21:06)
I like "Dr." Jammer, a cute little creationist credential inflating peckerwood! Such pure delusion.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? That's probably nagging him, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.
Posted by: Cubist on June 27 2012,21:53

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,19:28)
The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. ...

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As far as I know, "all known examples" of "semiotic language/information" come from human intelligence, unless you want to count apes that have been taught to use sign language (i.e., Ko-Ko). Therefore, by your own line of reasoning, the "semiotic language/information" which occurs in living bodies must have originally been created by a human (or possibly primate) Intelligent Designer.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 27 2012,21:58

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,20:32)
Sleazy Ken Miller is at it again.

< Science and Religion at the Portsmouth Institute - Evolution News & Views >

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jammy's rhetoric has definitely slipped several notches downhill towards JoeG quality poop-throwing. I guess it is the stress of ot answering all those questions. Perhaps his UD heroes will come here and help him out.

Nah, probably not.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 27 2012,22:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 28 2012,05:33)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 27 2012,21:06)
I like "Dr." Jammer, a cute little creationist credential inflating peckerwood! Such pure delusion.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? That's probably nagging him, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know they want it back?

Maybe they paid him $20k to get rid of him.
Posted by: keiths on June 28 2012,00:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 27 2012,19:33)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 27 2012,21:06)
I like "Dr." Jammer, a cute little creationist credential inflating peckerwood! Such pure delusion.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? That's probably nagging him, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Dembski's given up hope for any future victories, and is focused on rewriting history instead.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 28 2012,00:42

Quote (keiths @ June 28 2012,00:14)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 27 2012,19:33)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 27 2012,21:06)
I like "Dr." Jammer, a cute little creationist credential inflating peckerwood! Such pure delusion.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? That's probably nagging him, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Dembski's given up hope for any future victories, and is focused on rewriting history instead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe Dr. Dr. will be successful at rewriting history.

To date he's only been successful at getting himself fired from jobs!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 28 2012,07:02

Reading Dembski's article in the voice of the "Ed Gruberman" character from the < famous comedy sketch > is just about perfect. "I wasn't ready. Now, try it now."
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 28 2012,11:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 28 2012,07:02)
Reading Dembski's article in the voice of the "Ed Gruberman" character from the < famous comedy sketch > is just about perfect. "I wasn't ready. Now, try it now."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Miller was the boot to the head.
Posted by: Kristine on June 28 2012,11:01

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,19:32)
Sleazy Ken Miller is at it again.

< Science and Religion at the Portsmouth Institute - Evolution News & Views >

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< > Oh, more "eagerly awaiting of the day."

Want to bet a bottle of malt on that? ;) (Overdone?)
Posted by: Quack on June 28 2012,12:09

I don't think he is an idiot, there must be *more* of some sort to that character!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wanna falsify ToE? Prove ID can do what you need it to. You can do?
Posted by: k.e.. on June 29 2012,08:16

Quote (Kristine @ June 28 2012,19:01)
 
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,19:32)
Sleazy Ken Miller is at it again.

< Science and Religion at the Portsmouth Institute - Evolution News & Views >

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< > Oh, more "eagerly awaiting of the day."

Want to bet a bottle of malt on that? ;) (Overdone?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you slap that single malt on that bitch Dr(eck)Jammers yellow teeth.

Whilst an athiest China can dock 2 rockets in space: On the dumb, drunk and stupid America sweatersville ID fundy podium circuit; Xstain evangalists carp on about Adam and Eve.

Jesus,Joeseph and Mary were all partial to a drop according to that ID scientific journal AKA the Bible.

Studies show teetotal ID proponents are specializing in pyramid selling intra anal cleaning products for stained teeth female dog blogists.
Posted by: sparc on July 01 2012,02:23

Casey Luskin on < What Can YOU Do to Support Intelligent Design? >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
liking Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture on Facebook of course
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If Casey thinks that 1.355 likes are impressive he should have a look at the < NCSE's facebook pages >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You could also become a follower of our Twitter account
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It doesn't get much better. Currently < 2.169 > are currently following the DI on twitter while < 4.094 > are reading NCSE's tweets. And how desperate does one have be to state:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Amadan on July 01 2012,05:47

Quote (sparc @ July 01 2012,08:23)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The perfect gift for 28 October, the Feast of< St. Jude >!
Posted by: J-Dog on July 01 2012,10:30

Quote (Amadan @ July 01 2012,05:47)
Quote (sparc @ July 01 2012,08:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The perfect gift for 28 October, the Feast of< St. Jude >!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amadan - Thanks for the memory - I think!  (I thought I had blocked that all out.)  All that Good Catholic Education was not wasted on me -I figured it out - BEFORE i googled it to make sure.

After all, our 5th grade teacher Sister Mary Mother of Pain could have taken that day off to say a novena for our poor lost souls, and missed the Martyr Of The Day reading.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 01 2012,10:30

DOUBLE POST - OH NOES


Posted by: fnxtr on July 01 2012,12:21

Quote (sparc @ July 01 2012,00:23)
Casey Luskin on < What Can YOU Do to Support Intelligent Design? >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
liking Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture on Facebook of course
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If Casey thinks that 1.355 likes are impressive he should have a look at the < NCSE's facebook pages >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You could also become a follower of our Twitter account
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It doesn't get much better. Currently < 2.169 > are currently following the DI on twitter while < 4.094 > are reading NCSE's tweets. And how desperate does one have be to state:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Or you could do some fucking science.

Oh. Wait... never mind.
Posted by: sparc on July 01 2012,12:35

Quote (Amadan @ July 01 2012,05:47)
Quote (sparc @ July 01 2012,08:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The perfect gift for 28 October, the Feast of< St. Jude >!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It went un-noticed 2012. Thus you all should try to avoid missing Paul Nelson Day again.
Posted by: Henry J on July 01 2012,22:47



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



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

Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.

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



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


Is that for people with birdcages?

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 01 2012,23:30

Quote (fnxtr @ July 01 2012,12:21)

Or you could do some fucking science.

Oh. Wait... never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kinsey? Masters and Johnson? The right-wing crowd doesn't usually like that sort of thing.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 02 2012,02:47

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2012,21:30)
Quote (fnxtr @ July 01 2012,12:21)

Or you could do some fucking science.

Oh. Wait... never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kinsey? Masters and Johnson? The right-wing crowd doesn't usually like that sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or in this particular case, Sheer Hype.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 18 2012,13:00

My comment here:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012....91.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John West - you say "...Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies) are not appropriate...".

Why then does the article lead off with "The media that loyally serve Big Science are at it again, overstating the finds of a scientific paper to promote an evolutionary icon."?

Thanks,

Rich
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see if it makes it through.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 18 2012,16:24

Also (H/T Carl Zimmer) check out teh_Butthurt here:

< http://www.facebook.com/Biologi....=stream >

in the "A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings
" thread.
Posted by: olegt on July 18 2012,17:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2012,16:24)
Also (H/T Carl Zimmer) check out teh_Butthurt here:

< http://www.facebook.com/Biologi....=stream >

in the "A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings
" thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Direct link: < goo.gl/OoYSc >
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 18 2012,18:32

BI is the Bernie Madoff of intellectual discourse.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 19 2012,06:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2012,13:00)
My comment here:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012.......91.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John West - you say "...Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies) are not appropriate...".

Why then does the article lead off with "The media that loyally serve Big Science are at it again, overstating the finds of a scientific paper to promote an evolutionary icon."?

Thanks,

Rich
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see if it makes it through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It did.

Obviously, Luskin doesn't even pretend to do some ID argumentation anymore; it's plain old-fashioned creationism: Birds say "We are no stinkin' dinosaurs."

The first commenter points out a quotemine - well done, Casey!
And then Diogenes shreds Casey to bits.
Posted by: Freddie on July 19 2012,07:04

I see Doug Axe has responded to Paul McBride's review of his book.

< Thou Shalt Not Put Evolution To The Test >

It seems to be of the "Any aspect of the transition [... from apes to humans] that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years)." variety.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 19 2012,09:01

Axe sharpens his Edge.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 19 2012,09:04

Quote (Freddie @ July 19 2012,07:04)
I see Doug Axe has responded to Paul McBride's review of his book.

< Thou Shalt Not Put Evolution To The Test >

It seems to be of the "Any aspect of the transition [... from apes to humans] that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years)." variety.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a Dumb Axe!
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2012,11:06

Quote (olegt @ July 18 2012,17:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2012,16:24)
Also (H/T Carl Zimmer) check out teh_Butthurt here:

< http://www.facebook.com/Biologi....=stream >

in the "A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings
" thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Direct link: < goo.gl/OoYSc >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


P/T comments:

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....omments >
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2012,11:30

Extra bonus:

< http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom....ionists >
Posted by: olegt on July 19 2012,11:57

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2012,11:30)
Extra bonus:

[URL=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creati

onists/]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom....ionists[/URL]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Broken link fixed: < goo.gl/fstNs >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 19 2012,12:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2012,11:30)
Extra bonus:

[URL=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creati

onists/]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom....ionists[/URL]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a vorpal sword right there...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 19 2012,12:16

I think this could count as a Thursday meltdown for the DI/BI
Posted by: olegt on July 19 2012,13:30

A < new post > at ENV begins with a healthy dose of stupid:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In his book No Free Lunch, Bill Dembski demonstrated that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to a random search. Yet many animals catch prey with what appears to be a random walk through a noisy environment. How do they do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on July 19 2012,13:40

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2012,13:30)
A < new post > at ENV begins with a healthy dose of stupid:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In his book No Free Lunch, Bill Dembski demonstrated that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to a random search. Yet many animals catch prey with what appears to be a random walk through a noisy environment. How do they do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Interesting. They seem to have allowed Denyse to post, with her characteristic brilliance.
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 19 2012,14:15

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 19 2012,13:40)
Quote (olegt @ July 19 2012,13:30)
A < new post > at ENV begins with a healthy dose of stupid:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In his book No Free Lunch, Bill Dembski demonstrated that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to a random search. Yet many animals catch prey with what appears to be a random walk through a noisy environment. How do they do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Interesting. They seem to have allowed Denyse to post, with her characteristic brilliance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can also 'demonstrate' that 1+1=1.  Doesn't mean that it actually works in the real world.

I don't even have to wonder if Dembski would be willing to actually take a challenge on that.  He's much too great a coward.
Posted by: Henry J on July 19 2012,14:54

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 19 2012,13:15)
I can also 'demonstrate' that 1+1=1. Doesn't mean that it actually works in the real world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Boolean arithmetic? :p
Posted by: olegt on July 19 2012,17:14

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 19 2012,13:40)
Quote (olegt @ July 19 2012,13:30)
A < new post > at ENV begins with a healthy dose of stupid:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In his book No Free Lunch, Bill Dembski demonstrated that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to a random search. Yet many animals catch prey with what appears to be a random walk through a noisy environment. How do they do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Interesting. They seem to have allowed Denyse to post, with her characteristic brilliance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It appears that the anonymous editor of ENV is David Klinghoffer. See this post by Carl Zimmer: < The Mystery of the Missing Chromosomes, Continued: An Update From Your Preening Blogger >.
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 20 2012,08:46

Quote (Henry J @ July 19 2012,14:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 19 2012,13:15)
I can also 'demonstrate' that 1+1=1. Doesn't mean that it actually works in the real world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Boolean arithmetic? :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a = b

a^2 = ba

a^2 - b^2 = ba - b^2

(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

a+b = b

If a and b are 1, then 1+1=1.

Hey Joe, can you figure out why this doesn't actually work?

I doubt it, this is the same kind of mathematical 'proof' that Dembski uses and hopes no one will notice.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 20 2012,10:46

UD having a good cry about it - and so up pops Carl Zimmer!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....origins >
Posted by: Henry J on July 20 2012,10:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Joe, can you figure out why this doesn't actually work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's basic algebra.
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 20 2012,11:29

Quote (Henry J @ July 20 2012,10:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Joe, can you figure out why this doesn't actually work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's basic algebra.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know that.
I know that.

But does Joe "m stands for millenia" G know that?  I'm skeptical.

Having Joe answer that question would probably be another week long laugh fest.

Hey Richard, any interest in tweaking the joey?
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 20 2012,11:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 20 2012,10:46)
UD having a good cry about it - and so up pops Carl Zimmer!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....origins >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the evidence claimed by members of the Discovery Institute that human chromosome could have evolved through fusion six million years ago?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Missing a "not"?
Posted by: JohnW on July 20 2012,11:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 20 2012,09:29)
Quote (Henry J @ July 20 2012,10:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Joe, can you figure out why this doesn't actually work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's basic algebra.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know that.
I know that.

But does Joe "m stands for millenia" G know that? I'm skeptical.

Having Joe answer that question would probably be another week long laugh fest.

Hey Richard, any interest in tweaking the joey?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Channeling...

[joe]I spotted the trick.  a can't be equal to b.  They're different letters.[/joe]
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 20 2012,12:44

Now dat right der is funny.  I don't care who you are.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 23 2012,19:57

It's Zimmer game, set and match!

Took out both Klinghoffer, aka, Klinkletinkle and Luskin, aka, The Gerb.

< Totally screwed, blued and tattooed! >

Major Fail at the Disco Tute but don't worry, kiddies, the Tutes will be back with their latest hits, that is, their past hits again soon at a creationist church basement near you.

So, Luskin was shown up as the liar he is, and Klinkletinkle was shown up as the ... well, what is Klinkletinkle?  Not so much a liar as a guy with a small penis and a big mouth.  His favorite song must be "Satisfaction."  Just saying.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 25 2012,15:01

Gerb is deeply hurt: Zimmer has misrepresented him. Isn't it true that the telomeric DNA at the fusion sites is degenerate?
And besides, as for an actual fusion of chromosomes, he's "very open to that".

But:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, my main argument about chromosomal fusion isn't that there's no fusion -- it's that if there is fusion, that doesn't demonstrate human/ape common ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bolding

I was tempted to start a poll: After last week's discussion all over the internet, does he still not understand the point, or is he confident his readers still don't understand the point?

< Link >
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 25 2012,15:25

Convincing shmincing. La la La.
Posted by: JohnW on July 25 2012,15:27

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2012,13:01)
I was tempted to start a poll: After last week's discussion all over the internet, does he still not understand the point, or is he confident his readers still don't understand the point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh, trick question!  It's "both", yes?
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 25 2012,16:09

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2012,15:01)
Gerb is deeply hurt: Zimmer has misrepresented him. Isn't it true that the telomeric DNA at the fusion sites is degenerate?
And besides, as for an actual fusion of chromosomes, he's "very open to that".

But:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, my main argument about chromosomal fusion isn't that there's no fusion -- it's that if there is fusion, that doesn't demonstrate human/ape common ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bolding

I was tempted to start a poll: After last week's discussion all over the internet, does he still not understand the point, or is he confident his readers still don't understand the point?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Simply a douchebag." would have to be a poll choice.
Posted by: Freddie on July 26 2012,01:58

ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing. The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.

Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Linky >
Posted by: The whole truth on July 26 2012,03:10

Quote (Freddie @ July 25 2012,23:58)
ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing. The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.

Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry."

Somebody better tell joe g, stat! After all, he, as a card carrying spokesIDiot for ID, says a lot about common ancestry/descent (as do many or all other IDiots) and he says that "ID is OK with common descent" (when he's not arguing against common descent or is redefining it as common design of course).  

Like with joey, the other IDiots are obviously "OK" with common descent but they're also "OK" with no common descent. The bottom line is that as long as 'God-did-it' can be crammed into something, they're OK with it.

Oh, and the "hypothesis of design"? WHAT hypothesis?

"ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so."

The pink unicorn 'hypothesis' does, however, open up the possibility that pink unicorns can fly, perhaps gracefully so.

That IDiot did say one things that's true. They're "Darwin critics". It's all about bashing Darwin, "Darwinists", scientists, science, the ToE, etc. They have NO positive evidence for ID. To them, absolutely nothing could or would "invalidate" their "position". Their delusional, arrogant minds are already made up, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will have any effect on them.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 26 2012,04:19

Edit: Deleted because it was not relevant.


Posted by: Doc Bill on July 26 2012,09:03

"ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say."

Fixed it.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 01 2012,23:30

ENV praises W.-E. Lnnig's < The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know? >

1. He is not working at the MPI anymore and he was forced to remove his creationist bullshit from the institute's server 9 years ago

2. The "book" appers at < VERLAGSHAUS MONSENSTEIN UND VANNERDAT OHG > which is also run as < ruckzuckbuch.de > because it is just a print on demand publisher.

3. Before print on demand was available Lnnig self-published his books at "Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag Kln" which happens to have the same address as is home.

4. His "work" on giraffe is not new. See e.g. N. Matzke's < Now that's a stretch > at PT.

5. Why pay for something most of which Lnnig is offering for free on his website:

< The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) Part 1 >
< The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) Part 2 >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 02 2012,00:05

< http://www.whyevolution.com/giraffe....fe.html >

Sorry about the source. I'm posting from a tablet and having trouble finding the Gould article.


Posted by: sparc on Aug. 02 2012,00:46

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 02 2012,00:05)
< http://www.whyevolution.com/giraffe....fe.html >

Sorry about the source. I'm posting from a tablet and having trouble finding the Gould article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The talest tale. >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 02 2012,21:02

It his been almost a month since < Casey promised "I'll be discussing this issue more in the coming weeks." > To date the only thing he has done is publish the first five or so paragraphs from chapter three of the book...

Edit to fix typos
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 02 2012,21:50

The Gerb got his furry little ass kicked to oblivion by an actual science writer, Carl Zimmer, and a few friends on the Loom.

Axe and Gauger, (are they a couple?  I'm thinking 69 on a lab bench.  Do you think Ann does Brazilian or is Axe a carpet lover?  Inquiring minds want to know!)

Anyway, I forgot where I was.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 02 2012,22:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. Before print on demand was available L?nnig self-published his books at "Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag K?ln" which happens to have the same address as is home.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what a coinkidink!!!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 02 2012,22:23

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 02 2012,21:50)
The Gerb got his furry little ass kicked to oblivion by an actual science writer, Carl Zimmer, and a few friends on the Loom.

Axe and Gauger, (are they a couple? I'm thinking 69 on a lab bench. Do you think Ann does Brazilian or is Axe a carpet lover? Inquiring minds want to know!)

Anyway, I forgot where I was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured that had something to do with it.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 03 2012,04:30

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2012,23:30)
ENV praises W.-E. Lnnig's < The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know? >

1. He is not working at the MPI anymore and he was forced to remove his creationist bullshit from the institute's server 9 years ago

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


To be fair, they did put '(retired)' after 'Senior Scientist, Department of Molecular Plant Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research', because that's so much clearer than using "was" instead of "is".
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 10 2012,18:08

So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V. I have only read < this one > and have already discovered on major error on Casey's part. I'll be writing a post on it but it the meantime can any one spot the error:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some reasons for skepticism over whether the bones of "Lucy" represent a single individual, or even a single species. In a video playing at the exhibit, Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson admitted that when he found the fossil, the bones were scattered across a hillside, where he "looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out." Johanson's written account explains further how the bones were not found together: "[S]ince the fossil wasn't found in situ, it could have come from anywhere above. There's no matrix on any of the bones we've found either. All you can do is make probability statements."66
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited to add: see < Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces > for the answer.
Edited to fix typo
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 13 2012,11:41

What a bunch of liars.

New post up at ENV:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If human beings evolved from ape-like creatures, what were the transitional species between ape-like hominins and the truly human-like members of the genus Homo found in the fossil record?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the absence of fossil evidence, evolutionary claims about the transition to Homo are said to be mere "inferences" made by studying the non-transitional fossils we do have, and then assuming that a transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As another commentator proposed, the evidence implies a "big bang theory" of the appearance of our genus Homo.115
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



115? Why, that'd be a footnote.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution" University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is that footnote in it's entirety:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
January 10, 2000

New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution

The first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries. Perhaps the most fundamental dissimilarity, dramatic size difference, is shown in this correctly scaled comparison of the reconstructed skeletons of two women: Lucy, a 3-million-year-old australopithecine from Ethiopia who stood about three-and-a-half feet tell; and ER 1808, a 1.6-million-year-old woman of our species from Kenya who stood 5 feet 9. Australopithecine contemporaries of ER 1808 were as small as Lucy.
ANN ARBORTwo million years ago somewhere in Africa, a small group of individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated changesin body size, brain size, skeletal proportions, and behaviorthat jump-started the evolution of our species.

That is the conclusion of a new University of Michigan study published in the current (January 2000) issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad range of genetic, fossil, and archeological evidence to decipher the most likely scenario for the start of human evolution.

The analysis, by researchers at the U-M Department of Anthropology, is the first to examine the full spectrum of paleontological, archeological, and genetic evidence available, each reflecting a different part of the puzzle of human origins. By estimating the ranges of error in the different types of evidence, the researchers were able to narrow down the common, overlapping areas of agreement to construct an explanation that disproves some high-profile recent theories and supports one of the oldest modern versions of the origin of homo sapiens.

"All the available evidence supports an 'Out of Africa' theory, that humans first evolved in Africa about two million years ago, then spread to other regions of the world," says John Hawks, first author of the paper and now an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. "This original population lived before humans colonized regions outside of Africa. In fact, it was the act of becoming human that made these colonizations possible."

Examining the anatomical evidence, the authors, including U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, conclude that a "genetic revolution" took place in a small group isolated from other australopithecines. "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details," notes Wolpoff. "Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual."

A second reason for suspecting that a population bottleneck led to a rapid genetic reorganization that started the process of human evolution comes from archeological evidence of a series of behavioral changes suggestive of a new adaptive pattern of hunting, gathering and scavenging. "Body size is a key element in these behavioral changes," the authors note, "because of the locomotor changes that large body size denotes, and the increased metabolic resources it requires." These behavioral changes are far more massive and sudden than any earlier changes known for hominids, they point out.

According to the researchers, the available genetic data do not disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck two million years ago and extending through the Pleistocene Epoch, when ice covered much of North America and Europe. But they are incompatible with a more recent population-size bottleneck.

"Many details of subsequent human evolution over the period of the ice ages remain unclear, but one certain finding from both anthropological and genetic data is that there was no later time when the size of the human species became small again," says Hawks. "So the 'Eve theory' of modern human origins, which states that modern human populations very recently arose as a new African species that replaced all other indigenous peoples such as Neanderthals, can be put to rest. "

Co-authors of the study with Hawks and Wolpoff are Keith Hunley, U-M Department of Anthropology, and Sang-Hee Lee, Department of Biosystems Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Contact: Diane Swanbrow
Phone: (734) xxx-4416
E-mail:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to me that they are relying on that for the entire claim in that post titled A Big Bang Theory of Homo

Yet that 12 year old press release offers no support what so ever for ID at any level.

They must really know their audience at ENV.

< 115 >
< Liars. >
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 13 2012,18:13

"There were giants in the earth in those days..."

Just wait. Someone will use that for real.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 14 2012,08:39



Spam from user "monster" deleted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< SPAM >, by < AJC1 > on Flickr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Aug. 14 2012,11:02

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2012,16:08)
So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V.  see < Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces > for the answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good job of taking Luskin to the woodshed!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 14 2012,20:00

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,11:41)
What a bunch of liars.

New post up at ENV:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If human beings evolved from ape-like creatures, what were the transitional species between ape-like hominins and the truly human-like members of the genus Homo found in the fossil record?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the absence of fossil evidence, evolutionary claims about the transition to Homo are said to be mere "inferences" made by studying the non-transitional fossils we do have, and then assuming that a transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As another commentator proposed, the evidence implies a "big bang theory" of the appearance of our genus Homo.115
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



115? Why, that'd be a footnote.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution" University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is that footnote in it's entirety:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
January 10, 2000

New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution

The first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries. Perhaps the most fundamental dissimilarity, dramatic size difference, is shown in this correctly scaled comparison of the reconstructed skeletons of two women: Lucy, a 3-million-year-old australopithecine from Ethiopia who stood about three-and-a-half feet tell; and ER 1808, a 1.6-million-year-old woman of our species from Kenya who stood 5 feet 9. Australopithecine contemporaries of ER 1808 were as small as Lucy.
ANN ARBORTwo million years ago somewhere in Africa, a small group of individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated changesin body size, brain size, skeletal proportions, and behaviorthat jump-started the evolution of our species.

That is the conclusion of a new University of Michigan study published in the current (January 2000) issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad range of genetic, fossil, and archeological evidence to decipher the most likely scenario for the start of human evolution.

The analysis, by researchers at the U-M Department of Anthropology, is the first to examine the full spectrum of paleontological, archeological, and genetic evidence available, each reflecting a different part of the puzzle of human origins. By estimating the ranges of error in the different types of evidence, the researchers were able to narrow down the common, overlapping areas of agreement to construct an explanation that disproves some high-profile recent theories and supports one of the oldest modern versions of the origin of homo sapiens.

"All the available evidence supports an 'Out of Africa' theory, that humans first evolved in Africa about two million years ago, then spread to other regions of the world," says John Hawks, first author of the paper and now an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. "This original population lived before humans colonized regions outside of Africa. In fact, it was the act of becoming human that made these colonizations possible."

Examining the anatomical evidence, the authors, including U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, conclude that a "genetic revolution" took place in a small group isolated from other australopithecines. "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details," notes Wolpoff. "Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual."

A second reason for suspecting that a population bottleneck led to a rapid genetic reorganization that started the process of human evolution comes from archeological evidence of a series of behavioral changes suggestive of a new adaptive pattern of hunting, gathering and scavenging. "Body size is a key element in these behavioral changes," the authors note, "because of the locomotor changes that large body size denotes, and the increased metabolic resources it requires." These behavioral changes are far more massive and sudden than any earlier changes known for hominids, they point out.

According to the researchers, the available genetic data do not disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck two million years ago and extending through the Pleistocene Epoch, when ice covered much of North America and Europe. But they are incompatible with a more recent population-size bottleneck.

"Many details of subsequent human evolution over the period of the ice ages remain unclear, but one certain finding from both anthropological and genetic data is that there was no later time when the size of the human species became small again," says Hawks. "So the 'Eve theory' of modern human origins, which states that modern human populations very recently arose as a new African species that replaced all other indigenous peoples such as Neanderthals, can be put to rest. "

Co-authors of the study with Hawks and Wolpoff are Keith Hunley, U-M Department of Anthropology, and Sang-Hee Lee, Department of Biosystems Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Contact: Diane Swanbrow
Phone: (734) xxx-4416
E-mail:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to me that they are relying on that for the entire claim in that post titled A Big Bang Theory of Homo

Yet that 12 year old press release offers no support what so ever for ID at any level.

They must really know their audience at ENV.

< 115 >
< Liars. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that Luskin climbed upon Axe and Gauger and Gish-galloped all over EN&V? :D
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 14 2012,20:26

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2012,18:08)
So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V. I have only read < this one > and have already discovered on major error on Casey's part. I'll be writing a post on it but it the meantime can any one spot the error:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some reasons for skepticism over whether the bones of "Lucy" represent a single individual, or even a single species. In a video playing at the exhibit, Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson admitted that when he found the fossil, the bones were scattered across a hillside, where he "looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out." Johanson's written account explains further how the bones were not found together: "[S]ince the fossil wasn't found in situ, it could have come from anywhere above. There's no matrix on any of the bones we've found either. All you can do is make probability statements."66
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited to add: see < Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces > for the answer.
Edited to fix typo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations 2 U AFFY!

You are making tghe Baby jesus cry AND making Luskin cry into his eyebrows -

I recommend everyone going over to Pandas thumb to read what Our Very Own Most Favoritest Afer Man has written!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 14 2012,20:55

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2012,20:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2012,18:08)
So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V. I have only read < this one > and have already discovered on major error on Casey's part. I'll be writing a post on it but it the meantime can any one spot the error:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some reasons for skepticism over whether the bones of "Lucy" represent a single individual, or even a single species. In a video playing at the exhibit, Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson admitted that when he found the fossil, the bones were scattered across a hillside, where he "looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out." Johanson's written account explains further how the bones were not found together: "[S]ince the fossil wasn't found in situ, it could have come from anywhere above. There's no matrix on any of the bones we've found either. All you can do is make probability statements."66
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited to add: see < Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces > for the answer.
Edited to fix typo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations 2 U AFFY!

You are making tghe Baby jesus cry AND making Luskin cry into his eyebrows -

I recommend everyone going over to Pandas thumb to read what Our Very Own Most Favoritest Afer Man has written!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, a slight correction it is not at PT it is at my blog.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 14 2012,22:30

Oops, my bad. Didn't see that post ???
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 15 2012,18:43

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2012,22:30)
Oops, my bad. Didn't see that post ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's ok - I hope I make as much sense as you do when I'm 2.5 MYO...:)
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 17 2012,20:39

< Moar! >

Edit to add: Moar is such a simple word, you'd think I'd be able to spell it...
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 30 2012,23:11


All science so far at < EN&V >.
Not that there's anything wrong with suppressor tRNAs but are they likely to exist under the ID premise? In addition, suppressor tRNAs will not bind to mRNA without another tRNA upstream or downstream depending on which position of the ribosome it currently occupies. Or do these clowns think UGA serves as an initiation codon? However, I must admit that a nearly universal genetic code doesn't make much sense if you reject common descent.

ETA: They may claim that the mRNA's 5' end is on the right side of the strand.


Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2012,10:03

William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning < on EN$V >.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2012,16:27

I fail to see how SETI eventually might provide a solution to the problem of salvation that ID so far has been unable to do.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 01 2012,22:46

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning < on EN$V >.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 < I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis > that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because < Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg >. However, according to < UD > the argument goes back to Michael Denton:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By contrast, predictions of functionality of junk DNA were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2012,23:38

A couple of nitpicks:

Predicting functional junk DNA seems somewhat akin to attributing motives to the designer.

Having done that, perhaps they will go one step farther and illuminate the specific functions of this part of the genome.

I mean, if they knew it was functional they must know the function.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 02 2012,23:33

PZ points to an ineresting < analysis on who is actually following DI tweets >.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:



Posted by: JonF on Oct. 03 2012,10:25

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2012,00:33)
PZ points to an ineresting < analysis on who is actually following DI tweets >.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:

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


Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 03 2012,11:49

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2012,08:25)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2012,00:33)
PZ points to an ineresting < analysis on who is actually following DI tweets >.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:

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


Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In summary: The DI is being followed by Jesus Christ's Christian husband.  Good to know.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 03 2012,13:53

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2012,16:27)
I fail to see how SETI eventually might provide a solution to the problem of salvation that ID so far has been unable to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: sparc on Oct. 03 2012,21:41

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2012,10:25)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2012,00:33)
PZ points to an ineresting < analysis on who is actually following DI tweets >.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:

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


Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geoff released a case-insensitive update:

Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 04 2012,02:39

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2012,16:27)
I fail to see how SETI eventually might provide a solution to the problem of salvation that ID so far has been unable to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Divine intervention hasn't worked so far, so they're hoping for alien intervention?
Posted by: Bebbo62 on Oct. 04 2012,04:54

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2012,22:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning < on EN$V >.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 < I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis > that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because < Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg >. However, according to < UD > the argument goes back to Michael Denton:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By contrast, predictions of functionality of junk DNA were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 04 2012,07:04

Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct. I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction': "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

That very often bumps up against the "God can do anything" meme which tends to cohabit with the ID meme.

The same question usually works with many proposed 'falsifications' of ID when the discussion goes that way.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 04 2012,07:45

Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".
Posted by: Bebbo62 on Oct. 04 2012,07:56

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 04 2012,07:04)
Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct. I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction': "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I worked on some software many years ago which had redundant code in it that was never called or was unreachable. That may be rare rather than common in software, but logically there's no reason why a designer wouldn't create something with non-functional elements.

Of course, Dembski would never commit to a particular design hypothesis because that wouldn't leave him with wiggle room later on.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2012,09:28

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2012,07:45)
Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a recovering pantheist, I'd like to point out that an omniscient being, in the act of knowing everything, brings everything into existence. That would include all possible universes. A large number. Bigger than the KF Number.
Posted by: Bebbo62 on Oct. 04 2012,09:44

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2012,07:45)
Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that God was tired, and wanted to take a vacation. However, being everywhere at once, it was a little difficult for him to decide on where to go. So, he called the Archangel Gabriel in on the carpet...

GOD: Gabe, I've got a problem, and I was hoping you could help me out.

GABRIEL: I'll try lord.

GOD: Well, I need a vacation, and I can't decide where I should go, and I was hoping that you could give me some suggestions.

( Gabriel thinks intently for a few seconds,...)

GABRIEL: How about Mercury? That's a nice place.

GOD: Nope, too hot. It takes all night to get over the sun-burn you got during the day.

( Gabriel thinks a little longer.....)

GABRIEL: Hmmmm,.... Well, how about Mars?

GOD: Nope, Mars is too much of a party place. All that whooping and hollering, I never get any rest when I go there.

( Gabriel is starting to get a little desperate by this time....)

GABRIEL: Well, how about Earth?

GOD: NO!! No Way!! The last time I went there, I got this little Jewish girl pregnant, and I haven't heard the end of that yet!
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 04 2012,09:48

"Earth? Oh, right, that's where they come in to church every Sunday, begging and praying. Day off, my ass!" -- Carlin (RIP)
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 16 2012,17:40

< Just thought I'd mention... > Hope to have the next bit up by this weekend.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 18 2012,07:33

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 16 2012,15:40)
< Just thought I'd mention... > Hope to have the next bit up by this weekend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent material. Thanks.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 06 2012,10:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Defecting from Darwinian Naturalism: A Review of Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos William A. Dembski >

That's sort of what separates intellectually honest people from, well, you, Dembski.

We'd think in terms of notable scientists coming up with evidence that changes things, not idiots like Nagel (oh honestly, the guy's been pathetic forever--what's it like to be a bat?) converting.

It's the difference between caring about science, and wanting religion to triumph. Clearly it's not the former that concerns Dembski.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 11 2012,20:21

< Granville Sewell's broken record >
Posted by: dvunkannon on Nov. 14 2012,15:20

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Defecting from Darwinian Naturalism: A Review of Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos William A. Dembski >

That's sort of what separates intellectually honest people from, well, you, Dembski.

We'd think in terms of notable scientists coming up with evidence that changes things, not idiots like Nagel (oh honestly, the guy's been pathetic forever--what's it like to be a bat?) converting.

It's the difference between caring about science, and wanting religion to triumph. Clearly it's not the former that concerns Dembski.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bought the Nagel book in e-format because I thought I might do a review of it. Complete mush, repetitive argument from incredulity. Nods to but ignores ID, cites Meyer, Behe, Berlinski... but not Dembski!! That's gotta hurt.

Basic argument - Science can't be all there is to explaining the universe, because I want to believe Mind is more than what the brain does. If I can state the question it must have value. Common sense must always be able to explain the universe.

He hasn't seem to have heard of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, Godel's Incompleteness Proof, etc. and what they say about 'common sense' explaining the universe. Another old philosopher afraid of dying and even more afraid of the irrelevancy of his life's work.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2012,22:32

Common sense? Common sense is a set of guidelines developed from experience, about the things dealt with in day to day life. If things outside of day to day experience don't follow the same patterns, those guidelines can't be assumed to work there.

Henry
Posted by: dvunkannon on Nov. 15 2012,12:00

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2012,21:21)
< Granville Sewell's broken record >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only point to that whole rehearsal of his position was the last line, that a Spanish language version of his video was now available!

Most ID 'theorists' equate advances in research with 'Buy my new book!' Granville can't even reach that level and has to be satisfied with a remix of a YouTube video.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 27 2012,17:19

This is good. Casey Luskin friend's daughter has asked whether intelligent design is science or not. Casey's response: "It is, it is, it is! Look, here is a diagram:"

(Image from EN&V)
So all you scientists, you can go home now.


Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 27 2012,20:22

That diagram needs to be immortalized!  Luskin really nails ID in one picture:  a made up dot that requires an arrow pointing to it on a made up chart with a made up dotted line running through it.

Fiction and turtles all the way down.  Way to go, Gerb, right up there with Behe's mousetrap and Dembski's filter!

As an enhancement, Gerb should have Meyers write his name in the box then he'd have a hat-trick with Signature in the Cell, and indisputable at that!
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 27 2012,21:37

I guess the reason that dotted line zigzags so much is due to all the arm-waving that's going on?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 24 2013,00:09

< To see is to believe >. Indeed, but science is not about believing.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 24 2013,05:13

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 24 2013,00:09)
< To see is to believe >. Indeed, but science is not about believing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they've shown that youtube videos are intelligently designed.

Unlike the comments under them.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 24 2013,13:32

Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 27 2012,17:19)
This is good. Casey Luskin friend's daughter has asked whether intelligent design is science or not. Casey's response: "It is, it is, it is! Look, here is a diagram:"

(Image from EN&V)
So all you scientists, you can go home now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like Gary Gaulin science to me.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 24 2013,13:41

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 24 2013,13:32)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 27 2012,17:19)
This is good. Casey Luskin friend's daughter has asked whether intelligent design is science or not. Casey's response: "It is, it is, it is! Look, here is a diagram:"

(Image from EN&V)
So all you scientists, you can go home now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like Gary Gaulin science to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, that's actually pretty well articulated.  It actually has labels and stuff.  

It's stupid and there's no evidence, so I can understand how the confusion came about.

Besides, it's not 50 pages long.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2013,13:41

But there's no label or scale or legend on the axes of that graph!!!!

Oh.

Never mind.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 08 2013,00:16

< Now, this is rich: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recently published two articles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)
Jonathan M., only in your fantasy posts at Evolution News & Views are equivalent to what the real world calls articles. Articles require more than summarizing some research done by real scientists. They should contain original results and some original ideas and conclusions. And these should be the author's results, ideas and conclusions. You can not even claim that < the following > is a conclusion from the research you've summerized:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The systems responsible for DNA replication are well beyond the explanatory efficacy of unguided processes involving chance and necessity. Indeed, machinery of the complexity and sophistication of that described above is, in all of our experience, habitually associated with intelligent agency.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is not new nor is it original and it surely is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the research you describe. It's just a document of stupidity that we've seen from your fellow IDiots 1000 times before.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 23 2013,02:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why Does the History of Life Give the Appearance of Evolution?
Jonathan Wells
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://tinyurl.com/ar85rew....ar85rew >

Yes, why? You'll be surprised (ha) to note that the answer is pathetic:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The answer is found in various religious traditions, especially Christianity. "Far from denying life's progression, tradition provides a reason for it," wrote Huston Smith in 1976. "Earth mirrors heaven. But mirrors, as we have noted, invert. The consequence here is that that which is first in the ontological order appears last in the temporal order." Smith explained: "In the celestial realm the species are never absent; their essential forms or archetypes reside there from an endless beginning. As earth ripens to receive them, each in its turn drops to the terrestrial plane." But "first a viable habitat must be devised, hence the inorganic universe is matured to a point where life can be sustained. And when living beings do arrive, they do so in a vaguely ascending order that passes from relatively undifferentiated organisms... to ones that are more complex." Thus "man, who is first in the order of worth on the terrestrial plane, will be last in the order of his appearance."2
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, because no way could God do anything differently from evolution--performing miracles, creating everything in a day to specifications. Basically it's omphalos-type reasoning, don't expect God's causes or effects to actually transcend what is, fit your "God" to the facts and proclaim triumph for your biases.

Still, I love the fact that these jerks actually finally admitted how at least the history of life looks evolved. You know, because clearly if it looks designed it must be designed, ergo... It would have been better, though, had he asked why everything about wild-type life looks evolved, not simply at one level--like life "looks designed" when you have enough prejudices to think so and close your mind to the many undesigned-like features of life--but looks evolved at every level and throughout all of life. Dobzhansky comes to mind.

Baby steps, though. Trouble is, baby thought is all that Wells has as an "answer," and one suspects that will suffice for him and the other "best and brightest" IDiots.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 25 2013,22:02

[URL=Now this is rich]Now this is rich[/URL]  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The news media are reporting on a bill in the Missouri State Legislature that would require "equal treatment for evolution and intelligent design."

As we've mentioned many times before here on ENV, Discovery Institute opposes legislation like this, as it contradicts our longstanding policy to oppose pushing intelligent design in public schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)

Hey Casey, this was exactly your policy until Judge Jones ruled it illegal. And it hasn't changed. You only have to state the following  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our priority with ID is to see it develop as a scientific theory and not to politicize it by pushing the theory into public schools. Our Science Education Policy Page explains why we oppose mandating ID in public schools:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


because as a matter of fact you are still trying to push ID into schools. In contrast to the guys who suggested the Missouri bill Discovery Institute is just dishonest. But OK, it wouldn't be the DI if it were.
BTW, the Sensous Curmudgeon informs us that < the Arizona > and < the Oklahoma > creationism bills the DI initiated have died.


Posted by: sparc on April 05 2013,01:36

He is back. Willam Dembski made one of his now rare public appearances at < EN&V > to defend Meyer's new book or rather his "Law of Conservation of Information".
Posted by: DiEb on April 05 2013,02:32

Again, William Dembski refers to his two "seminal papers"
  • "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486
  • "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061
And while he concedes that J. Shallit had found an arithmetic error [...] in my book No Free Lunch, he doesn't mention the flaws in the paper "The Search for a Search": There he introduces a Horizontal No Free Lunch theorem, which is quite problematic - to say the least.

Or isn't it? For a while, when you downloaded the paper from < http://evoinfo.org/publica....ca...., > it came with an erratum (I know this, because they thanked me for my attention to our work and pointing out the problem). You don't have to take my word for this - here a picture via the < wayback machine >.

When I checked today, this erratum has disappeared from the text again (quite silently - at least I wasn't informed). So, what has happened? How often has the same error to be pointed out?


Posted by: sparc on April 05 2013,08:50

Did you note that Dembski < insinuates > some wrong doing by Wes and Jeff Shallit?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that conservation of information has since been reconceptualized and significantly expanded in its scope and power through my subsequent joint work with Baylor engineer Robert Marks. Conservation of information, in the form that Felsenstein is still dealing with, is taken from my 2002 book No Free Lunch. In 2005, Marks and I began a research program for developing the concept of conservation of information, and we have since published a number of peer-reviewed papers in the technical literature on this topic (note that Felsenstein published his critique of my work with the National Center for Science Education, essentially in a newsletter format, and that Shallit's 2003 article finally appeared in 2011 with the philosophy of science journal Synthese, essentially unchanged in all those intervening years).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)

Dembski is just disgusting. He is telling a lie and he surely knows the truth because < Casey Luskin was caught red handed with exactly the same lie back in January 2011 >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We [W. Elseberry and J. Shallit] submitted our essay to Synthese on 2009/03/23. It was released online by 2009/04/20. It appears in print in the January 2011 issue. In general, authors can only respond to papers that are published before the date of publication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(ETA EN&V link)


Posted by: Dr.GH on April 16 2013,23:01

Wow, Amazing

The Discotutes cannot fill their wonderful, ground wasting, FREE graduate summer "seminars."

That's right folk- They can't fucking give them away!

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013....21.html >
Posted by: The whole truth on April 16 2013,23:29

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 16 2013,21:01)
Wow, Amazing

The Discotutes cannot fill their wonderful, ground wasting, FREE graduate summer "seminars."

That's right folk- They can't fucking give them away!

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......21.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they're even "including travel, food and lodging."

If the DI wants a big turnout, they need to offer something more educational and entertaining than some boring sermons about an imaginary designer-creator-god, such as Magenta of Montserrat demonstrating her 'sucking a golf ball through a garden hose' skills. They might even get people to pay to see that!
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2013,10:04

Quote (The whole truth @ April 16 2013,22:29)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 16 2013,21:01)
Wow, Amazing

The Discotutes cannot fill their wonderful, ground wasting, FREE graduate summer "seminars."

That's right folk- They can't fucking give them away!

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......21.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they're even "including travel, food and lodging."

If the DI wants a big turnout, they need to offer something more educational and entertaining than some boring sermons about an imaginary designer-creator-god, such as Magenta of Montserrat demonstrating her 'sucking a golf ball through a garden hose' skills. They might even get people to pay to see that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if they were to hold it at that park in Kentucky! :p
Posted by: fnxtr on April 17 2013,11:37

Quote (Henry J @ April 17 2013,08:04)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 16 2013,22:29)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 16 2013,21:01)
Wow, Amazing

The Discotutes cannot fill their wonderful, ground wasting, FREE graduate summer "seminars."

That's right folk- They can't fucking give them away!

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......21.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they're even "including travel, food and lodging."

If the DI wants a big turnout, they need to offer something more educational and entertaining than some boring sermons about an imaginary designer-creator-god, such as Magenta of Montserrat demonstrating her 'sucking a golf ball through a garden hose' skills. They might even get people to pay to see that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if they were to hold it at that park in Kentucky! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


?? "The DI Derby"??
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 17 2013,11:44

Anyone have some free time coming up?

Think they would kick us out or have JoeG beat us up?
Posted by: fnxtr on April 17 2013,11:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2013,09:44)
Anyone have some free time coming up?

Think they would kick us out or have JoeG beat us up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad Deadman and Wolfhound are maintaining radio silence, they're in the wetcoast rainforest, aren't they?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 17 2013,11:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.S. Lewis Fellows Program
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: The whole truth on April 17 2013,13:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2013,09:44)
Anyone have some free time coming up?

Think they would kick us out or have JoeG beat us up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I live about 3 hours by car from Seattle (I lived there for 6 years when I was a kid) and would dearly love to sit through 9 days of ID sermons but I don't meet their admission requirements:

"Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director."

Of course I eagerly want to incorporate ID into my field of study but I'm not a student and the spider that lives behind my toilet (that I've named Professor Weirdo) is being stubborn and won't agree to writing a letter of recommendation, or a telephone interview. Dang, I haz a sad. :(

I'm even more devastated that I will miss out on the rumored appearance of ID A-lister and toaster technician joey g, who would undoubtedly steal the show by dazzling the attendees with his brilliant, precise measurements of CSI in a wide variety of living and non-living things, including angel food caeks that he cooks up in his superbly outfitted basement lab and caek bakery.

Of course it would also be a huge thrill to watch joey use the world class fighting skills he learned as a war hero in Iraq to beat up and evict any evo trouble makers who selfishly disrupt the proceedings by asking relevant, scientific questions.

And last but far from least, if I were allowed to attend and joey does make an appearance, I or someone else might be able to get joey to share some deep thoughts about his loving, patient, open-minded, muslim/christian philosophy and how to properly demonstrate those allah-yhwh given thoughts with kind and considerate internet forum etiquette.

I'm crushed, crushed I tell you, that I won't be allowed to attend the seminars.
Posted by: JohnW on April 17 2013,13:57

Quote (The whole truth @ April 17 2013,11:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2013,09:44)
Anyone have some free time coming up?

Think they would kick us out or have JoeG beat us up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I live about 3 hours by car from Seattle (I lived there for 6 years when I was a kid) and would dearly love to sit through 9 days of ID sermons but I don't meet their admission requirements:

"Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director."

Of course I eagerly want to incorporate ID into my field of study but I'm not a student and the spider that lives behind my toilet (that I've named Professor Weirdo) is being stubborn and won't agree to writing a letter of recommendation, or a telephone interview. Dang, I haz a sad. :(

I'm even more devastated that I will miss out on the rumored appearance of ID A-lister and toaster technician joey g, who would undoubtedly steal the show by dazzling the attendees with his brilliant, precise measurements of CSI in a wide variety of living and non-living things, including angel food caeks that he cooks up in his superbly outfitted basement lab and caek bakery.

Of course it would also be a huge thrill to watch joey use the world class fighting skills he learned as a war hero in Iraq to beat up and evict any evo trouble makers who selfishly disrupt the proceedings by asking relevant, scientific questions.

And last but far from least, if I were allowed to attend and joey does make an appearance, I or someone else might be able to get joey to share some deep thoughts about his loving, patient, open-minded, muslim/christian philosophy and how to properly demonstrate those allah-yhwh given thoughts with kind and considerate internet forum etiquette.

I'm crushed, crushed I tell you, that I won't be allowed to attend the seminars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I live in Seattle, and sometimes catch the bus across the street from Tard Central. I'd go, but I don't meet the requirements (Why didn't they just say "Students at backwoods bible school only"? Would have saved a lot of trouble, and their target audience might have been able to read that without moving their lips). Anyway, I can't really spare the time. Or the neurons.
Posted by: The whole truth on April 17 2013,14:22

Quote (JohnW @ April 17 2013,11:57)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 17 2013,11:50)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2013,09:44)
Anyone have some free time coming up?

Think they would kick us out or have JoeG beat us up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I live about 3 hours by car from Seattle (I lived there for 6 years when I was a kid) and would dearly love to sit through 9 days of ID sermons but I don't meet their admission requirements:

"Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director."

Of course I eagerly want to incorporate ID into my field of study but I'm not a student and the spider that lives behind my toilet (that I've named Professor Weirdo) is being stubborn and won't agree to writing a letter of recommendation, or a telephone interview. Dang, I haz a sad. :(

I'm even more devastated that I will miss out on the rumored appearance of ID A-lister and toaster technician joey g, who would undoubtedly steal the show by dazzling the attendees with his brilliant, precise measurements of CSI in a wide variety of living and non-living things, including angel food caeks that he cooks up in his superbly outfitted basement lab and caek bakery.

Of course it would also be a huge thrill to watch joey use the world class fighting skills he learned as a war hero in Iraq to beat up and evict any evo trouble makers who selfishly disrupt the proceedings by asking relevant, scientific questions.

And last but far from least, if I were allowed to attend and joey does make an appearance, I or someone else might be able to get joey to share some deep thoughts about his loving, patient, open-minded, muslim/christian philosophy and how to properly demonstrate those allah-yhwh given thoughts with kind and considerate internet forum etiquette.

I'm crushed, crushed I tell you, that I won't be allowed to attend the seminars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I live in Seattle, and sometimes catch the bus across the street from Tard Central. I'd go, but I don't meet the requirements (Why didn't they just say "Students at backwoods bible school only"? Would have saved a lot of trouble, and their target audience might have been able to read that without moving their lips). Anyway, I can't really spare the time. Or the neurons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But think of all the syuntifik ejeekashun you'll miss out on!11!!111

:)
Posted by: fnxtr on April 17 2013,15:38

Quote (JohnW @ April 17 2013,11:57)
"Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, another circle jerk, then.
Posted by: JohnW on April 17 2013,15:55

Quote (fnxtr @ April 17 2013,13:38)
Quote (JohnW @ April 17 2013,11:57)
"Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, another circle jerk, then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd love to see those academic transcripts.  Comedy gold.
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2013,22:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(fnxtr @ April 17 2013,10:37


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Henry J @ April 17 2013,08:04)
[...]

Maybe if they were to hold it at that park in Kentucky! :p

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


?? "The DI Derby"??

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


The Ark Park.
< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....rk.html >
< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....on.html >

Henry
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 17 2013,22:56

A comment from Zack Kopplin:

ot yet, Zack, not yet. But I say we get things going by brainstorming. Here goes.

Meme Idea 1

TSA: Sir, mid-sized green items go in a small taupe container.
Traveler: Wait. What?

TSA: Sir, you're not a scientist. Hold your questions please.

TSA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step into the corner.

Traveler: Why?

TSA: Still not a scientist. Full body cavity.

Meme Idea 2
Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Driver: I don't see a lab coat. You're not a scientist.

Officer: Got me there. Move along.

Meme Idea 3
Professor: And so we therefore know that Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with coral.

Student: Is mere DNA sequence similarity in certain coding regions of one shared gene enough to establish this conclusion as unchallengeable, or could one reasonably withhold assent for now?

Professor: We've been over this. You're not a scientist. I ask the questions. You write down what I say. And before you ask, yes, this will be on the exam.

Oh, wait. That last one is real.
Postscript: Zack just appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation. Listen here. This meme thing might happen.
Posted by: DiEb on July 05 2013,05:04

Casey Luskin is deeply disappointed: < What Science Education "Journalism" Looks Like at Nature >

He was interviewed by the "highly respected" journal Nature, but the journalist Laureen Morello saw through his talking points and safely ignored all of them in her article "< Evolution makes the grade >". It's not fair!
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 05 2013,11:15

Quote (DiEb @ July 05 2013,05:04)
Casey Luskin is deeply disappointed: < What Science Education "Journalism" Looks Like at Nature >

He was interviewed by the "highly respected" journal Nature, but the journalist Laureen Morello saw through his talking points and safely ignored all of them in her article "< Evolution makes the grade >". It's not fair!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shame on you Lauren Morello!

You made Baby Gerbil cry!

(You have to wonder why Gerb brought this up in the first place.  Nobody would have known otherwise.  Oh, yeah, persecution complex.  I forgotted 'bouts that.)
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 05 2013,14:11

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 05 2013,11:15)
Quote (DiEb @ July 05 2013,05:04)
Casey Luskin is deeply disappointed: < What Science Education "Journalism" Looks Like at Nature >

He was interviewed by the "highly respected" journal Nature, but the journalist Laureen Morello saw through his talking points and safely ignored all of them in her article "< Evolution makes the grade >". It's not fair!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shame on you Lauren Morello!

You made Baby Gerbil cry!

(You have to wonder why Gerb brought this up in the first place. Nobody would have known otherwise. Oh, yeah, persecution complex. I forgotted 'bouts that.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not like you ever made a film called Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion" expelled!, is it?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 05 2013,18:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2013,15:11)
Quote (Doc Bill @ July 05 2013,11:15)
Quote (DiEb @ July 05 2013,05:04)
Casey Luskin is deeply disappointed: < What Science Education "Journalism" Looks Like at Nature >

He was interviewed by the "highly respected" journal Nature, but the journalist Laureen Morello saw through his talking points and safely ignored all of them in her article "< Evolution makes the grade >". It's not fair!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shame on you Lauren Morello!

You made Baby Gerbil cry!

(You have to wonder why Gerb brought this up in the first place. Nobody would have known otherwise. Oh, yeah, persecution complex. I forgotted 'bouts that.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not like you ever made a film called Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion" expelled!, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i wonder how many people outside of the CBEB congregation even read this miserable little pustule's rants, anymore?
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 05 2013,21:55

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 05 2013,18:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2013,15:11)
Quote (Doc Bill @ July 05 2013,11:15)
 
Quote (DiEb @ July 05 2013,05:04)
Casey Luskin is deeply disappointed: < What Science Education "Journalism" Looks Like at Nature >

He was interviewed by the "highly respected" journal Nature, but the journalist Laureen Morello saw through his talking points and safely ignored all of them in her article "< Evolution makes the grade >". It's not fair!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shame on you Lauren Morello!

You made Baby Gerbil cry!

(You have to wonder why Gerb brought this up in the first place. Nobody would have known otherwise. Oh, yeah, persecution complex. I forgotted 'bouts that.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not like you ever made a film called Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion" expelled!, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i wonder how many people outside of the CBEB congregation even read this miserable little pustule's rants, anymore?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He must have some family members that do.
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 22 2013,17:01

I wrote this up < here. >

On the 17th Klinghoffer , crying about Matzke's review, asks "why doesn't a paleonoltogist review Darwin's Doubt?

Well Dr. Donald Prothero did.

The 7th comment is by a Rex Tugwell who demands that Prothero deal with epigentics and Embryological Development.

Bait and switch is alive and well.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 22 2013,21:00

That's Rex "My Dick I Will" Tugwell.



(low hanging fruit)
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 23 2013,00:04

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 23 2013,14:00)
That's Rex "My Dick I Will" Tugwell.



(low hanging fruit)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you qualify your comment with "Low hanging fruit", but really, I think the onus is on us to rise above this sort of juvenile play on peoples' names.

Besides that, you beat me to it.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 24 2013,10:14

This rather confused me this morning. Maybe I need more coffee before readng.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013....81.html >
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 24 2013,11:13

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,10:14)
This rather confused me this morning. Maybe I need more coffee before readng.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......81.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Momentary lapse of unreason.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 24 2013,11:32

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 24 2013,09:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,10:14)
This rather confused me this morning. Maybe I need more coffee before readng.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......81.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Momentary lapse of unreason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I read it over again. It still says that Axe, Gauger, and Meyer are full of shit.
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 24 2013,11:36

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,11:32)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 24 2013,09:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,10:14)
This rather confused me this morning. Maybe I need more coffee before readng.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......81.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Momentary lapse of unreason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I read it over again. It still says that Axe, Gauger, and Meyer are full of shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was all like "I am so going to write to UT about this shit..."

Then I read it and was confused.  I read it some more... yep it's saying that Axe is wrong.

What the heck?

I don't know if my world can handle this.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on July 24 2013,11:39

But...what happens to ID if it actually allows dissent, and discussion of its many failings?

Either this keeps up and ID has weeks, at most, to live at the DI, or it ends soon.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 24 2013,11:40

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 24 2013,11:36)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,11:32)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 24 2013,09:13)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,10:14)
This rather confused me this morning. Maybe I need more coffee before readng.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......81.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Momentary lapse of unreason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I read it over again. It still says that Axe, Gauger, and Meyer are full of shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was all like "I am so going to write to UT about this shit..."

Then I read it and was confused. I read it some more... yep it's saying that Axe is wrong.

What the heck?

I don't know if my world can handle this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Surely some revelation is at hand;
   Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
   The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
   When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
   Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
   A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
   A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
   Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
   Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

   The darkness drops again but now I know
   That twenty centuries of stony sleep
   Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
   And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
   Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on July 24 2013,11:56


Posted by: Doc Bill on July 24 2013,17:13

I'm with Akbar.

(Hey, I should make that into a t-shirt!)

Who's going to lower the boom?  Not Meyer, he knows the least about what he writes.  Axe and Gauger?  Not Gauger, she's too busy doing green screen photo shoots.  Possibly Axe who is both deluded and vindictive.

However, my "ax" of choice is Luskin!  Yea, Attack Gerbil.  Sic, 'em, Gerb!

Heads up for a citation avalanche.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 24 2013,17:38

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,11:32)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 24 2013,09:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 24 2013,10:14)
This rather confused me this morning. Maybe I need more coffee before readng.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......81.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Momentary lapse of unreason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I read it over again. It still says that Axe, Gauger, and Meyer are full of shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I find the Gauger and Axe study uninformative (beyond that which we already knew) because they have no idea what their substitutions actually did to their protein. For example, these mutations could have simply led to an unfolded protein. They reject this idea based on a generalization that "it appears that about 10% or more of the residues in natural proteins need to be changed before the cumulative structural disruption can be expected to cause complete loss of function" (Axe, D. D., 2000, Journal of molecular biology 301: 585-595). - See more at: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013....f" >

How does this idea of loss of structure = loss of function work for intrinsically disordered proteins, which are a significant fraction (half?) of all functional proteins?  Inquiring minds want to know, but also know not to expect anything from EN&V.
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 24 2013,21:24

Poenie seems to be an odd fit for the DI. In < this > 2003 letter he co-wrote to the Texas State Board of Education he even takes a small swipe at them.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other of us (Poenie) was listed by the Discovery Institute as one of the Texas scientists on their "40 Texas Scientists Skeptical of Darwin" list (although he did not authorize the DI to include him on this list). Poenie did write a letter to the state board arguing that Darwinian (hyperdarwinian) mechanisms are not the only ones molding the evolutionary history of life and that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change. However, that letter was not intended to oppose basic evolutionary biology or to support poor teaching or coverage of that topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The letter goes on to reject an apparent proposal that only one of several biology textbook candidates be approved for the state curriculum. Excerpt:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps the Glencoe book is seen as the only acceptable book by at least one SBOE member because it explicitly lists "Divine Origins" as an alternative to scientific hypotheses about the origin of life (on page 388). However, we both object to the presentation of religious and scientific explanations as mutually exclusive ideas, as if choosing one requires an individual to reject the other. We believe that a science book should focus on scientific explanations, and not present religious beliefs as an alternative to scientific analyses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...but lest I be accused of out of context quotation you should read the whole letter if you are interested; it is not long.
Posted by: Henry J on July 24 2013,23:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh. At the risk of stating the obvious, people in this country are free to consider "alternative" mechanisms. They just need to keep in mind that if somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter claims that something is supported by evidence when those familiar with the subject know it ain't (or vice versa), that's apt to get pointed out by those people. (i.e. being "free" to say stuff doesn't mean being "free" from criticism of what one says!;)

Henry
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 25 2013,01:21

Quote (Henry J @ July 25 2013,16:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh. At the risk of stating the obvious, people in this country are free to consider "alternative" mechanisms. They just need to keep in mind that if somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter claims that something is supported by evidence when those familiar with the subject know it ain't (or vice versa), that's apt to get pointed out by those people. (i.e. being "free" to say stuff doesn't mean being "free" from criticism of what one says!)

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


Agreed. It's why the IDiots' hijacking of the phrase 'academic freedom' is so grating for me. The people trying to frame AF bills know just what they are doing; your average Barb or Mung or Andre think they are a great idea, but show that they wouldn't last a minute in a real academic debate.
And I hope I haven't come across as being critical of the professor; indeed he comes across as one of the good guys in The Argument Regarding Design, which makes the EN&V article all the more puzzling.
/defensive mode
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 25 2013,07:22

I suspect, though can't know for sure, that when he talks of non-Darwinian, he probably is referring to things like epigenetics, evo-devo, and other evolutionary mechanisms beyond RMNS.

The way that "dissent from darwinism" letter was worded, many scientists could honestly sign it... but from his letter it appears that few actually did.

And I wish I still had my review copy of that Glencoe book.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 25 2013,21:37

There's a response to Poenie.
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 25 2013,23:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 26 2013,14:37)
There's a response to Poenie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. David Klinghoffer has helpfully explained how the post and reply process works over there. Here he was over at Amazon a couple of days ago, responding to this from commenter stickler:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Klinghoffer: "Unlike our Darwin-defending friends, I genuinely value debate, real debate..."

Really? Then why doesn't Evolution News and Views allow comments on their articles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Klinghoffer (irony metres off, please):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Regarding stickler's complaint about comments on Evolution News & Views, we allow and encourage intelligent debate at ENV. In fact tomorrow morning we have scheduled a post by biologist Martin Poenie at the University of Texas at Austin, critical of Doug Axe's work as it figures in Darwin's Doubt. I applaud Dr. Poenie for joining us in discussion on that point. We've publicly invited Jerry Coyne to debate the merits of Darwin's Doubt at ENV -- he refused, preferring to hide behind Matzke, then Prothero. We have hosted Dr. Prothero's co-author Michael Shermer, who is very critical of our work and acquitted himself well in a debate about Alfred Russel Wallace's ideas. And so on.

What we don't allow, stickler, is anonymous sniping or the usual Darwinian spitting, screaming and cursing. That doesn't count as debate in my book. It demeans everyone, including thoughtful defenders of orthodox evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that's how debate works over at EN&V. Invite well-enough respected scientists to present an article and whenever someone gullible enough takes up the offer, which will inevitably be critical of ID, get McLatchie or Luskin or Crowther to jump all over it with the usual obfuscatory crap a day or two later, and what do you know - victory!

Edited - removed crappy tinyurl link. Hopefully < this Amazon one > will work.


Posted by: Dr.GH on July 26 2013,02:45

Quote (Ptaylor @ July 25 2013,21:18)
Klinghoffer (irony metres off, please):

Regarding stickler's complaint about comments on Evolution News & Views, we allow and encourage intelligent debate at ENV. In fact tomorrow morning we have scheduled a post by biologist Martin Poenie at the University of Texas at Austin, critical of Doug Axe's work as it figures in Darwin's Doubt. I applaud Dr. Poenie for joining us in discussion on that point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw that, but had not processed it adequately.

Really, it is fucking awesome.

The shit sucking Disco'tute is forced to publish a short comment that explains (very well) that the entire ID effort made by their super-duper "research" is bullshit. Why did they do this?

Merely to cover two critical reviews on Amazon.com by Matzke, and Prothero, the attack gerbil and his minions have been summoned.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 18 2013,03:18

Do you remember < What George Church, Famed Harvard Geneticist, Says About Darwin's Doubt and Intelligent Design >?
According to < Church Lab & Harvard Molecular Technology Group Meetings > web page this was based on personal communication:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mar 13, 2013 Discovery Institute teleconf w/ David Klinghoffer Stephen Meyr [sic!] & Paul Nelson, 1:15-2, Dial-In Information (GMC)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thus, it is likely that Church's statements are verbatim.
I am wondering though, why the page is openly accesible (I came across it when I was looking for a link between the the Discovery Institute and Aldevron which is acknowledged in Biological Information: New Perspectives for sponsoring the meeting).
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 19 2013,08:58

According to Casey "Where's The Wrist?" Luskin, bloggers at this here site < scared Springer Verlag shitless >. Behold our power!
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 19 2013,13:56

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2013,08:58)
According to Casey "Where's The Wrist?" Luskin, bloggers at this here site < scared Springer Verlag shitless >. Behold our power!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until now it didn't affect book sales which remain 2 for August 2013.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 19 2013,14:10

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2013,08:58)
According to Casey "Where's The Wrist?" Luskin, bloggers at this here site < scared Springer Verlag shitless >. Behold our power!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Casey can get together with Gary for a beer.

If it doesn't have any adverse interactions with other medications.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 19 2013,14:18

The DI History Revision department is in full swing.

In an article about the good old centriole they note


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Discovery Institute's Dr. Jonathan Wells hypothesized years ago that centrioles operate like winches, pulling the chromosomes apart with force (here and here)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where "here and here" is neither here nor there.  What Jon-Boy actually pooted was that the centrioles looked like little turbines and, by hecky, they were little turbines and that Someday it would be discovered (but not by Jon-Boy) that they motorboated stuff in the cell around.

It was turbines using polar force or some such nonsense, not winches.  But I can't fault the Disco Tute too much.  After all it's much easier to make predictions after the fact.  They're just being efficient!
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 19 2013,14:27

Strangely enough, as of today Dembski still list Sringer in his < CV at designinference.com >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS

in preparation
Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is highly trained in denying realities, though.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 19 2013,14:39

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 19 2013,14:27)
Strangely enough, as of today Dembski still list Sringer in his < CV at designinference.com >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS

in preparation
Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is highly trained in denying realities, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Bill's CV:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Current Employment
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture (discovery.org/csc), 1996 to present, full-time since summer 2012
Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture and Science, Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu), part-time since fall 2012

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


One can't help wondering what it means to be a part-time Senior Fellow at Discovery.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Aug. 19 2013,16:01

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2013,14:39)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 19 2013,14:27)
Strangely enough, as of today Dembski still list Sringer in his < CV at designinference.com >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS

in preparation
Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is highly trained in denying realities, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Bill's CV:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Current Employment
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture (discovery.org/csc), 1996 to present, full-time since summer 2012
Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture and Science, Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu), part-time since fall 2012

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


One can't help wondering what it means to be a part-time Senior Fellow at Discovery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor..." An endowed chair??


Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 19 2013,16:36

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2013,14:39)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 19 2013,14:27)
Strangely enough, as of today Dembski still list Sringer in his < CV at designinference.com >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS

in preparation
Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is highly trained in denying realities, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Bill's CV:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Current Employment
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture (discovery.org/csc), 1996 to present, full-time since summer 2012
Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture and Science, Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu), part-time since fall 2012

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


One can't help wondering what it means to be a part-time Senior Fellow at Discovery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Limited cafeteria privileges?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 20 2013,19:03

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 19 2013,16:36)
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2013,14:39)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 19 2013,14:27)
Strangely enough, as of today Dembski still list Sringer in his < CV at designinference.com >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS

in preparation
Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is highly trained in denying realities, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Bill's CV:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Current Employment
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture (discovery.org/csc), 1996 to present, full-time since summer 2012
Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture and Science, Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu), part-time since fall 2012

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


One can't help wondering what it means to be a part-time Senior Fellow at Discovery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Limited cafeteria privileges?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "ses" is a double-wide trailer diploma mill in bumfuck, NC.

"Unemployed" would be a step up from this place for Dembski.  Part-time at a diploma mill?  

How the mighty Dembski has fallen and one wonders what drives his self-destructive behavior.  Perhaps he's just a consummate asshole and can't get along with anybody.  University of Chicago to Baylor to nothing to two Baptist seminaries to this.

Considering Dembski is the "leading ID theorist" he's certainly on the skids.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 20 2013,19:19

From one of the many "We hate you Nick Matzke" articles up at ENV at the moment:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Matzke was essentially threatening Springer with economic extortion, insinuating that if the company didn't cancel the book contract with the editors of Biological Information: New Perspectives, it might face a boycott. - See more at: URL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, Casey. He can only threaten them with "economic extortion" if he himself controls the purse strings.

Stick to not being a scientist, you suck as a lawyer.


Posted by: Driver on Aug. 20 2013,20:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2013,01:19)
From one of the many "We hate you Nick Matzke" articles up at ENV at the moment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Matzke was essentially threatening Springer with economic extortion, insinuating that if the company didn't cancel the book contract with the editors of Biological Information: New Perspectives, it might face a boycott. - See more at: <a href=""http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/on_the_origin_o_3075521.html#sthash.RC9CujbF.dpuf" target="_blank">URL</a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, Casey. He can only threaten them with "economic extortion" if he himself controls the purse strings.

Stick to not being a scientist, you suck as a lawyer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


boycott= extortion.

Neo-con wank.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 20 2013,22:34

Luskin put up his next piece:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he doesn't have anything to offer but his usual claims. E.g.,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our goal is to foster a real, and robust scientific debate over neo-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design, and until now, we've felt that goal was best served by staying out of the public debate on this book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What if not a robust scientific discussion have the Nick's posts at Pandasthumb been, Casey? Don't you have anything better than the following:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a crucial point: How many times have we heard ID critics (like Matzke) say things like "ID shouldn't be taken seriously because it doesn't present research at scientific conferences, or publish scientific papers." But then what happens when ID proponents do exactly what they say we should do: We present research at a scientific conference at a major research university (Cornell) [sic!] and then seek to have it published by a major science publisher (Springer)? Does Matzke applaud us for doing what he demanded? No. ID-critics like Matzke work hard to prevent its publication. This is sheer hypocrisy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)

Casey,
1. most if what was presented was not science (or do you beleave any physicist would take Sewell serious? Would any molecular biologist refer to Gitt and Fernandez when it comes to the information content of DNA?)
2. technically the meeting may have taken place on Cornell ground but for God's sake you guys just booked a room there but the university didn't endorse the meeting
3. Springer is indeed a major science publisher. Considering 1. and 2. even you have to come to the conclusion that Springer didn't have a choice. And it surely was not about money but rather their reputation they didn't want to loose.
There's one true thing in you post, though:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For them, this is not a scientific debate at all. It's an ideological power struggle
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is an ideological struggle, indeed. One started by your side with a plan layed down in the wedge document.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 20 2013,23:11

In his earlier EN&V piece on Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey complained about < legal issues >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this point, many might wonder why the authors didn't sue. They almost did. But there was a major unjust barrier to a lawsuit: Springer-Verlag is based in Germany, and a boilerplate clause in the contract said that in the case of a dispute, "The courts of Berlin, Germany shall have the exclusive jurisdiction." This meant that the authors, who are academics of limited financial means, found that it would have been financially unfeasible and extremely difficult to pursue a potentially long, costly, and drawn-out lawsuit in Germany. Justice isn't cheap, or easily obtained, and unfortunately the authors simply couldn't afford going to Germany to get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IANAL but IMO all above is lame excuses:
Why is it unjust if a German publisher choses his Germany as the place of jurisdiction? In addition, one of the authors, Werner Gitt, is a German citizen who lives in Braunschweig, Germany. He doesn't have to go to Germny because he is already there. And law suit costs are usually much lower in Germany than in the US. One might add that it appears unlikely that any of the authors would be left alone financially if the case would have gone to a US court.

Come on Casey. You didn't have a chance but you still have to sell the story to your audience. BTW, you may not have realized yet that Germany has free speech laws and special laws to prevent censorship. Thus, you or Gitt could try to sue Springer in Germany or bring your case to the EU court of human rights. Good luck with that.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 20 2013,23:25

Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at < Theology Web >.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 21 2013,01:54

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:25)
Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at < Theology Web >.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does it compare to the earlier account documented further up in this thread?
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 21 2013,02:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2013,01:54)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:25)
Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at < Theology Web >.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does it compare to the earlier account documented further up in this thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not much. In the beginning he cites Luskin's EN&V posts. Later you will find things like:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since I am not a native English speaker, perhaps I have a language misunderstanding (?).

When does
" ... holding a symposium at Cornell University ..."
mean the same thing as
" ... Cornell is sponsoring our Symposium ...".

Suppose I held my birthday party at ***** Hotel, a famous 5-star hotel. I invite friends and family. My invitation says, "My party is being held at the ***** Hotel." Does that mean the same as, "The ***** Hotel is sponsoring my party?" IS the ***** Hotel sponsoring my party?

Get REAL, Sammy-boy.

Jorge
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess he will not disclose the reviewers or Dembski's contact at Springer.
Posted by: fusilier on Aug. 22 2013,09:13

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 21 2013,03:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2013,01:54)
 
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:25)
Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at < Theology Web >.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does it compare to the earlier account documented further up in this thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not much. In the beginning he cites Luskin's EN&V posts. Later you will find things like:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since I am not a native English speaker, perhaps I have a language misunderstanding (?).

When does
" ... holding a symposium at Cornell University ..."
mean the same thing as
" ... Cornell is sponsoring our Symposium ...".

Suppose I held my birthday party at ***** Hotel, a famous 5-star hotel. I invite friends and family. My invitation says, "My party is being held at the ***** Hotel." Does that mean the same as, "The ***** Hotel is sponsoring my party?" IS the ***** Hotel sponsoring my party?

Get REAL, Sammy-boy.

Jorge
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess he will not disclose the reviewers or Dembski's contact at Springer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jorge wrote that?

It almost smacks of honesty.  (Therefore, I expect it to be disappeared.)
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 22 2013,22:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< In BIO-Complexity and Biological Information: New Perspectives, Granville Sewell Defends his Arguments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

again. Looking forwar to his next Youtube video.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 26 2013,09:48

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:11)
In his earlier EN&V piece on Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey complained about < legal issues >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this point, many might wonder why the authors didn't sue. They almost did. But there was a major unjust barrier to a lawsuit: Springer-Verlag is based in Germany, and a boilerplate clause in the contract said that in the case of a dispute, "The courts of Berlin, Germany shall have the exclusive jurisdiction." This meant that the authors, who are academics of limited financial means, found that it would have been financially unfeasible and extremely difficult to pursue a potentially long, costly, and drawn-out lawsuit in Germany. Justice isn't cheap, or easily obtained, and unfortunately the authors simply couldn't afford going to Germany to get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IANAL but IMO all above is lame excuses:
Why is it unjust if a German publisher choses his Germany as the place of jurisdiction? In addition, one of the authors, Werner Gitt, is a German citizen who lives in Braunschweig, Germany. He doesn't have to go to Germny because he is already there. And law suit costs are usually much lower in Germany than in the US. One might add that it appears unlikely that any of the authors would be left alone financially if the case would have gone to a US court.

Come on Casey. You didn't have a chance but you still have to sell the story to your audience. BTW, you may not have realized yet that Germany has free speech laws and special laws to prevent censorship. Thus, you or Gitt could try to sue Springer in Germany or bring your case to the EU court of human rights. Good luck with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that. It's a pity Dembski et al. didn't notice it before they signed the contract.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 26 2013,11:47

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 26 2013,09:48)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:11)
In his earlier EN&V piece on Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey complained about < legal issues >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this point, many might wonder why the authors didn't sue. They almost did. But there was a major unjust barrier to a lawsuit: Springer-Verlag is based in Germany, and a boilerplate clause in the contract said that in the case of a dispute, "The courts of Berlin, Germany shall have the exclusive jurisdiction." This meant that the authors, who are academics of limited financial means, found that it would have been financially unfeasible and extremely difficult to pursue a potentially long, costly, and drawn-out lawsuit in Germany. Justice isn't cheap, or easily obtained, and unfortunately the authors simply couldn't afford going to Germany to get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IANAL but IMO all above is lame excuses:
Why is it unjust if a German publisher choses his Germany as the place of jurisdiction? In addition, one of the authors, Werner Gitt, is a German citizen who lives in Braunschweig, Germany. He doesn't have to go to Germny because he is already there. And law suit costs are usually much lower in Germany than in the US. One might add that it appears unlikely that any of the authors would be left alone financially if the case would have gone to a US court.

Come on Casey. You didn't have a chance but you still have to sell the story to your audience. BTW, you may not have realized yet that Germany has free speech laws and special laws to prevent censorship. Thus, you or Gitt could try to sue Springer in Germany or bring your case to the EU court of human rights. Good luck with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that. It's a pity Dembski et al. didn't notice it before they signed the contract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or even get competent legal counsel to look it over before signing.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 26 2013,12:47

What if competent legal counsel have better things to do than work for con artists?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 26 2013,14:17

In a stunning new piece (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/douglas_axe_and075601.html) Luskin decimates evolution and replaces it with wishful thinking.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 26 2013,14:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 26 2013,14:17)
In a stunning new piece (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/douglas_axe_and075601.html) Luskin decimates evolution and replaces it with wishful thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps the authors will favor us with an instance of or example of design done without using or emulating evolution.

A nice bit of irreducible biological complexity produced using design theory rather than trial and error.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 26 2013,15:25

Their side has gone to trial several times, and they've got errors coming out their kazoo, so they've got "trial and error" down pat!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 26 2013,15:39

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 26 2013,15:25)
Their side has gone to trial several times, and they've got errors coming out their kazoo, so they've got "trial and error" down pat!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, but I am not trying to be cute.

I think before ID replaces any part of biology theory, it needs a proof of concept demonstration.

Just show us how you anticipate emergent biochemical properties. Show us by demonstration that that there is a grammar and syntax to coding and regulatory sequences that allows construction of words and sentences without unguided mutation and selection.

Demonstrate that guidance is possible.
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 27 2013,08:12

I don't think you need worry MWT. The title of their "study" pretty much nails the coffin shut on any credibility they might gain from going through the publishing motion:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism Versus Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've read a good deal of scientific literature in my day and a fair amount of political/PR items as well. This sounds like the latter right out of the box. Why would a study compare two approaches to explaining a phenomenon. If your hypothesis (dare I say "theory") can provide an explanation, just provide it and show the test that either supports or demonstrates further issues. This doesn't even provide any support for the supposed "design" and laughably, no one needs to read far into the essay to see that.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 27 2013,16:46

Quote (Robin @ Aug. 27 2013,08:12)
I don't think you need worry MWT. The title of their "study" pretty much nails the coffin shut on any credibility they might gain from going through the publishing motion:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism Versus Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've read a good deal of scientific literature in my day and a fair amount of political/PR items as well. This sounds like the latter right out of the box. Why would a study compare two approaches to explaining a phenomenon. If your hypothesis (dare I say "theory") can provide an explanation, just provide it and show the test that either supports or demonstrates further issues. This doesn't even provide any support for the supposed "design" and laughably, no one needs to read far into the essay to see that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a feature IDC inherited from its intellectual lineage of deceptive creationism. (Deceptive creationism being the clade of all creationisms that rely upon calling the existing body of antievolution arguments or a subset thereof "science" for the purpose of trying to insert them into USA public school science classrooms.) Part of the argumentation is the "oppositional dualism" noted by Judge Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas case: it is asserted that either evolution or creation is true, thus anything that puts evolution in doubt counts as evidence for creation. IDC is fully on board with the oppositional dualism seen in creation science.
Posted by: rossum on Aug. 28 2013,03:57

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2013,16:46)
This is a feature IDC inherited from its intellectual lineage of deceptive creationism. (Deceptive creationism being the clade of all creationisms that rely upon calling the existing body of antievolution arguments or a subset thereof "science" for the purpose of trying to insert them into USA public school science classrooms.) Part of the argumentation is the "oppositional dualism" noted by Judge Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas case: it is asserted that either evolution or creation is true, thus anything that puts evolution in doubt counts as evidence for creation. IDC is fully on board with the oppositional dualism seen in creation science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oppositional Dualism immediately puts IDC and the others outside science, since in science there is always a third option, "We don't know." Dembski's 'Explanatory Filter' fell down on this point. It always produced a definite answer by assuming a default. If there is a default, then it should be, "We don't know".

$0.02
Posted by: Learned Hand on Sep. 05 2013,09:50

Dr. Jennifer Raff (full disclosure--my girlfriend, and awesome) recently started < a blog > aimed at communicating scientific issues to laypeople. After the anti-vaxxers deluged one of her early posts with "but we have research on our side!" comments, she put up a < guide for laypeople on how to read scientific papers >. Scientists and educators love it, and it's going to be required reading in some classes this year.

She advised readers to note the institutional affiliations of a paper's authors before reading it. "Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g. the Discovery Institute) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven. Tip: google 'Discovery Institute' to see why you dont want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory."

The DI is. Not. Amused. Casey Luskin is incensed that someone might think that the Discovery Institute's agenda could be relevant to its credibility. He devoted a < post > to misrepresenting her and implying aspersions against her character, and followed up today with a < podcast > continuing the attack.

I find their distress quite encouraging.
Posted by: hotshoe on Sep. 05 2013,13:13

You're right, Dr. Jennifer Raff is awesome.

I bookmarked the post for my own edification and will strongly suggest our teenage read it - they spend so much time reading textbooks (necessary, I suppose) but no one ever gets around to showing them what a primary source look like or how to read one.

Thanks.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 05 2013,17:03

Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 05 2013,09:50)
Dr. Jennifer Raff (full disclosure--my girlfriend, and awesome) recently started < a blog > aimed at communicating scientific issues to laypeople. After the anti-vaxxers deluged one of her early posts with "but we have research on our side!" comments, she put up a < guide for laypeople on how to read scientific papers >. Scientists and educators love it, and it's going to be required reading in some classes this year.

She advised readers to note the institutional affiliations of a paper's authors before reading it. "Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g. the Discovery Institute) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven. Tip: google 'Discovery Institute' to see why you dont want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory."

The DI is. Not. Amused. Casey Luskin is incensed that someone might think that the Discovery Institute's agenda could be relevant to its credibility. He devoted a < post > to misrepresenting her and implying aspersions against her character, and followed up today with a < podcast > continuing the attack.

I find their distress quite encouraging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I put up a link to her post on that on my blog.  Tell her thanks, I was going to do something like that, but now I don't have to.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 10 2013,12:50

The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013....11.html >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 10 2013,17:46

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2013,12:50)
The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......11.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how they actually named the book, and discussed what was in the NON science course. Or not. You guess.


Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 10 2013,19:40

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 10 2013,17:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2013,12:50)
The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......11.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how they actually named the book, and discussed what was in the NON science course. Or not. You guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Driver on Sep. 10 2013,20:13

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2013,01:40)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 10 2013,17:46)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2013,12:50)
The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......11.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how they actually named the book, and discussed what was in the NON science course. Or not. You guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


It seems the DI have quoted from < What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable > selectively.

AFAICT, the book's entire content is < on the edge.org website >. (Teachers who save students buying books should be commended.)

Contributor David G Myers is a Christian writer.

Scott Atran's dangerous idea is "Science encourages religion in the long run (and vice versa)." He says "Religion thrives because it addresses people's deepest emotional yearnings and society's foundational moral needs, perhaps even more so in complex and mobile societies that are increasingly divorced from nurturing family settings and long familiar environments."

Rodney A Brooks says his dangerous idea will drive us "back towards religion as our salve."

Stephen M. Kosslyn seems to describe a form of pantheism.

Jordan Pollack advocates "a new open-source spiritual and moral movement. I think a new, greener religion, based on faith in the Gaia Hypothesis and an 11th commandment to "Protect the Earth" could catch on, especially if welcoming to existing communities of faith."
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 12 2013,01:42

After sumerizing the work of real scientists on splicing Jonathan M concludes
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The spliceosome is truly one of the most remarkable molecular machines in the cell. My purpose here was only to offer readers a small glimpse of this elegant work of nanotechnology, leaving out, of course, much important detail. As I venture deeper and deeper into the hidden world of the cell, the more I am filled with a tremendous sense of awe at the sheer genius and beauty of the design. If such engineering sophistication were encountered in any other realm of inquiry, it would immediately be attributed to intelligence. If biological systems give every appearance of having been designed, are we not justified -- in the absence of a viable alternative explanation -- in inferring that they most likely are the product of design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only problem with the splicosome is that it is far from being as highly ordered as it appears to Jonathan. E.g., < Intrinsic Disorder in the Human Spliceosomal Proteome > actually seem to be required to allow for splicing of all the different introns present in mammalian genomes.


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 12 2013,12:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If such engineering sophistication were encountered in any other realm of inquiry, it would immediately be attributed to intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. That's because no other field of inquiry (that I know of) has the sort of mechanisms that would do things like that. (Cycles of variation and selection, sometimes in a positive feedback loop.)
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 16 2013,02:05

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 12 2013,20:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If such engineering sophistication were encountered in any other realm of inquiry, it would immediately be attributed to intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. That's because no other field of inquiry (that I know of) has the sort of mechanisms that would do things like that. (Cycles of variation and selection, sometimes in a positive feedback loop.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to see Johnny hatch himself as a turtle and see which direction he takes before a seagull gets him. Then as he's being carried away in it's beak he can rhetorically ask the great engineer in teh sky the same question.

Maybe the ghost of Paley will give him the answer.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 24 2013,13:08

Bizarre:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt >

It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.

There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.

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

(emphasis mine)
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 24 2013,13:16

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2013,11:08)
Bizarre:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt >

It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.

There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.

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

(emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When asked about it, everyone said, "Meyer who?"
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 24 2013,14:33

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 24 2013,13:16)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2013,11:08)
Bizarre:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt >

It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.

There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.

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

(emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When asked about it, everyone said, "Meyer who?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


negnored - not even ignored
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 27 2013,13:49

< EN&V in all seriousness >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it weren't important, why would cells work so hard to translate it?

Dark Matter

A new study at Penn State looked into the "dark matter" of the human genome. Like cosmologists, evolutionary geneticists call anything they don't understand "dark." In this case, though, they saw some light: scads of molecular machines busily translating "non-coding RNA." (sic!)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A duo of scientists at Penn State University has achieved a major milestone in understanding how genomic "dark matter" originates. This "dark matter" -- called non-coding RNA -- does not contain the blueprint for making proteins and yet it comprises more than 95 percent of the human genome. The researchers have discovered that essentially all coding and non-coding RNA originates at the same types of locations along the human genome. (Emphasis added.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There's no difference in the way molecular machines seek out the coded (sic!) parts and the non-protein-coding parts, in other words.

When they went looking for the "initiation machines" that translate DNA, B. Franklin Pugh and Bryan Venters were in for a shock ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 27 2013,14:16

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 27 2013,13:49)
< EN&V in all seriousness >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it weren't important, why would cells work so hard to translate it?

Dark Matter

A new study at Penn State looked into the "dark matter" of the human genome. Like cosmologists, evolutionary geneticists call anything they don't understand "dark." In this case, though, they saw some light: scads of molecular machines busily translating "non-coding RNA." (sic!)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A duo of scientists at Penn State University has achieved a major milestone in understanding how genomic "dark matter" originates. This "dark matter" -- called non-coding RNA -- does not contain the blueprint for making proteins and yet it comprises more than 95 percent of the human genome. The researchers have discovered that essentially all coding and non-coding RNA originates at the same types of locations along the human genome. (Emphasis added.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There's no difference in the way molecular machines seek out the coded (sic!) parts and the non-protein-coding parts, in other words.

When they went looking for the "initiation machines" that translate DNA, B. Franklin Pugh and Bryan Venters were in for a shock ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Transcription: They are IDiots.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2013,14:49

Let's see, they're asking why do the molecules that transcribe DNA onto RNA (or whatever) do this for the non-coding DNA as well as the coding DNA?

If I might ask a silly question, how is the molecule(s) that do the transcribing supposed to distinguish coding from non-coding? To keep the molecules from doing that, there would have to be some kind of sensor system (firewall?) to detect and block such things. I wonder if such a system would use less resources than the transcribing that it would then be preventing?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2013,12:18

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2013,14:49)
Let's see, they're asking why do the molecules that transcribe DNA onto RNA (or whatever) do this for the non-coding DNA as well as the coding DNA?

If I might ask a silly question, how is the molecule(s) that do the transcribing supposed to distinguish coding from non-coding? To keep the molecules from doing that, there would have to be some kind of sensor system (firewall?) to detect and block such things. I wonder if such a system would use less resources than the transcribing that it would then be preventing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder why the designer wasted effort in transcribing everything.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2013,13:37

Why would that cause the designer to expend more effort? Seems to me like adding something to prevent that would add to the design effort, but omitting it only adds to the resource use by the creature, but not to that of the designer of it. ;)
Posted by: Learned Hand on Sep. 30 2013,22:35

A little while ago I linked to Casey Luskin's EN&V attack on Dr. Jennifer Raff (of < Violent Metaphors >). He was unhappy that she implied that a DI affiliation might be considered relevant to an author's credibility, and impliedly challenged her to take ID research at face value. < Challenge accepted >!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 01 2013,08:07

Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 30 2013,22:35)
A little while ago I linked to Casey Luskin's EN&V attack on Dr. Jennifer Raff (of < Violent Metaphors >). He was unhappy that she implied that a DI affiliation might be considered relevant to an author's credibility, and impliedly challenged her to take ID research at face value. < Challenge accepted >!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I particularly liked this little backhand at Casey:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to understand this paper, you need to understand how proteins are made. Dont let this daunt you! Remember, Mr. Luskin isnt a scientist either, hes a lawyer. And I have to assume, given his position, hes read this article and understood it. So you can too...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A simple reading comes across as, "don't let knowing how proteins are made daunt you. I mean, if Casey Luskin - a lawyer - can understand this, feh...it will be easy for anyone else..."

I'm sure Raff didn't intend it that way, but it was funny to think of it that way when I came across it. :D
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2013,16:14

Yes, I took a look at it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 03 2013,16:30

< EnV: Anatomy of a Review >

David Klinghoffer takes a dig at me for not keeping up on the review of Darwin's Doubt.

I've already written more for Chapter 1 than Meyer did.  I'm not like Meyer, I have a real job.  I guess Meyer didn't take very long to write the book... if Klinghoffer thinks that it should only take me a few weeks to review every word and every reference that Meyer misquotes.

Meyer's book is one big 'ole Gish Gallop with a heaping tablespoon god of the gaps.

It takes a crap load of research to dedunk each sentence and figure.  And I have both a life and a job.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 03 2013,18:58

They're reading your stuff. That's good.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 08 2013,22:57

< Intelligent Design Comes to UC Irvine >. Well, not really. It was just Casey Luskin invited by Ratio Christi a Christian apologetics campus group.  Luskin will not be happy that < The Fix > which reported on the event allows comments. Especially, since UCI alumnus Gary Hurd weighed in.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 09 2013,16:07

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2013,22:57)
< Intelligent Design Comes to UC Irvine >. Well, not really. It was just Casey Luskin invited by Ratio Christi a Christian apologetics campus group. Luskin will not be happy that < The Fix > which reported on the event allows comments. Especially, since UCI alumnus Gary Hurd weighed in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Added my bit in response to somebody dissing Gary.



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

Gary sees "intelligent design" creationism as a form of creationism because it offers a subset of the same content. There are the negative arguments against evolutionary biology, and then there are the apologetics-derived arguments, all of which have long histories with clear provenance in creationism. IDC doesn't deliver anything in the apologetics-derived category that wasn't seen before in "creation science". Consult the Kitzmiller transcripts for DI Fellow Scott Minnich being forced to admit that the various "bacterial flagellum is designed" arguments could be found in "creation science" sources predating IDC, and being bewildered as to why that was relevant. The top four IDC arguments, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", cosmological arguments, and "privileged planet" arguments, all are derivations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 "Natural Theology". The only novelty IDC presents is in which apologetics-related arguments from "creation science" were considered too hot to handle for defending in a court room, thus defining the new subset, much as "creation science" excised direct biblical quotation to have a shot at legal vindication. The antievolution socio-political movement cannot admit this clear observation, as that would remove the pretense that IDC could be shoved into public school science curricula. Certainly the advocates of a legal sham (wording courtesy of the SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard and citation thereof in the Kitzmiller decision) cannot be expected to say it was a fair cop. The evidence is quite clear to those of us who have read the sources.

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


Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 10 2013,12:09

I hope you all jump into these newspaper comment sections as Wes has done. It does influence people's opinions.

The Lee Bowman person writes pro-ID creationism comments on newspaper BBs as often as I post anti- IDC comments.


Posted by: ScottBuchanan on Oct. 10 2013,22:24

Just a note of appreciation to all the good folks associated with PT. I have no biology background to speak of, so I rely on your expertise to debunk the DI's publications.
I wrote up a pretty detailed description of the reviews of Darwin's Doubt ( < http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/darwins....s_doubt > ) and drew heavily on PT, especially Nick's magesterial rebuttals. I added a tutorial on fossilization for laymen.

I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.")

OgreMkV, am looking forward to your next posts.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 10 2013,22:57

Quote (ScottBuchanan @ Oct. 10 2013,22:24)
I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One should never judge the advisability of a response-to-Creationism by the possibility that Creationists will make propagandistic hay of that response. Why? Because Creationists can and will find ways to spin anything in their favor. If respected authorities don't respond to Creationist bullshit, it's because they're afraid to confront the undeniable Truth of Creationism, ergo Creationism FTW; if respected authorites do respond to Creationist bullshit, it's because Creationism is Real Science, ergo Creationism FTW.

Since Creationists can and will find ways to propagandistically spin anything in their favor, any response to Creationism should not take that expected propagandistic spin into account. Otherwise, you might just as well be arguing that nobody should ever respond to Creationist bullshit.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 11 2013,09:24

Quote (ScottBuchanan @ Oct. 10 2013,22:24)
Just a note of appreciation to all the good folks associated with PT. I have no biology background to speak of, so I rely on your expertise to debunk the DI's publications.
I wrote up a pretty detailed description of the reviews of Darwin's Doubt ( < http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/darwins....s_doubt > ) and drew heavily on PT, especially Nick's magesterial rebuttals. I added a tutorial on fossilization for laymen.

I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.")

OgreMkV, am looking forward to your next posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID is taken seriously in the same way that a particularly annoying chihuahua is taken seriously by a herd of elephants.  It's best to stomp on them and then ignore the remains.

Marshall said his piece and should pretty much ignore it from now on.  Meyer made a huge mistake.  When the guy one quote comes out and says "this book is crap" and "I was taken completely out of context", then there's only so much one can do to "spin it".  The people who would believe anyway, will.  And the people who wouldn't believe anyway won't.

There are very, very few fence sitters in this 'struggle'.  The only good way to stop the anti-science position is to have better science education in schools.  Note that this isn't "science brainwashing", but giving student (even in elementary school) the skills to think critically.

And thanks!  It's a slow slog, but continuing.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 16 2013,21:51

Meyer is so dumb, he doesn't even know what a God-of-the-Gaps argument is.
 

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

Thus, my argument does not qualify as a God-of-the-gaps argument for the simple reason that the argument does not attempt to establish the existence of God. - See more at: URL=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/does_darwins_do078001.html#sthash.XR0fAQ4g.dpuf
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 17 2013,07:39

Meyer's conclusion seems to be that humans are the designer.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 18 2013,09:27

Meyer quotes Michael Shermer:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, Michael Shermer represents the case for intelligent design as follows: "Intelligent design ... argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) ... to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by. . . an intelligent designer."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Three ellipses and no reference to the source.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 18 2013,10:02

Meyer's recent defense of critiques to DD that he recently posted at EN&V are the identical ones he used in Signature In The  Cell a few years back.

Larry Moran at Sandwalk did a good smackdown of Meyer's stupidity back then that's still applicable to this latest IDiocy.

< Moran on Meyer: Detecting God's Signature >
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 31 2013,23:29

After I read in Nick Matzke's < A Very Darwinian Halloween > that < dcoppedge has definitely written lots of posts for the DIs Evolution News and Views > I had a look for other hidden authors. If < Google is right > Steve Meyer himself wrote at least two responses to Charles Marshall's Science review of Darwin's doubt:




Surprisingly, opening the links you will not find any traces of Steve Meyer. Instead David Klinghoffer is listed as the author.







So much for scientific integrity.

ETA: Unfortunately, we can not rule out that they just messed up their databases. Of course this would only be a little less embarassing for these self-declared information theorists.


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 01 2013,03:57

Maybe Google displays the name of the ID-creationist who was the last to edit a post.  They have to make sure nobody is leaving the party line especially if it is not their brightest light who's posting. In addition you have to recall that they always claimed that ID is peer reviewed.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 01 2013,09:46

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 01 2013,11:57)
Maybe Google displays the name of the ID-creationist who was the last to edit a post. They have to make sure nobody is leaving the party line especially if it is not their brightest light who's posting. In addition you have to recall that they always claimed that ID is peer reviewed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't you mean pee-er co-sighted?

Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 11 2013,15:17

What's up with Dense O'Leary posting a byline at the Tute?

I thought even the Tute had standards, but turning Dense loose?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 09 2014,00:06

Granville Sewell informs us via < EN&V > that he has published yet another article claiming < Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles >. Until now his article has gained 438 comments in a heated debate.
Note to Glanville: Better do not leave the secure havens provided by DI and ID websites.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 09 2014,03:18

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2014,22:06)
Granville Sewell informs us via < EN&V > that he has published yet another article claiming < Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles >. Until now his article has gained 438 comments in a heated debate.
Note to Glanville: Better do not leave the secure havens provided by DI and ID websites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had most of his crap fisked, but I crashed my main machine. It has been 2 weeks and I don't think I can bring it back.

I hate Microsoft. I hate them more than I did before.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 09 2014,09:37

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 09 2014,03:18)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2014,22:06)
Granville Sewell informs us via < EN&V > that he has published yet another article claiming < Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles >. Until now his article has gained 438 comments in a heated debate.
Note to Glanville: Better do not leave the secure havens provided by DI and ID websites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had most of his crap fisked, but I crashed my main machine. It has been 2 weeks and I don't think I can bring it back.

I hate Microsoft. I hate them more than I did before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I think they were doing you a favour this time.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 15 2014,17:05

BwaHaHA!  I finally read my "Special Discovery Institute" email account and they are as crazy as you think!

Here is a cut n paste from their latest poorly written screed:

"Academic Freedom & Public Policy - We will come alongside state and local policymakers who want to promote policies which protect critical thinking about issues of human origins, as well as defend the right of educators to freely teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution."

My bolding.  At least they tell you right out loud what they want to do to the American Public...
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 15 2014,20:47

The Uninentional Humor Department reports that Denyse O'Leary has a new series at ENV:



The first installment is entitled < In Search of a Road to Reality >. We really, really hope you find one, Denyse.

You can't make this stuff up.


Posted by: sparc on Jan. 22 2014,00:00

Why EN&V is worth a reading (more than UD nowadays I must say): Kinkhoffer < points > to a < must read > by Zack Kopplin.
It's always refreshing to see IDiots desintegrate.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 22 2014,00:01

Why EN&V is worth reading (more than UD nowadays I must say): Kinkhoffer < points > to a < must read > by Zack Kopplin.
It's always refreshing to see IDiots desintegrate.
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 22 2014,00:27

Klinghoffer...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was entertaining myself on the way to work this morning listening to Rush Limbaugh....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kinkhoffer indeed.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 22 2014,07:43

KinkyFluffer:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As you know, he is the venerable 20-year-old best known for agitating against the Louisiana Science Education Act as a "creationism" law, who was formerly enrolled at Rice University, now an "activist," "journalist," and "television personality." Meaning, I believe, that he is currently neither a student nor otherwise employed.

Yet here is Mr. Kopplin getting a respectful hearing from Education Week and at Slate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Writing articles for Slate would be employment as a journalist. Glad to help.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2014,08:00

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 22 2014,07:43)
KinkyFluffer:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As you know, he is the venerable 20-year-old best known for agitating against the Louisiana Science Education Act as a "creationism" law, who was formerly enrolled at Rice University, now an "activist," "journalist," and "television personality." Meaning, I believe, that he is currently neither a student nor otherwise employed.

Yet here is Mr. Kopplin getting a respectful hearing from Education Week and at Slate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Writing articles for Slate would be employment as a journalist. Glad to help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Denyse gets to call herself a journalist, I certainly see no consistent way that they can deny Zach the same classification.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 22 2014,09:44

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2014,08:00)
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 22 2014,07:43)
KinkyFluffer:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As you know, he is the venerable 20-year-old best known for agitating against the Louisiana Science Education Act as a "creationism" law, who was formerly enrolled at Rice University, now an "activist," "journalist," and "television personality." Meaning, I believe, that he is currently neither a student nor otherwise employed.

Yet here is Mr. Kopplin getting a respectful hearing from Education Week and at Slate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Writing articles for Slate would be employment as a journalist. Glad to help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Denyse gets to call herself a journalist, I certainly see no consistent way that they can deny Zach the same classification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Denyse is a journalist I am qualified for the Pulitzer prize.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 22 2014,10:10

Woo! I was wondering about Denyse being a real journalist, and after googling around a bit I found out that < she's on twitter >.

Unfortunately, she only tweets links to her own blog posts.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 28 2014,18:08

Awesome, I've been nominated as "Censor of the Year" for my review of Darwin's Doubt (which until the ID supporters actually step up and tell me where to look in the book... I'm done with).

Which leads to the question... do these idiots even know what "censor" means?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 28 2014,18:11

Blow smoke in a church?


Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 10 2014,02:35

And the winner of Censor of the Year is...(drumroll)...
JERRY COYNE!!!!1!.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 2013, Coyne was instrumental in pushing Ball State University in Indiana to formally ban teaching about the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID). The move represents a milestone in the drive to punish critics of Darwinian theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well done, topsy-turvyland people, but please don't stop there; who gets the 2014 Casey Luskin award?
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 10 2014,02:42

You may want to reply to Klinkenstein via Twitter
< https://twitter.com/d_kling....ghoffer >
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 10 2014,02:44

BTW, Denys is on twitter as well.
Be sure to inactivate your ironymeters and wear full TARD protection:
< https://twitter.com/itsdesi....sdesign >
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 10 2014,03:12

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 10 2014,02:42)
You may want to reply to Klinkenstein via Twitter
< https://twitter.com/d_kling....ghoffer >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done. I wonder if he'll block me.

It won't work, my irony meter is a heavy-duty German contruction. I bought it second-hand after the 2006 world cup - the German police had been using it as a sarcasm meter to monitor English fans.
Posted by: Amadan on Feb. 10 2014,16:01

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 10 2014,08:44)
BTW, Denys is on twitter as well.
Be sure to inactivate your ironymeters and wear full TARD protection:
< https://twitter.com/itsdesi....sdesign >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What has been seen...


Posted by: sparc on Feb. 10 2014,22:46

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 10 2014,03:12)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 10 2014,02:42)
You may want to reply to Klinkenstein via Twitter
< https://twitter.com/d_kling....ghoffer >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done. I wonder if he'll block me.

It won't work, my irony meter is a heavy-duty German contruction. I bought it second-hand after the 2006 world cup - the German police had been using it as a sarcasm meter to monitor English fans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It won't get better this year.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 11 2014,23:02

If according to his < CV > Dembski's sole employment is at the DI why does < Faith Bible Church > still announce him as

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he helps head its < Institute of Scientific Apologetics >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

. (dead link in the original)



To a degree their < agenda > is kind of honest by not only listing pseudoscientific sessions but also  

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

Sunday Morning services (9 & 10:40am) at Faith Bible Church
The Return of the God Hypothesis - Dr. Stephen Meyer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Feb. 12 2014,23:27

No new articles. Still, D. Klinghoffer is celbrating < Bio-Complexity's 4th birthday > (cross-posted from the Bio-Complexity thread)

ETA:
At the same time we celebrate three errata in four years (1 erratum per 5.3 papers)
< Erratum for Ewert et al. >
< Erratum for Ewert et al. >
< Erratum for Montanez et al. >


Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 13 2014,08:07

That guy is a Tard storm in his own teacup.
Posted by: Freddie on Feb. 13 2014,08:15

What's up with that picture of Meyer?  Looks like he is squeezed into a suit 4x too big for his head ... if I didn't know better i'd say that had been photo-shopped badly!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 13 2014,19:00

Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 13 2014,08:15)
What's up with that picture of Meyer? Looks like he is squeezed into a suit 4x too big for his head ... if I didn't know better i'd say that had been photo-shopped badly!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: sparc on Feb. 13 2014,22:48

< New footage from the DI summer school: >



But are they really educating

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the Next Generation of Scientists and Scholars!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to < World Magazine > they are rather preaching the choir.

(edited to close quote tag)


Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 14 2014,15:31

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 13 2014,20:48)
< New footage from the DI summer school: >



But are they really educating [quote]the Next Generation of Scientists and Scholars![quote]
According to < World Magazine > they are rather preaching the choir.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"... and if you want a career in creationism, your sweater needs to be this big..."
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 14 2014,16:38

Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 13 2014,08:15)
What's up with that picture of Meyer? Looks like he is squeezed into a suit 4x too big for his head ... if I didn't know better i'd say that had been photo-shopped badly!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Separated at birth.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2014,10:13

The DI ENV is pushing < an article > by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".

Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?



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

Stephen Merediths Looking for God in All the Wrong Places in the February 2014 issue of First Things accuses Intelligent Design theory (ID) of being a variant of occasionalism, which he defines as the denial that efficient causality occurs outside God. Occasionalism blurs the difference between Gods causal powers, what theologians call primary causation, and the causal powers God builds into nature, what theologians call secondary causation. If God is the efficient cause of every event, then the supernatural replaces rather than guides and completes the natural. Meredith is right that occasionalism is bad theology, but he is wrong that ID is a species of it. In fact, it would be truer to say that Darwinism is.

Merediths definition of occasionalism is accurate, but his claim for its relevance in debates about evolution is not. ID theorists infer their hypothesis from an examination of efficient causality and its empirical limits. They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms. They might be wrong in everything that they say, but they do not deny efficient causation and thus have no relation to occasionalism.

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



If Meredith's definition of "occasionalism" is accurate, as stipulated by Webb, it looks to me that the criticism stands. Webb confuses himself or is confused by the standard Behe-Dembski gambit of testing somebody else's hypothesis and claiming that stands as a test of a "hypothesis" of one's own. What Webb describes as being tested is not anything out of IDC; it is an IDC advocate's conception of a hypothesis that would be made in biological evolutionary terms. Judge Jones caught onto this readily enough, that what IDC advocates "test" is evolutionary biology, which is capable of being tested. They don't "test" anything of their own, because they haven't managed thus far to come up with an IDC hypothesis. Webb manages to miss the forest for the trees, so far as I can tell, because every one of those "tests" Webb refers to from the IDC advocates is specifically done to deny the efficient causation of the result by the mechanism they are testing.

Anybody else see it that way?
Posted by: Arctodus23 on Feb. 27 2014,13:19

< ENV raves about "Oxygen as an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion". >

I don't find ENV a credible source for news on palaeontology, so I`m only going to link to the "news".

But anyways I find hypothesis that predation started the Cambrian Explosion the most explanatory one to date, because for at least 100 million years before the Cambrian (650-443 Ma)
there was the rather frustrating taxonomic clusterfuck of biota, the Ediacaran biota. No doubt some are animals, such as Spriggina which are thought to be Bilaterians. There's also some evidence of limited predation from the Ediacaran period.

But just before the Cambrian the Small Shelly Fauna emerged, another taxonomic clusterfuck that appears to be a response to predation!

But the mere existence of animals before the Cambrian Explosion refutes the DI bullshit on the Cambrian, so there you have it.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 07 2014,10:26

Is it just me or has the Tute gone over the edge recently?  Jumping sharks as a business plan, perhaps.

I don't propose anybody does a study (it might result in permanent brain damage) but it seems that more and more articles are along the lines of "looks designed, therefore designed."

The most recent is on horse gaits;  smooth rides, therefore design.

They aren't even trying, anymore.  If you could graph "number of really stupid articles" versus "time" you might get a knee in the curve about the time Dense joined the Tute as editor.

Just saying.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 07 2014,10:31

Is a knee in the curve anything like a kick in the jewels?
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 10 2014,16:00

Not that it has been much better before but < Ann Gauger > now changed to full < Cornelius Hunter mode >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2014,13:58

H/T SteveStory:

< http://www.salon.com/2014....ith_you >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

But the folks at Evolution News and Views chose a more sophisticated approach, preferring instead to engage in a convoluted argument about Tysons decision to focus part of the first episode on the martyred Giordano Bruno. (Hat tip: Steve Silberman).

(Evolution News and Views, incidentally, is published by The Discovery Institute, a vehicle that seems primarily although perhaps not so intelligently designed to help religious right-wing millionaires fund attacks on the theory of evolution.)

The revisionist Cosmos critique concerning Bruno goes like this: He wasnt even really a scientist, and he was burned to death because of his theological heresies and not his belief in Copernican theory, (SO HE DESERVED IT!) and the main reason he showed up on Cosmos at all was because he was the only one with even a passing association with a scientific controversy to be burned at the stake during this period of history.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 11 2014,15:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2014,13:58)
H/T SteveStory:

< http://www.salon.com/2014.......ith_you >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

But the folks at Evolution News and Views chose a more sophisticated approach, preferring instead to engage in a convoluted argument about Tysons decision to focus part of the first episode on the martyred Giordano Bruno. (Hat tip: Steve Silberman).

(Evolution News and Views, incidentally, is published by The Discovery Institute, a vehicle that seems primarily although perhaps not so intelligently designed to help religious right-wing millionaires fund attacks on the theory of evolution.)

The revisionist Cosmos critique concerning Bruno goes like this: He wasnt even really a scientist, and he was burned to death because of his theological heresies and not his belief in Copernican theory, (SO HE DESERVED IT!) and the main reason he showed up on Cosmos at all was because he was the only one with even a passing association with a scientific controversy to be burned at the stake during this period of history.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And thus an acceptable amount of persecution, as opposed to what happened to Sternberg, who had to endure the incredible persecution of being told that a number of his colleagues had low opinions of his judgement and character? And to turn in the master key that he never should have had and be issued a key that only opened up his office instead?

Yeah, Sternberg's had it soooo much worse, what with months and years of people still expressing low opinions of him, where Bruno only had to put up with a few minutes on the stake (if you ignore the preceding years spent in the custody of the Inquisition because, hey, free food and lodging! I guess the Inquisition was just giving Bruno his heating in one installment.).
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 11 2014,16:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)
The DI ENV is pushing < an article > by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".

Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.

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


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


lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 11 2014,16:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)
The DI ENV is pushing < an article > by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".

Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.

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


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


lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes.  That's kind of sciency, right?
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2014,16:28

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 11 2014,16:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)
The DI ENV is pushing < an article > by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".

Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.

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


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


lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY! :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
'm sure some ALL  of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 11 2014,17:59

DI EN&V:

 

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

But there's one problem: Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.

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



and

 

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

Neil deGrasse Tyson does include a few hedges. While wandering the streets of modern-day Rome, he admits that Bruno wasn't a scientist and that his view of a sun-centered solar system was a "lucky guess." And during the animated dramatization of Bruno's sentence, the dark and menacing judge finds the brave Dominican guilty not just of being a Copernican, but of various theological trivialities which are never otherwise mentioned or explained. Despite these hints at nuance, not one viewer in a thousand could miss the real message: Christianity has been the enemy of science, and its henchmen tried to kill off the first brave souls who ventured a scientific thought.

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



From the Cosmos narration by Tyson:

 

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

Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.

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



The DI complains that Bruno wasn't killed for his views on cosmology alone. But the point that Tyson clearly laid out in Cosmos was that disagreeing with "traditional belief" could be, and sometimes was, fatal. I don't see any workaround for the lead-up that Cosmos *actually* used, rather than the one the DI would like people to think that they used. People could, and did, end up paying the ultimate penalty for expressing views that were not entirely compatible with "traditional belief". And the grounds upon which death could be served up were sometimes incredibly narrow. Regardless of whether the DI thinks Bruno was a negligible non-entity in the history of science or not, his death stands as a significant event in the annals of religious intolerance, just as Cosmos rightly pointed out.

Well, we've long known that the DI < couldn't be troubled to read things for comprehension that they critique > (see < here > for details), but now they can't even watch a TV show?
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 12 2014,16:09

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 11 2014,16:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)
The DI ENV is pushing < an article > by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".

Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.

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


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


lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Economics and psychology are sciences. Game theory is not really a science in itself, but a branch of science. [nods sagely]
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 22 2014,10:45

< DI EN&V: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An important part of what we do at the Center for Science & Culture is correct the inaccurate portrayal of intelligent design in scientific publications and the mainstream media.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It isn't as if they had anything else to do- like science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Throughout the book, ID "evangelists" come across looking weaker and more manipulative than the atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally they admit that ID is just theology.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 22 2014,11:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 11 2014,17:59)
DI EN&V:



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

But there's one problem: Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.

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



and



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

Neil deGrasse Tyson does include a few hedges. While wandering the streets of modern-day Rome, he admits that Bruno wasn't a scientist and that his view of a sun-centered solar system was a "lucky guess." And during the animated dramatization of Bruno's sentence, the dark and menacing judge finds the brave Dominican guilty not just of being a Copernican, but of various theological trivialities which are never otherwise mentioned or explained. Despite these hints at nuance, not one viewer in a thousand could miss the real message: Christianity has been the enemy of science, and its henchmen tried to kill off the first brave souls who ventured a scientific thought.

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



From the Cosmos narration by Tyson:



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

Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.

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



The DI complains that Bruno wasn't killed for his views on cosmology alone. But the point that Tyson clearly laid out in Cosmos was that disagreeing with "traditional belief" could be, and sometimes was, fatal. I don't see any workaround for the lead-up that Cosmos *actually* used, rather than the one the DI would like people to think that they used. People could, and did, end up paying the ultimate penalty for expressing views that were not entirely compatible with "traditional belief". And the grounds upon which death could be served up were sometimes incredibly narrow. Regardless of whether the DI thinks Bruno was a negligible non-entity in the history of science or not, his death stands as a significant event in the annals of religious intolerance, just as Cosmos rightly pointed out.

Well, we've long known that the DI < couldn't be troubled to read things for comprehension that they critique > (see < here > for details), but now they can't even watch a TV show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear hear!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 22 2014,14:38

There seems to be quite a number of people who joined the DI in criticizing how "Cosmos" included Giordano Bruno in their script.

I'll repeat what I've transcribed from "Cosmos".



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

Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.

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



NCSE's Peter Hess had a Facebook comment almost immediately that "Cosmos" had passed on anti-Catholic lies, and followed that up with < a blog post > on NCSE's "Science League of America" blog. Hess makes essentially the same erroneous claim as the DI did:



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

But Cosmos makes Bruno out to be a martyr who died heroically in the defense of early modern science, and this is a role he certainly did not play.

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



Hess also makes this statement:



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

Unfortunately, the series premiere risks squandering that opportunity through a combination of misleading history and reliance on an antiquated narrative of inevitable conflict between science and religionand the Catholic Church in particularthat simply is not borne out by the facts. A generation of careful schoarship has given us a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the long, rich, and complex relationship between religion and the sciences. This latest Cosmos reflects none of that historiography, presenting us instead with what is quite literally a cartoon version of the life story of someone who was not a scientist. Missing were the stories of Catholic astronomers such as Copernicus and Galileo, Protestants such as Brahe and Kepler and Newton, or Fr. George Lematre, proposer of the Big Bang.

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



This statement carries a message I've seen in various other places since. While decrying a lack of nuance on the part of "Cosmos", it casts the "conflict thesis" in curiously either-or fashion. While I didn't come away from my viewing of the episode with the understanding that "Cosmos" promoted a "religion is always in conflict with science" concept, that is exactly what Hess is arguing above, and others have joined in that. How else could particular examples be posed as a counter? And at least for the first two examples Hess cites, Copernicus and Galileo, I think on the whole those provide more support for a conflict model than not. Copernicus self-censored his work, arranging for posthumous publication of his heliocentric model, and while Darwin's delay is still a matter of dispute among scholars, I am pretty sure everyone is down with the idea that Copernicus's delay was a product of his fear of the Inquisition. Where Copernicus offered his heliocentric model while still alive, he was careful to cast it merely as a mathematical exercise that made certain calculations in astronomy easier, and certainly it wasn't offered as a statement of cosmological truth. Galileo's case did involve the Inquisition more directly and was entirely based on statements in science, where Galileo was forced to recant his heliocentric views, forbidden to develop them further, and lived out the remainder of his life under house arrest.

Hess states:



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

The relevant question about this unfortunate affairin the context of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odysseyis whether Bruno was executed for his scientific or for his theological views.

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



Well, Hess and others would like "Cosmos" to have cast it that way, but the transcript I made says otherwise. Hess proceeds with an apologetic that is common in this discussion, that of the various charges the Inquisition laid against Bruno, his cosmological claims were small potatoes; other charges carried more weight. I think that one can dispute the idea of "weight" here: all of the charges were considered to be heresies subject to the same penalties. There might be differences in how often the Inquisition imposed penalties when each charge was laid, but that doesn't really bear on the outcome when a defendant was deemed to be guilty and unrepentant. The notion that one can cleanly separate out the causes of the Inquisition's action in the Bruno case seems to me to be wishful thinking. (In part, that will be down to the general secrecy under which the Inquisition operated. Part of the US constitution is a reaction to the techniques used by the Inquisition and other courts: citizens have the right to confront their accusers, a right that the Inquisition is notorious for denying.) The Inquisition thought the cosmological claim of Bruno's to be serious enough to pursue as heresy.

P.Z. Myers picked up my transcript and agreed with my take on the Bruno affair and "Cosmos". Josh Rosenau of NCSE posted < a blog post > taking Myers to task, essentially repeating Hess's claims and citing other essayists who agreed with Hess. One of those, Thomas MacDonald, does appear to have found certain exaggerated statements in the "Cosmos" transcript, which he rails against with vehemence. Rosenau, though, quotes MacDonald himself engaging in hyperbole when it suits him:



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

Bruno was no friend of science. He was a disturbed mystic. Stanley Jaki, who translated Brunos rambling, nonsensical The Ash Wednesday Supper, has suggested that if the Inquisition hadnt burned him, the Copernicans would have. He did nothing but harm the progress being made by actual scholars and scientists, and arguably laid the ground for the harsh approach to Galileo.

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



Why does MacDonald pass along Jaki's comment without reproving Jaki for hyperbole? After all, it is documented that the Inquisition tortured people and condemned people to death (though they insisted that secular authorities carry out those sentences). Is there any evidence that "the Copernicans" did anything more intemperate than insult people? Not that I know of. Nor does MacDonald note Jaki's relation to the Roman Catholic Church: he was a Benedictine priest. This by itself doesn't obviate an opinion, but it does indicate that the source has a motive for finding a victim of the Inquisition to have been a bad person.

And that is an unseemly outcome of this entire flap. A man who was imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately executed for disagreeing with authority is being vilified all over again by people who appear to be desperate to excuse a particular instance of action of the Inquisition, all the while also stating their general rejection of the methods of the Inquisition. Unsatisfied with the physical demise of Bruno, they persist in attempting an intellectual assassination at this late date. Others who think that there is something worth telling about this bit of history are reviled for a lack of nuance, or that they are necessarily adopting an extreme stance that religion is always and everywhere in conflict with science. It seems to me that an obstinate refusal to acknowledge an episode of religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry does no favors to those who would like to see some comity between religion and science.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 22 2014,16:53

What Wes said.  :D
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 23 2014,01:20

I found < Jaki's translation of Bruno's "The Ash Wednesday Supper" > online. It appears to me that Jaki did do good service in annotating the translation with many notes clarifying various of Bruno's allusions. That is useful, for both the classical allusions that are no longer a commonplace of education and the references to current events and personalities from Bruno's time that have failed to be carried forward in general histories. As to whether the work deserves the dismissive assessment that Jaki himself is claimed to have applied to it should be left to the reader. I'm going to excerpt a bit that I found interesting.



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

THEME OF THE FIFTH DIALOGUE

The fifth dialogue is attached (I swear) for no other reason than to prevent our supper from being concluded in so sterile a manner. First, there is presented the most convenient arrangement of bodies in the ethereal region, showing that what is called the eighth sphere, the firmament of the fixed stars, is not in fact a firmament, so that those bodies that are seen there through their brightness should be equidistant from the center; but rather, that many [stars] may appear close to one another, though they arc, both in depth and width, farther away from one another than they are from the sun and the earth. Second, that there are not only seven wandering bodies [planets], just because we have recognized only seven as such; rather, there are for the very same reason innumerable others, that the true philosophers of old called, not without good reason, aethera, [17. See note 13 to the Fifth Dialogue.] which means runners, because they are bodies which truly move, and not imaginary spheres. Third, that such motion proceeds necessarily from an internal principle as if from its own nature and soul; with such truth many dreams are dissipated both about the active influence of the moon on waters and other kinds of fluids, and about other natural things that seem to have their principle of motion from an outside cause. Fourth, a stance is taken against those doubts that proceed by most stupid reasoning from the gravity and levity of bodies; and it is proved that all natural motion approaches a circular one, either about its own or about some other center. Fifth, it is shown how necessary it is that this earth and other similar bodies should move not with one but with several different motions. And that those bodies should consist of neither more nor less than the four simple [elements], these being United in one compound. And it is stated what these motions of the earth are. Finally, it is promised to supplement with other dialogues that which seems to be lacking in the completeness of this philosophy. And one concludes with an oath of Prudcnzio.

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



It seems apparent that Bruno's conjectures came closer to the mark in astronomy than in chemistry. I'm going to allude to and even quote Charles Darwin:



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

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutory pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path toward errors is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.

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



It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church's enforcement of Aristotelian views of cosmology gave false facts a currency long past when they would have otherwise have been disputed and abandoned.

One of the resources Rosenau pointed to in his article was an exchange between a critic and a "Cosmos" script writer. And one of the most interesting things I found there was, in fact, in the comments on one of the series. A commenter named "West" inverts the common critic tactic of minimizing Bruno's stature as a thinker and < asserts that Bruno carried far more influence > than many today are willing to credit him for.



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

Look, it's not Bruno vs. Digges, but both complimenting one another. And while it's true that Bruno wasn't a lone wolf in theory, in practice, nobody so publicly carried the torch of so-called "Copernicanism" than Bruno.

I might add that...

1) Bruno's great intuition not only greatly influenced Bacon and the experimental method only a couple of decades after his death (per calling upon a reliance on observation of the physical world as a based for further investigation);

2) he singlehandedly resurrected the study of the quantum world for the first time since antiquity and Democritus (note, he was concerned with the cosmic "minimum" and "maximum", and largely devoid of spiritual considerations (albeit written in poetic verse), as we see in his Frankfurt trilogy, written in his latter years;

3) he routinely engaged in what 20th Century quantum theorists would call "thought experiments" (i.e., lacking suitable instruments to explore the smallest constituents of matter, such as quarks or strings and things, just like Bruno, yet nobody care to claim that luminaries such as Heisenberg, Pauli, or Schrodinger are "unscientific");

4) Bruno used his through experiments to generate relativity theory 300 years before Einstein, sans the E=MC2 formula (a critical component, indeed, but Bruno clearly understood a communicated the essence of it);

5) on the whole, Bruno's thinking was clearly driven by the "holographic paradigm" centuries before holograms were discovered, or before Karl Pibram and David Bohm suggested any holonomic theories or notions of an "implicate order" (note that this idea was rife in Bruno's writing, and can be seen in statements he commonly makes, such as "everything is in everything else");

6) Bruno laid out the basis for historical dialectic, which Hegel discussed, albeit in his own way, but he was entirely conscious of Bruno and wrote about him; not to mention the fact that according to leading experts in semiotics and mass media, such as Umberto Eco, rightly identify Bruno as the pioneer in those fields;

7) heck, the guy was even a huge influence on Moliere, and it appears he was a strong influence on Shakespeare (and might have even met young Shakespeare during his stay in England in the early 1580s. Many scholars think the character of Propero in The Tempest is based on Bruno).

So then, why is Bruno so overlooked given the unprecedented scope and scale of his contributions?

Well, aside from the fact that moderns tend to be specialists who think in 'either/or terms vs. both/and sensibilities, history doesn't seem capable of digesting figures such as Bruno, who wasn't a master of any given area of thought, but rather, he functioned as a masterful sewer of the seeds of great thought. We tend to hand out the blue ribbons of historic recognition to the guys and gals who cross the finish line with their theories, whereas guys like Bruno--the people who made the race possible in the first place, get overlooked.

I'd like to think this is changing, and perhaps we'll see a long-overdue reassessment of Bruno per objective studies of "The Nolan" and his work/influence by capable historians such as Hilary Gati (vs. fanciful, speculative and highly distorted works by historians such as Francis Yates, who mostly betrayed her own orientation in her outdated works on Bruno, or even worse, the apologists for religious polemics, who continue to burn Bruno with errant scholarship more than 400 years after they literally burned him at the stake).

In any case, the most amusing thing about the obsessive need to insist that Bruno wasn't "scientific" just because he didn't have telescopes at his disposal is that nobody ever even bothers to discuss whether or not Copernicus was "scientific," yet what instruments was he using?

In fact, unlike Bruno, Copernicus waited until he was on his deathbed before daring to suggest that the Earth revolves around the sun. Moreover, he made this suggestion on briefly in his final book--giving his scant attention--and underscored the fact that this was merely an idea or theory and thus, he wanted to make it clear that he was not actually claiming that this was literally the case. In addition, even as he timidly suggested that the earth might revolved around the sun, he preserved the idea of celestial spheres--the notion that the planets swirled around us in some sort of crystalline layers.

Well, Bruno not only had the good sense to say this was all preposterous, but he criticized Copernicus for not having the courage to say so because, unlike those who still fail to give Bruno his due credit. Bruno gave Copernicus credit for knowing better, yet fearing to tell the truth. Bruno never lacked for such courage, just as he never lacked for vision.

Therefore, isnt it high time he gets the credit he deserves No, not as some sort of be all and end all of science, but certainly as the greatest "sewer of the seeds" of the modern world--no more or less than this, which is quite a statement in itself.

Perhaps the problem is as simple as this: The world has yet to catch up to Brunos all encompassing thinking. Until less reductionist writers and thinkers start re-reading Bruno, he very likely will continue to be labeled as "just an atheist," "just an occultist," "just a philosopher," "just a Hermetist," "just a heretic," "just a poet," "just a dramatist," "just a difficult guy," "just a guy with a few good hunches and lucky guesses," etc., etc., etc. Too bad, since there's still so much to learn from this revolutionary thinker.

For that matter, some people might start asking themselves, gee, how exactly does a guy like that make so many correct guesses that turn out to be verified centuries after his death? Plus, if my head head was full of all of a perception of reality that the small-minded people of my own time couldn't remotely understand, might I get a little cranky, too?

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



I can't speak to the accuracy of "West"'s contribution here, but many of these points are checkable in principle: where "West" asserts that someone cited or discussed Bruno, we should be able to confirm or deny that claim based on the record. If those scholarly citations check out, it would be a major blow to the story being spread now that Bruno was an insignificant figure in intellectual history, whose current notoriety is entirely meant to foster anti-religious and specifically anti-Catholic sentiment.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 23 2014,02:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church's enforcement of Aristotelian views of cosmology gave false facts a currency long past when they would have otherwise have been disputed and abandoned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Without a time machine, it is too late for us to do anything about it, but Enlightenment rightfully should have taken place much earlier and the world today would have been quite different.

Although it seems likely that none of us would be here now. Probably some other badass jerks instead.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 23 2014,16:52

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2014,14:38)
There seems to be quite a number of people who joined the DI in criticizing how "Cosmos" included Giordano Bruno in their script.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Including several historians of science. Thorny C. has a < guest post up about the problems with the cartoon >, which makes the point that the Bruno story (like a lot of stories take from history) is being re-interpreted to fit into a
This betrays a mis-understanding of what the historians (at least) are complaining about:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that is an unseemly outcome of this entire flap. A man who was imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately executed for disagreeing with authority is being vilified all over again by people who appear to be desperate to excuse a particular instance of action of the Inquisition, all the while also stating their general rejection of the methods of the Inquisition. Unsatisfied with the physical demise of Bruno, they persist in attempting an intellectual assassination at this late date. Others who think that there is something worth telling about this bit of history are reviled for a lack of nuance, or that they are necessarily adopting an extreme stance that religion is always and everywhere in conflict with science. It seems to me that an obstinate refusal to acknowledge an episode of religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry does no favors to those who would like to see some comity between religion and science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you want to actually know why historians of science are criticising Cosmos, Becky Higgett < summarises the issues >: turning history into parable "it doesnt exactly sit well with claims to champion evidence-based knowledge". The historians of science I'm reading (the ones who actually study the period) are saying that what was done to Bruno wasn't "religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry", < for example >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.

On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather an unusually skilled magician. He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity. The Church could let astronomical theories slide, but calling the Mother of God out on her sex life? There's no doubt that these were the ideas that landed Bruno on the stake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 24 2014,09:49

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 24 2014,00:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2014,14:38)
There seems to be quite a number of people who joined the DI in criticizing how "Cosmos" included Giordano Bruno in their script.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Including several historians of science. Thorny C. has a < guest post up about the problems with the cartoon >, which makes the point that the Bruno story (like a lot of stories take from history) is being re-interpreted to fit into a
This betrays a mis-understanding of what the historians (at least) are complaining about:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that is an unseemly outcome of this entire flap. A man who was imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately executed for disagreeing with authority is being vilified all over again by people who appear to be desperate to excuse a particular instance of action of the Inquisition, all the while also stating their general rejection of the methods of the Inquisition. Unsatisfied with the physical demise of Bruno, they persist in attempting an intellectual assassination at this late date. Others who think that there is something worth telling about this bit of history are reviled for a lack of nuance, or that they are necessarily adopting an extreme stance that religion is always and everywhere in conflict with science. It seems to me that an obstinate refusal to acknowledge an episode of religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry does no favors to those who would like to see some comity between religion and science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you want to actually know why historians of science are criticising Cosmos, Becky Higgett < summarises the issues >: turning history into parable "it doesnt exactly sit well with claims to champion evidence-based knowledge". The historians of science I'm reading (the ones who actually study the period) are saying that what was done to Bruno wasn't "religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry", < for example >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.

On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather an unusually skilled magician. He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity. The Church could let astronomical theories slide, but calling the Mother of God out on her sex life? There's no doubt that these were the ideas that landed Bruno on the stake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Gee so he really was a scientist then? Or has virginity evolved? Actually there are still people who believe that the same god exists as in the 1600's but now Satin wears a top hat with the merikan flag painted on it. The biggest threat to fundies are other fundies. What to do? Declare victory, make peace with honor, give the swamp/desert  back to the commies/ragheads and retreat home to print more Bibles. If they think belief is rational then why do they bitch so hard? The thruth is they know its a lie.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 24 2014,13:04

I read that as merkin flag. That would be some Satan.
Posted by: Freddie on Mar. 31 2014,10:04

Over at EN&V, on March 28th a clear and unambiguous < prediction > is made!!!



And now, the reality as of March 31st ...



Must hurt to be wrong so much of the time.

I see the execrable "God's Not Dead" managed to scrape $9m. Wonder how that will turn out for them next weekend.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 01 2014,12:09

O'blury has an April Fools post up.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014....11.html >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 01 2014,13:17

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 01 2014,12:09)
O'blury has an April Fools post up.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......11.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, she shows that, while ideologues are a fine unintentional source of humor, their intentional "humor" equates with nails on the chalkboard.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 01 2014,16:28

"Scientists Find Imprint of Universe That Existed Before the Big Bang"


< http://news.sciencemag.org/physics....ig-bang >
Posted by: Freddie on April 01 2014,17:09

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 01 2014,16:28)
"Scientists Find Imprint of Universe That Existed Before the Big Bang"


< http://news.sciencemag.org/physics....ig-bang >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Had me fooled for the 1st few paragraphs at least!

"Doug Neidermeyer, a cosmologist at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York."

LOL
Posted by: Sealawr on June 02 2014,12:37

Uh-oh.

The Discovery Institute can't be too happy abou this.  Not all publicity is good publicity.

< http://crossexamined.org/top-20-....logists >
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 02 2014,14:00

So, biocomplexity has published a shiny new article by Jon Wells: < http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.........2014.2 >

The title is: Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA

From some reason the attack gerbil thinks that this is the downfall of evolution: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......01.html >



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

Papers like this show that when freed from the "central dogmas" of neo-Darwinian evolution, a theory of intelligent design can open up promising and fruitful avenues of research and thinking in biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet, the paper has zero mention of "intelligent design". Neither word, singularly or in combination appears in the article ("design" appears ONCE in the reference list.

Now, here's the question. Since this article is supposed to be supportive of ID, where's the mention of ID?

JoeG needs to get on the stick and explain to Wells that an article just can't be supportive of ID without mentioning ID. I mean, Joe has spent months explaining that no paper describes how random mutation can produce ATP Synthase, therefore, evolution can't explain ATP Synthase. So, without explicitly mentioning ID, Wells (and Casey) have utterly failed.

Shame though, I'm sure it's a fine article. However, much like Meyer, there's no research in it. It's a review paper. And the use of metaphor to explain himself doesn't exactly show that he's intending this for a scientific audience. I'm sure that actual developmental biologists understand the issue without referencing how the US Post Office does things (page 6, third paragraph).

I'm not a developmental biologist, but a few things he quotes from other authors appears mostly correct. Of course, surely without meaning to, he destroys one of IDs objections to evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After transcription, RNAs from many eukaryotic genes
undergo alternative splicing. Recent studies estimate that
transcripts from approximately 95% of multi-exon human
genes are spliced in more than one way [289?291]. By
intervening between transcription and translation, alternative
splicing generates RNAs with sequences that differ from DNA
sequences [292]. The differences are functionally significant.
In humans and other animals, alternatively spliced transcripts
are expressed in tissue- and developmental stage-specific ways
[293,294]. Among other things, they regulate physiological
Ontogenetic Information in Membrane Patterns
changes [295], neuronal development [296], and stem cell
pluripotency [297]. Alternative splicing is essential for the
transition between epithelial cells and mesenchymal cells
[298,299], and it produces enormous diversity in membrane
proteins, including ion channels [300,301]. With alternative
RNA splicing, cells make thousands more RNAs and proteins
than are encoded in DNA sequences. One immunoglobulin
gene in Drosophila melanogaster generates more than 18,000
protein isoforms through alternative splicing [302].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey guys, you wanted a mechanism that produces variation... your boy, Wells, just handed it to you.

Finally, what we see here is just a continuation of the god of the gaps. Since evolution can't explain the patterns formed in membranes, then it must be the designer... except we're not sure enough to say "designer" anywhere in the article.

And I'm fairly confident that the Central Dogma of molecular biology (as I taught it in 9th grade) is not the entire story of how proteins are formed in cells. But that's the issue that Wells has.

And we have what appears to be a quotemine from Sean Carroll.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sean B. Carroll wrote in 2005 that evo-devo focuses on toolkit
genesdevelopmental genes that are common to a wide
variety of multicellular animals but controlled by different
genetic switches that integrate inputs from other tool-kit
proteins acting a bit earlier in the embryo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What Carroll says in the books is


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might ask, where do these patterns of tool kit proteins A, B, and C come from? Good question. These patterns are themsevles controlled by switches in genes A, B, and C, respectively, that integrate inputs from other tool kit proteins acting a bit earlier in the embryo. And where doe those inputs come from? Still earlier-acting inputs. I know this is beginning to sound like the old chicken-and-the-egg riddle. Ultimately, the beginning of spatial information in the embryo often traces back to asymmetrically distributed molecules deposited in the egg during its production in the ovary that initiate the formation of the two main axes of the embryo (so the egg did come before the chicken). I'm not going to trace these steps - the important point to know is that the throwing of every switch is set up by preceding events, and that a switch, by turning on its gene in a new pattern, in turn sets up the next set of patterns and events in development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's interesting is that between the first quote that Wells uses and the second part of that quote (starting with "the important point; which Wells incorrectly capitalizes), is that wells inserts a comment from page 90. The paragraph that I posted from is entirely on page 116.

Basically, Carroll has dealt with all the issues Wells has in this article and did it using evo-devo nearly a decade ago.

Wells summerizes his position on evo-devo as follows


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus the rules for generating animal form are
found in DNA: In the entire complement of DNA of a species (the genome), there exists the information for building that animal. The evolution of form is ultimately then a question of genetics [426]. So I would argue that Carrolls view (like Davidsons) is a variant of Neo-Darwinism, and thus false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, that's a powerful article there dude. god of the gaps, hand-waving, and the rest.

I may take a deeper shot at this one, but I'm not really interested in wading through his 440 references for quotemines. And they may all be very minor. But it's clear that he just ignores the entire area that would make the claims of his article moot.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 27 2014,21:00

There's probably a Dembski thread somewhere but I was too lazy to find it.

Big news!  Dr. Dr.'s long-coming book, "Being as Communion" is being published in August.

$140 hardback
$31 paperback

I guess this is his Templeton book that's been in the works forever.

The write-up on Amazon tells us that it will be another piece of shit from Dembski - a non-technical treatment of yadda.

Yeah, of course it's non-technical.  It's 200 pages of bafflegab.

Rocks are information and clams gots legs and cats still can haz no cheeseburgers.
Posted by: Henry J on June 27 2014,22:00

$140 for a package of bird cage lining? That sounds kind of steep.

Henry
Posted by: Cubist on June 27 2014,23:40

$31 for a paperback? Sheesh. Is this thing supposed to be a college textbook, or what?

[after checking the publisher's website] Hmm. If you buy it direct from the publisher, Ashgate, you can get the hardback for $98.96 (regular price: $109.95), or the paperback for $31.46 (regular price: $34.95). Some of the endorsements of this book come from names that may be familiar: Michael Egnor, and Rupert "Morphogenetic Field" Sheldrake.

I think I'll wait on this one.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 28 2014,10:57

Fools!  You are all fools!  Why do I waste my time with this narrow-minded foolish lot?

Louis, oh, Louis, why have you forsaken us?

Don't y'all get it?  Dembski's book changes Everything.  He's found a way to unite bafflegab with flapdoodle.  The paradigm shift will change the zeitgeist as we know it!  Deepak will lie down with Oz and the Hambo will reign over the next two thousand years!

Hey, I'm getting ready.  I'm taking my clothes off right now!  Take me, Dr. Dr., take !
Posted by: sparc on July 13 2014,03:36

EN&V declares William Dembski "< A Rock Star of the Intelligent Design Movement >".
I am looking forward hearing Dembski's versions of the greatest christian "rock" albums which you will finde < here > and  < here >.
Dembski may already have had some influence on Christian Texas Rockers "Redefining the Fall" and their album "< Redefining the Fall >". You can listen to them at < http://www.redefiningthefall.com/....all.com >.
Posted by: Henry J on July 13 2014,16:02

Listen to them? Listen to them?!?!!!11!one!

Well, that's one way to convince skeptics of the existence of h3ll...

Henry
Posted by: KevinB on July 14 2014,09:47

Quote (sparc @ July 13 2014,03:36)
EN&V declares William Dembski "< A Rock Star of the Intelligent Design Movement >".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if he goes round trashing hotel bedrooms, even the Cornell School of Hotel Management won't let him hold "conferences".
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 05 2014,11:41

< Over at UD > we have a first hand report from the DI's cruise to Alaska:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
kf 15, Thanks for the welcome. I am a long time follower of ID, beginning in the 1980s with Denton’s Evolution, A Theory in Crisis. Over time I’ve become convinced that the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis is seriously deficient, especially when it comes to macroevolution.

My original response to jerry was succinct because I thought the points I made had been made here many times before. I was summarizing and synthesizing with a view to discussion of the worldview implications. As many here have also experienced, I find that the biggest obstacle to ID acceptance is metaphysical, not scientific.

I was fortunate enough to be on the recent Alaska Discovery cruise and my head is still buzzing with concepts like “design triangulation” (Paul Nelson). Fascinating stuff!

What I found equally interesting, though, is Stephen Meyer’s remarks about the direction of Discovery’s Science and Culture research. He believes that the basic argument against neo-Darwinism has been won in the peer-reviewed literature, though not in the popular literature such as Cosmos. He based this on recent articles by people like Koonin and Shapiro, plus the formation of the Third Way group. The math is simply overwhelming standard evolutionary explanations.

Meyer said ID proponents should focus more on using design principles to elucidate biological systems and guide research efforts. In other words, the negative argument has taken hold against evolution, so now is the time to make more positive arguments for design.

Paul Nelson, I think, made the point that while the other side has the power, prestige, and money, ID has something even more powerful: truth. Eventually, it will win out. I hope he’s right!


PS Re the comment about atheists liking the dark, John Lennox had an apt comment. Asked to reply to Stephen Hawking’s statement that faith in God is for people who are afraid of the dark, Lennox replied, “Atheism is for people who are afraid of the light!” :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
41 jerry August 4, 2014 at 9:35 pm
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was fortunate enough to be on the recent Alaska Discovery cruise and my head is still buzzing with concepts like “design triangulation” (Paul Nelson). Fascinating stuff!

Sounds like it was very interesting. When was it? I assume there will be another one next year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
44 anthropic August 5, 2014 at 2:51 am

Jerry 41, it really was quite a trip. Great lectures by John Lennox, Ray Brohlin, Paul Nelson, John West, and Stephen Meyer. And Alaska is the one place in the world where I love to cruise. Glacier Bay, ziplining in the rainforest above Ketchikan, fishing in Sitka, high tea at the Empress Hotel in Victoria — just special.

One thing I got from this trip is that leading ID proponents aren’t just smart & well educated, they are genuinely good people. Nobody was too important to talk with ordinary people such as myself, and a warm, friendly atmosphere was maintained throughout.

I think they got some very positive feedback and may well do it again. At least, that’s what John West seemed to indicate. Whether that will be next year I don’t know.

Of course, my daughter and I now have filthy colds, which frequently happens after cruises no matter how many times you sanitize your hands. But it was worth it!


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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
53 kairosfocus August 5, 2014 at 7:04 am

Jerry:

Pardon, but the OP is on the attitude problem in the face of pivotal evidence. That’s why I made sure to highlight a summary of a key infographic and a video in which Meyer makes the point that typically the merits are being dodged by objectors.

I am pretty sure we will not persuade ever so many people, but the interesting issue is, why in the face of the issue on the merits.

Perhaps I am old fashioned to say this, but I think there is such a thing as an individual duty of care to face evidence and come to terms with evident truth regardless of what is the ideology of the day. In my day, that was Marxism, when I was a student, and I openly stood up to the marxists . . . eventually, all they could do was to threaten me and try to turn a crowd on me.

Backfired.

And in that regard the most remarkable thing about this thread is the utter silence on FSCO/I and the inference to design in that light. If there were ironclad rebuttals the usual champions of the anti-ID cause would be here blazing away with full 15″ broadsides on rapid fire. The silence on the pivotal merits is indeed confirming the point Meyer made to Anthropic et al on that cruise . . . the gig is up on the merits, THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY MATERIALIST MECHANISM THAT ADEQUATELY — PER CANONS OF INDUCTIVE REASONING — ACCOUNTS FOR THE FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC COMPLEX ORGANISATION AND ASSOCIATED INFORMATION IN CELL BASED LIFE.

The only empirically and analytically credible causal explanation is design; not, design of the gaps but design as empirically and analytically well warranted cause, familiar from our own experience of the world manifested in a reliable sign.

And, if I am wrong on this, let us simply hear the answer from the Darwinists and fellow travellers on the merits.

KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
56 anthropic August 5, 2014 at 7:24 am

Jerry 52, you make some excellent points. One of the central problems we face is that the vast majority of people have a very superficial level of knowledge about evolution. Thus, they have no clue that there is even a debate. At most they’ve heard that you must believe in rational science or irrational religion.

On the cruise I mentioned to my son-in-law about the presentation on how cetaceans cool their testes to keep their sperm viable, a big task for something that keeps them inside the body. A special system pumps blood up to the fin, where it is cooled, and then down to the testes. Remarkable, and, of course necessary to build in the putative transition from land critter to sea critter.

His response was a dismissive, “well, of course they have such a system, otherwise they wouldn’t survive!” For him, the fact that neo-Darwinism explains survival of the fittest means it also explains arrival of the fittest. He doesn’t doubt the creative powers of evolution, no matter how outlandish the claims may be, because he already has an explanation at hand.

We have a long long way to go…

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

(emphasis mine - to highlight cruise related parts)

preaching to the choir ...
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 05 2014,12:11

This is good news


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meyer said ID proponents should focus more on using design principles to elucidate biological systems and guide research efforts. In other words, the negative argument has taken hold against evolution, so now is the time to make more positive arguments for design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, he might have mis-judged how well it's taken hold, but looking for positive evidence would be welcome.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 05 2014,13:02



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

What I found equally interesting, though, is Stephen Meyer’s remarks about the direction of Discovery’s Science and Culture research. He believes that the basic argument against neo-Darwinism has been won in the peer-reviewed literature, though not in the popular literature such as Cosmos. He based this on recent articles by people like Koonin and Shapiro, plus the formation of the Third Way group. The math is simply overwhelming standard evolutionary explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as usual, the question becomes, delusional, or liar?
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 05 2014,15:08

< EN&V > display photographs from the trip.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 05 2014,18:49

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,11:02)


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

What I found equally interesting, though, is Stephen Meyer’s remarks about the direction of Discovery’s Science and Culture research. He believes that the basic argument against neo-Darwinism has been won in the peer-reviewed literature, though not in the popular literature such as Cosmos. He based this on recent articles by people like Koonin and Shapiro, plus the formation of the Third Way group. The math is simply overwhelming standard evolutionary explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as usual, the question becomes, delusional, or liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not necessarily an XOR function.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Aug. 06 2014,00:10

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2014,14:08)
< EN&V > display photographs from the trip.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




EN&V...Bad at math or seeing things that aren't there?

You be the judge.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 06 2014,05:17

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 06 2014,00:10)
   
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2014,14:08)
< EN&V > display photographs from the trip.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




EN&V...Bad at math or seeing things that aren't there?

You be the judge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Some people just count differently. I guess they count four persons in the picture below too.

Posted by: k.e.. on Aug. 06 2014,08:58

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 06 2014,13:17)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 06 2014,00:10)
   
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2014,14:08)
< EN&V > display photographs from the trip.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




EN&V...Bad at math or seeing things that aren't there?

You be the judge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Some people just count differently. I guess they count four persons in the picture below too.

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


Hahaha



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once, Stalin met a delegation of workers from the Urals. When the workers left, Stalin looked around for his pipe but did not see it. He called Beria and said, ‘Lavrentiy, my pipe disappeared after the visit of those workers.’
‘Yes, Yosif Vissarionovich, I'll immediately take proper measures.’
Ten minutes later, Stalin pulled out a drawer in his desk and saw his pipe. He struck a match, puffed out a ring of smoke, and dialed Beria's number.
‘Lavrentiy, my pipe's been found.’
‘What a pity," Beria said. "All of them have just confessed.’
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 06 2014,10:52

Maybe the person taking the picture was included in the list?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 06 2014,12:18

Shhhhhhhh, George is invisible.
Posted by: rossum on Aug. 06 2014,16:21

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 06 2014,12:18)
Shhhhhhhh, George is invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the DI's big secret is finally out.  Their invisible designer is ... George Gilliand! :D
Posted by: k.e.. on Aug. 08 2014,00:25

Quote (rossum @ Aug. 07 2014,00:21)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 06 2014,12:18)
Shhhhhhhh, George is invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the DI's big secret is finally out.  Their invisible designer is ... George Gilliand! :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Skip George? Could be a family thing.
Posted by: DiEb on Aug. 14 2014,03:07

On Aug 13, 2014, Dr. Dembski gave a talk in the University of Chicago's Computations in Science Seminars, titled < "Conservation of Information in Evolutionary Search" >.

Jerry Coyne's < warnings fell on deaf ears >, and it seems that the event enfolded as everyone of us has feared: Dembski made his speech to an uninformed audience which didn't know how much of his ideas have been already refuted.

Evolution News & Views is over the moon: Even I as a foreigner can see how badly written its article < Dembski Speaks at the University of Chicago; Mathematician Leo Kadanoff Says Darwinists Need to "Deal with These Questions" > is, perhaps because it was penned in haste by its anonymous author (Dembski himself?).

Leo Kadanoff's phrase is not only quoted in the title, but twice in the article:

"I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. ...Bill has made his case and we should all go home and think."

" Dr. Kadanoff, a member of the National Academic [sic] of Sciences, says Darwinists need "to deal with these questions" raised by a leading intelligent-design theorist. The ball is in their court."

Unfortunately we don't get any of the question of the Q&A section other than this summary the talk itself and the Q&A afterward, which were at a pretty high level, went very well. There were no disruptions, and Dembski handled the questions from the audience with his accustomed ease.

I'd love to hear from anyone who attended the talk - other than Dr. Dembski...


Posted by: DiEb on Aug. 15 2014,00:52

Quelle surprise! Leo Kadanoff's phrase is becoming a new favorite at EN&V: while complaining that a couple of < five-star reviews of Stephen Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt" > was taken down by amazon (as part of the great Darwinistic conspiracy), the unknown author states:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No words could be more appropriate than those of Coyne's University of Chicago colleague, mathematician Leo Kadanoff, in thanking William Dembski for his presentation there yesterday:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. ...Bill [Dembski] has made his case and we should all go home and think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So...that was yesterday, and hours later someone is trying to sweep the positive reviews off the Amazon page for Darwin's Doubt. No doubt a coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 15 2014,08:38

Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 15 2014,00:52)
Quelle surprise! Leo Kadanoff's phrase is becoming a new favorite at EN&V: while complaining that a couple of < five-star reviews of Stephen Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt" > was taken down by amazon (as part of the great Darwinistic conspiracy), the unknown author states:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No words could be more appropriate than those of Coyne's University of Chicago colleague, mathematician Leo Kadanoff, in thanking William Dembski for his presentation there yesterday:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. ...Bill [Dembski] has made his case and we should all go home and think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So...that was yesterday, and hours later someone is trying to sweep the positive reviews off the Amazon page for Darwin's Doubt. No doubt a coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


In other words, they still don't understand the concepts of "burden of proof", "science", and "supporting evidence".
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 16 2014,07:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 15 2014,09:38)
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 15 2014,00:52)
Quelle surprise! Leo Kadanoff's phrase is becoming a new favorite at EN&V: while complaining that a couple of < five-star reviews of Stephen Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt" > was taken down by amazon (as part of the great Darwinistic conspiracy), the unknown author states:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No words could be more appropriate than those of Coyne's University of Chicago colleague, mathematician Leo Kadanoff, in thanking William Dembski for his presentation there yesterday:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. ...Bill [Dembski] has made his case and we should all go home and think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So...that was yesterday, and hours later someone is trying to sweep the positive reviews off the Amazon page for Darwin's Doubt. No doubt a coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


In other words, they still don't understand the concepts of "burden of proof", "science", and "supporting evidence".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be mean you guys! If you take away their mildly supportive anonymously reported sentence from an academic in a different field, what are you leaving them with?!?!?! That's basically their only progress in 20 years.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 18 2014,11:16

WTF is *this* shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 18 2014,11:26

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2014,11:16)
WTF is *this* shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like a nearly complete collection of creationist memes.... and stupid... lots of stupid.
Posted by: N.Wells on Aug. 18 2014,11:52

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 08 2014,00:25)
Quote (rossum @ Aug. 07 2014,00:21)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 06 2014,12:18)
Shhhhhhhh, George is invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the DI's big secret is finally out.  Their invisible designer is ... George Gilliand! :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Skip George? Could be a family thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Googling suggests that Skip is George's nickname, so the caption writer presumably wrote both versions and forgot to delete one of them.
Posted by: Amadan on Aug. 18 2014,12:26

Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 14 2014,09:07)
On Aug 13, 2014, Dr. Dembski gave a talk in the University of Chicago's Computations in Science Seminars, titled < "Conservation of Information in Evolutionary Search" >.

Jerry Coyne's < warnings fell on deaf ears >, and it seems that the event enfolded as everyone of us has feared: Dembski made his speech to an uninformed audience which didn't know how much of his ideas have been already refuted.

Evolution News & Views is over the moon: Even I as a foreigner can see how badly written its article < Dembski Speaks at the University of Chicago; Mathematician Leo Kadanoff Says Darwinists Need to "Deal with These Questions" > is, perhaps because it was penned in haste by its anonymous author (Dembski himself?).

Leo Kadanoff's phrase is not only quoted in the title, but twice in the article:

"I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. ...Bill has made his case and we should all go home and think."

" Dr. Kadanoff, a member of the National Academic [sic] of Sciences, says Darwinists need "to deal with these questions" raised by a leading intelligent-design theorist. The ball is in their court."

Unfortunately we don't get any of the question of the Q&A section other than this summary the talk itself and the Q&A afterward, which were at a pretty high level, went very well. There were no disruptions, and Dembski handled the questions from the audience with his accustomed ease.

I'd love to hear from anyone who attended the talk - other than Dr. Dembski...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sweepstakes are now open on how long before it's described as 'peer-reviewed'.

I bags 1 week


Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 19 2014,00:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2014,09:16)
WTF is *this*, shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY.

And yes.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 19 2014,11:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2014,11:16)
WTF is *this* shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a creationist coprolite.

The author, Alvin Barry, according to the InterWebs died in 2001.  Unfortunately, not taking his ideas with him!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 19 2014,11:28

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 19 2014,11:19)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2014,11:16)
WTF is *this* shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a creationist coprolite.

The author, Alvin Barry, according to the InterWebs died in 2001.  Unfortunately, not taking his ideas with him!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Missouri Synod has forwarded my blog post to the  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
theology staff for them to review
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.

Which is the entire problem...
Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 19 2014,13:20

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 19 2014,11:19)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2014,11:16)
WTF is *this* shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a creationist coprolite.

The author, Alvin Barry, according to the InterWebs died in 2001.  Unfortunately, not taking his ideas with him!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a creationist would write something after he/she had died, then I'd be impressed.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 19 2014,18:13

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 19 2014,13:20)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 19 2014,11:19)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2014,11:16)
WTF is *this* shit?

< http://lcms.org/Documen....id=1103 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a creationist coprolite.

The author, Alvin Barry, according to the InterWebs died in 2001.  Unfortunately, not taking his ideas with him!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a creationist would write something after he/she had died, then I'd be impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about L. Ron Hubbard?  He was still churning out books a good decade after he kicked the bucket.  :D
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 22 2014,13:21

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 11 2014,23:02)
If according to his < CV > Dembski's sole employment is at the DI why does < Faith Bible Church > still announce him as �      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he helps head its < Institute of Scientific Apologetics >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

. (dead link in the original)



To a degree their < agenda > is kind of honest by not only listing pseudoscientific sessions but also        

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

Sunday Morning services (9 & 10:40am) at Faith Bible Church
The Return of the God Hypothesis - Dr. Stephen Meyer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Thanks to IDquest you can watch < all presentations at youtube >.

ETA: including < THE WEASEL !!! >

I am afraid I could not stand it.
I cannot stand it.


Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 22 2014,21:19

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 22 2014,11:21)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 11 2014,23:02)
If according to his < CV > Dembski's sole employment is at the DI why does < Faith Bible Church > still announce him as �        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he helps head its < Institute of Scientific Apologetics >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

. (dead link in the original)



To a degree their < agenda > is kind of honest by not only listing pseudoscientific sessions but also        

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

Sunday Morning services (9 & 10:40am) at Faith Bible Church
The Return of the God Hypothesis - Dr. Stephen Meyer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Thanks to IDquest you can watch < all presentations at youtube >.

ETA: including < THE WEASEL !!! >

I am afraid I could not stand it.
I cannot stand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This poster needs to be retitled:

FLOGGING.
The damp space where a dead horse used to be.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 22 2014,22:36

It's amazing how little Dembski has learned about evolutionary computation since I introduced the phrase "genetic algorithm" to him in 1997.

Dembski goes on about Dawkins' "weasel", but I've never heard him address the example I challenged him with back in 1997, which was to explain how a genetic algorithm could find a close-to-optimal path for the Traveling Salesman Problem given that his stance was that functions and algorithms could not generate information.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 01 2014,22:58

Please note that the DI has updated its < webpages >. In the course of doing so they have blown up their list of what they claim to be < "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design" > to a total of < 81 > pages, no less!
It's not decided yet whether they will print the next edition in pocket bible size or if they will double the font size and the line spacing.


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 02 2014,08:30

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 01 2014,23:58)
Please note that the DI has updated its < webpages >. In the course of doing so they have blown up their list of what they claim to be < "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design" > to a total of < 81 > pages, no less!
It's not decided yet whether they will print the next edition in pocket bible size or if they will double the font size and the line spacing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a slick new website! It really makes me want to attend their next conference, so I can pay money to go to Idaho and listen to Casey Luskin discuss origins science!

...said no one ever in history! Seriously, come september 20th I'm gonna want to see some crowd photos.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 03 2014,01:19

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2014,08:30)
     
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 01 2014,23:58)
Please note that the DI has updated its < webpages >. In the course of doing so they have blown up their list of what they claim to be < "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design" > to a total of < 81 > pages, no less!
It's not decided yet whether they will print the next edition in pocket bible size or if they will double the font size and the line spacing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a slick new website! It really makes me want to attend their next conference, so I can pay money to go to Idaho and listen to Casey Luskin discuss origins science!

...said no one ever in history! Seriously, come september 20th I'm gonna want to see some crowd photos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wondering why nowhere on their web pages the DI uses the full name of the place the < meeting > will take place: It's not just the "Ray and Joan Kroc Center" but rather "< The Salvation Army Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Center >". Maybe it even Discoveroids feel that it sounds somehow inappropriate for something the want to sell as a "Science & Human Origins Conference".

On the other hand they cannot make the center's "< What we believe page > go away. It says:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Christian Walk
The Christian life is not easy. The Apostle Peter warns us of the sufferings and painful trials that are ahead (1 Peter 4:12). But there is rejoicing to be had because, even in our sufferings, we know that we will be rewarded on the day when Christ returns (2 Timothy 4:7). So spread the word and follow the great commission, telling all creatures (whether you like them or not) of the good news to be had in Christ Jesus (Mark 16:15). Take confidence in knowing that the scriptures are God's word (2 Timothy 3:16) and be ready to give account (1 Peter 3:15). Be strong in your faith for the enemy is cunning and waiting around the corner to strike you down (1 Peter 5:8). Know that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1) and "as for God, his way is perfect, the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him" (Psalm 18:30).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 03 2014,11:44

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 03 2014,02:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2014,08:30)
     
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 01 2014,23:58)
Please note that the DI has updated its < webpages >. In the course of doing so they have blown up their list of what they claim to be < "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design" > to a total of < 81 > pages, no less!
It's not decided yet whether they will print the next edition in pocket bible size or if they will double the font size and the line spacing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a slick new website! It really makes me want to attend their next conference, so I can pay money to go to Idaho and listen to Casey Luskin discuss origins science!

...said no one ever in history! Seriously, come september 20th I'm gonna want to see some crowd photos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wondering why nowhere on their web pages the DI uses the full name of the place the < meeting > will take place: It's not just the "Ray and Joan Kroc Center" but rather "< The Salvation Army Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Center >". Maybe it even Discoveroids feel that it sounds somehow inappropriate for something the want to sell as a "Science & Human Origins Conference".

On the other hand they cannot make the center's "< What we believe page > go away. It says:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Christian Walk
The Christian life is not easy. The Apostle Peter warns us of the sufferings and painful trials that are ahead (1 Peter 4:12). But there is rejoicing to be had because, even in our sufferings, we know that we will be rewarded on the day when Christ returns (2 Timothy 4:7). So spread the word and follow the great commission, telling all creatures (whether you like them or not) of the good news to be had in Christ Jesus (Mark 16:15). Take confidence in knowing that the scriptures are God's word (2 Timothy 3:16) and be ready to give account (1 Peter 3:15). Be strong in your faith for the enemy is cunning and waiting around the corner to strike you down (1 Peter 5:8). Know that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1) and "as for God, his way is perfect, the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him" (Psalm 18:30).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


why are you evilutionists always trying to make it about religion? Intelligent Design is a purely scientific field with no connection to creationism.


Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 03 2014,21:37

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 03 2014,09:44)
why are you evilutionists always trying to make it about religion? Intelligent Design is a purely scientific field with no connection to creationism.


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


Which reminds me: whoever used the black helicopter last, you forgot to gas up.  :angry:
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 03 2014,22:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why are you evilutionists always trying to make it about religion? Intelligent Design is a purely scientific field with no connection to creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amen?
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 07 2014,03:45

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2014,08:30)
 
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 01 2014,23:58)
Please note that the DI has updated its < webpages >. In the course of doing so they have blown up their list of what they claim to be < "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design" > to a total of < 81 > pages, no less!
It's not decided yet whether they will print the next edition in pocket bible size or if they will double the font size and the line spacing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a slick new website! It really makes me want to attend their next conference, so I can pay money to go to Idaho and listen to Casey Luskin discuss origins science!

...said no one ever in history! Seriously, come september 20th I'm gonna want to see some crowd photos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to their list 16 of the articles were originally published in Bio-Complexity:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. Winston Ewert, “Complexity in Computer Simulations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2014 (1) (2014).
2. Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, “Active Information in Metabiology,”  BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2013 (4) (2013)
3. Michael J. Denton, “The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan- Selectionism,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2013 (3) (2013)
4. Granville Sewell, “Entropy and Evolution,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2013 (2) (2013)
5. Michael J. Denton, “The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2013 (1) (2013).
6. Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, Robert J. Marks II, “Time and Information in Evolution,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2012 (4) (2012)
7. Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, and Douglas D. Axe, “Lignin--Designed Randomness,” BIO- Complexity, Vol. 2012 (3) (2012)
8. Fernando Castro-Chavez, “A Tetrahedral Representation of the Genetic Code Emphasizing Aspects of Symmetry,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2012 (2) (2012)
9. Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Climbing the Steiner Tree— Sources of Active Information in a Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem,” BIO-­ Complexity, Vol. 2012 (1) (2012)
10. Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011)
11. Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011)
12. Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011)
13. Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010)
14. Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010)
15. George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010)
16. Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Unsurprisingly, without the two 2014 papers printed in bold below which will likely be added to the list this is the complete content of the journal!  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2014
1. Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design (David Snoke)
2. Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA (Jonathan Wells)
3. Digital Irreducible Complexity: A Survey of Irreducible Complexity in Computer Simulations  (Winston Ewert)

2013
4. Active Information in Metabiology  (Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II)
5. The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism (Michael J. Denton
6. The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis  (Michael J. Denton)
7. Entropy and Evolution (Granville Sewell)

2012
8. A Tetrahedral Representation of the Genetic Code Emphasizing Aspects of Symmetry (Fernando Castro-Chavez)
9. Climbing the Steiner Tree--Sources of Active Information in a Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem (Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II)
10. Lignin--Designed Randomness (Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, Douglas D. Axe)
11. Time and Information in Evolution (Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, Robert J. Marks II)

2011
12. A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes (Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, Stephanie Flatau)
13. The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway (Ann K. Gauger, Douglas D. Axe)
14. Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating? (Stephen C. Meyer, Paul A. Nelson)

2010
15. The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations (Douglas D. Axe)
16. A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information (George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II)
17. Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness (Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, Ralph Seelke)
18. The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds (Douglas D. Axe)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder why they chose to shorten Winston Ewert's latest title from  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Digital Irreducible Complexity: A Survey of Irreducible Complexity in Computer Simulations  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

to  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Complexity in Computer Simulations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KevinB on Sep. 08 2014,05:36

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 07 2014,03:45)
I wonder why they chose to shorten Winston Ewert's latest title from    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Digital Irreducible Complexity: A Survey of Irreducible Complexity in Computer Simulations  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

to    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Complexity in Computer Simulations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The original title was obviously reducibly complex.

Perhaps if they dropped the "t" from "Ewert" they would be a little closer to an argument that would hold water.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 08 2014,09:26

Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 08 2014,05:36)
The original title was obviously reducibly complex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If so they should have shortened it to  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Goddidit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 25 2014,13:36

Oops.

< http://phys.org/news....tml#jCp >
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 25 2014,13:48

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2014,12:36)
Oops.

< http://phys.org/news.......tml#jCp >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but did they have flagella?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 25 2014,19:38

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 25 2014,13:48)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2014,12:36)
Oops.

< http://phys.org/news.......tml#jCp >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but did they have flagella?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, Jeebus would cry if they couldn't flagellate themselves  :p
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 23 2014,00:01

< Casey announces > what may turn into a major sink for BS already re-warmed several times:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A new quarterly journal, < Inference: International Review of Science >, turns a skeptical eye on the culture and practice of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What should one think of a "journal" that
- < anonymously registered web domain >
- unnamed editors (not even if you click the editor link on the homepage which leads you to the < Introduction > which states:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The editors of Inference would prefer to remain anonymous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


- doesn't say anything about peer-review
- provides some kind of FAQ page named < Alles klar? > which states the following to clarify their concept
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stupid Monkeys

From Sue Blackmore, author of The Meme Machine:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I persevered, trying to put over the idea that evolution is inevitable—if you have information that is copied with variation and selection then you must get (as Dan Dennett p. 50 puts it) “Design out of chaos without the aid of mind.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We note that it also works to get chaos out of design:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I pesrsevered, trcying to vvput over the idea that evolution is inevitable—if you have ifosformation thavt is copied with variation and selection then you must get (as Drofan Dennett p. 50 puts it) ‘Dcs2esign out of chaos withdi2out the aid of midsnd’.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Almost there:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
uuI pesrse333veresdd, trcying ssto vvput ovevvxr 24the idcwlea t§hat evolution is inevitable yu66& !if ydeeou have ifosformation thavt is zxzcdopied wqeith vaddddriation btand ssi2election tak1hen ysu m5555ust tgeet L) gis drofan xxx rp!2222 50 rtputsitR *dDcs2esi$$ $@$t $! 593trrds 53dthdi249ee 404&&((&^^^ dof dsnd’.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got it in two tries. It was inevitable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


- asks for submissions in the following fields (half of which fit for creationists (bolded)) :        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Topics

   Algorithms in evolutionary theory
   Big Data
   The Church-Turing thesis
   Coalescent theory
   Consistency arguments in population genetics
   The decline in homicide rates
   Density functional theory
   The difference between plants and animals
   Effective field theories
   Electrons and the laws of physics
   Entanglement and realism
   Entropy and the direction of time
   The foundations of statistics
   Free parameters in ecology
   Free parameters in the Standard Model
   Freudian analysis in the twenty-first century
   Gauge theories
   Ghost fields
   Gödel’s ontological proof
   Highly divergent convergent series
   The holographic principle
   Homology in the animal kingdom
   Hypercomputation
   Inconsistency in arithmetic
   Mathematical physics and physical mathematics
   The minimalist program in linguistics
   Molecular clocks
   Montague grammars
   New axioms for set theory
   Optimality in biology
   Origins of behavior
   The origin of inertia
   The physically infinite
   Planet formation
   Pre-Big Bang cosmology
   The Price equation in economics and evolutionary theory
   The principle of mediocrity
   Quantum computing
   Sequence conservation in biology
   Supersymmetry
   Tarski’s undefinability theorem
   The renormalization group
   Turbulence in classical physics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


- < opens issue 1 with a piece by Michael Denton >

(edited to add and correct links)


Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 23 2014,14:43

Shall we hold our breath waiting for Mike's opinion on the age of the earth?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 23 2014,15:20

Inference will be every bit the success PCID* was. I'd link, but the link to PCID no longer works.

*For newbies, PCID was an ID 'science journal' which struggled to put out a few issues largely of book reviews and such, which was abandoned the moment Kitzmiller v Dover was decided.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 23 2014,15:57

From her LinkedIn page Google knows only person connected to Inference:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alessia Weil | LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com/pub/alessia-weil/0/2a1/820 -

Paris Area, France - ‎Associate & Acquisitions Editor at Inference: the International Review of Science
View Alessia Weil's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the ... Associate & Acquisitions Editor at Inference: the International Review of Science. Location ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't want to join LinkedIn to learn more. From other sources we learn that beside other titles she translated Behe's "Darwin's black box" into French.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- Réinventer le Sacré : une nouvelle vision de la Science, de la Raison et de la Religion - Stuart A. Kauffman (Reinventing the Sacred : A new View of Science, Reason and Religion)
- Le temps de l'esprit - Benjamin Libet (Mind Time)
- Explorer la réalité - John Polkinghorne (Exploring Reality)
- En quête de liberté - Philip Clayton (In quest of Freedom)
- Science et religion : les 10 questions essentielles - Keith Ward (The big questions in Science and Religion)
- De la génétique à Dieu : la confession de foi d'un des plus grands scientifiques - Francis S. Collins (The language of God : a scientist presents evidence for belief)
- La boîte noire de Darwin - L'intelligent Design - Michael J. Behe (Darwin's black box)
- Réconcilier l'Islam et la science moderne - L'esprit d'Averroès - Nidhal Guessoum (Science and Islam)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(all emphasis mine)
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 24 2014,14:03

Reading Inference Jeffrey Shallit < sees Berlinskis >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sharp-eyed commenter on a private mailing list points out, however, that the journal's twitter followers include, in addition to a few gullible science journalists, two different Berlinskis: Mischa and the eminently silly Claire Berlinski.

Hmmm. What would possess two Berlinskis to follow an obscure and mysterious "science" journal with intelligent design creationist and global warming denialist leanings?

Read some of the pages and you'll come to the same conclusion I did. That ol' poseur David Berlinski is surely involved somehow. All the signs are there: the Francophilia (why else would the grotesque caricatures be featured?), the pretension, the supercilious turns, the obsession with criticizing evolution, the solicitation for articles on mathematics topics dear to David, and the use of the word "irrefragable"; all are Berlinski hallmarks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one of the comments Nick Matzke points out that one of the authors of the current volume is a former co-author of Berlinski.

(all emphasis mine)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 24 2014,14:10

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2014,15:03)
Reading Inference Jeffrey Shallit < sees Berlinskis >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sharp-eyed commenter on a private mailing list points out, however, that the journal's twitter followers include, in addition to a few gullible science journalists, two different Berlinskis: Mischa and the eminently silly Claire Berlinski.

Hmmm. What would possess two Berlinskis to follow an obscure and mysterious "science" journal with intelligent design creationist and global warming denialist leanings?

Read some of the pages and you'll come to the same conclusion I did. That ol' poseur David Berlinski is surely involved somehow. All the signs are there: the Francophilia (why else would the grotesque caricatures be featured?), the pretension, the supercilious turns, the obsession with criticizing evolution, the solicitation for articles on mathematics topics dear to David, and the use of the word "irrefragable"; all are Berlinski hallmarks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one of the comments Nick Matzke points out that one of the authors of the current volume is a former co-author of Berlinski.

(all emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made it a few pages into a berlinski book years ago, before his snide assholeism made me stop.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 24 2014,16:12

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2014,14:03)
Reading Inference Jeffrey Shallit < sees Berlinskis >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sharp-eyed commenter on a private mailing list points out, however, that the journal's twitter followers include, in addition to a few gullible science journalists, two different Berlinskis: Mischa and the eminently silly Claire Berlinski.

Hmmm. What would possess two Berlinskis to follow an obscure and mysterious "science" journal with intelligent design creationist and global warming denialist leanings?

Read some of the pages and you'll come to the same conclusion I did. That ol' poseur David Berlinski is surely involved somehow. All the signs are there: the Francophilia (why else would the grotesque caricatures be featured?), the pretension, the supercilious turns, the obsession with criticizing evolution, the solicitation for articles on mathematics topics dear to David, and the use of the word "irrefragable"; all are Berlinski hallmarks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one of the comments Nick Matzke points out that one of the authors of the current volume is a former co-author of Berlinski.

(all emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did Shallit just discover the Desinger?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 24 2014,16:53

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 24 2014,16:12)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2014,14:03)
Reading Inference Jeffrey Shallit < sees Berlinskis >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sharp-eyed commenter on a private mailing list points out, however, that the journal's twitter followers include, in addition to a few gullible science journalists, two different Berlinskis: Mischa and the eminently silly Claire Berlinski.

Hmmm. What would possess two Berlinskis to follow an obscure and mysterious "science" journal with intelligent design creationist and global warming denialist leanings?

Read some of the pages and you'll come to the same conclusion I did. That ol' poseur David Berlinski is surely involved somehow. All the signs are there: the Francophilia (why else would the grotesque caricatures be featured?), the pretension, the supercilious turns, the obsession with criticizing evolution, the solicitation for articles on mathematics topics dear to David, and the use of the word "irrefragable"; all are Berlinski hallmarks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one of the comments Nick Matzke points out that one of the authors of the current volume is a former co-author of Berlinski.

(all emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did Shallit just discover the Desinger?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that Berlinski would be sufficient cause to stop singing for most people.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 24 2014,17:21

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 24 2014,16:53)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 24 2014,16:12)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2014,14:03)
Reading Inference Jeffrey Shallit < sees Berlinskis >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sharp-eyed commenter on a private mailing list points out, however, that the journal's twitter followers include, in addition to a few gullible science journalists, two different Berlinskis: Mischa and the eminently silly Claire Berlinski.

Hmmm. What would possess two Berlinskis to follow an obscure and mysterious "science" journal with intelligent design creationist and global warming denialist leanings?

Read some of the pages and you'll come to the same conclusion I did. That ol' poseur David Berlinski is surely involved somehow. All the signs are there: the Francophilia (why else would the grotesque caricatures be featured?), the pretension, the supercilious turns, the obsession with criticizing evolution, the solicitation for articles on mathematics topics dear to David, and the use of the word "irrefragable"; all are Berlinski hallmarks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one of the comments Nick Matzke points out that one of the authors of the current volume is a former co-author of Berlinski.

(all emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did Shallit just discover the Desinger?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that Berlinski would be sufficient cause to stop singing for most people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol, oops.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 25 2014,09:37

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 25 2014,01:21)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 24 2014,16:53)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 24 2014,16:12)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2014,14:03)
Reading Inference Jeffrey Shallit < sees Berlinskis >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sharp-eyed commenter on a private mailing list points out, however, that the journal's twitter followers include, in addition to a few gullible science journalists, two different Berlinskis: Mischa and the eminently silly Claire Berlinski.

Hmmm. What would possess two Berlinskis to follow an obscure and mysterious "science" journal with intelligent design creationist and global warming denialist leanings?

Read some of the pages and you'll come to the same conclusion I did. That ol' poseur David Berlinski is surely involved somehow. All the signs are there: the Francophilia (why else would the grotesque caricatures be featured?), the pretension, the supercilious turns, the obsession with criticizing evolution, the solicitation for articles on mathematics topics dear to David, and the use of the word "irrefragable"; all are Berlinski hallmarks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one of the comments Nick Matzke points out that one of the authors of the current volume is a former co-author of Berlinski.

(all emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did Shallit just discover the Desinger?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that Berlinski would be sufficient cause to stop singing for most people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol, oops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG two of my alter egos in one week? Teh stars are aligned. David where art thou?

Right here David. Whereist thou? Over here my love.
Une gross bissuo tu Mon. So why the long face? Are you calling me a horse? Stop this nonsense at once please I didn't come all this way to interview me just to be insulted. Who are you calling an arsehole arsolse? You you arsehole.

DB^2 was great value I miss him.
Posted by: timothya on Oct. 25 2014,12:57

From < Acronym Finder >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does FSCO/I stand for?
Your abbreviation search returned 0 meanings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bob O'H on Nov. 01 2014,07:21

Nice to know the Disco Institute are keeping on top of things. In their < blog post about Lönnig's latest book > they mention "Matti Leisola, professor of bioprocess engineering at the University of Helsinki". Which surprised me, as he had always been at the TKK (="Helsinki University of Technology", which was not even in Helsinki), until it merged with some other institutes to become the Aalto University. Poking around, I can't find any evidence that he's at the University of Helsinki, and according to ResearchGate he's now emeritus professor, i.e. he's retired.

Not a biggie, really, but amusing that the DI doesn't even know where the editor in chief of their flagship journal worked.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 01 2014,15:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 01 2014,07:21)
Nice to know the Disco Institute are keeping on top of things. In their < blog post about Lönnig's latest book > they mention "Matti Leisola, professor of bioprocess engineering at the University of Helsinki". Which surprised me, as he had always been at the TKK (="Helsinki University of Technology", which was not even in Helsinki), until it merged with some other institutes to become the Aalto University. Poking around, I can't find any evidence that he's at the University of Helsinki, and according to ResearchGate he's now emeritus professor, i.e. he's retired.

Not a biggie, really, but amusing that the DI doesn't even know where the editor in chief of their flagship journal worked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They don't say that Loennig is not working at the MPI in Cologne anymore. According to the CV on his web pages he rtired in April 2008 but continued some work as a guest until 2010.
His current dog publication is available from MV-Wissenschaft who offer print-on demand. It's likely that he choose this way of publishing because it looks as if his books are published by a respective publishers. In addition, he can delegate The technicalities and distribution to the publisher and the book is available at Amazon. Compared to the times when he published his books at "Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag Köln" which shared Loennig's private adress in Cologne.
BTW, his new "book" was freely available on his web pages and can still be downloade under the following link:

< http://www.weloennig.de/Hundera....d97.pdf >

The dog pictures are nice. The formationg appears Mullings'esque.


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 03 2014,14:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ENV has reviewed Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig's book Our Domestic Dog: A Shrew in Wolf's Clothing?, which shows in detail that dogs have been sculpted by human beings over the centuries not by adding function but by taking it away.
[...]
The only regrettable thing about Lönnig's book is that it's currently available only in German. That's why the interview with Casey, estimably thorough, lucid, and informative, is so useful. It almost substitutes for reading the book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(all emphasis mine)

I am just wondering who at UD can comprehend a German text when even for a native German speaker Loennig's writing is hardly readable.
< link >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 03 2014,14:45

Casey's track record is such that everyone should trust him. He is a lawyer, after all.
Posted by: KevinB on Nov. 03 2014,15:32

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 03 2014,14:45)
Casey's track record .....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it include running into the caboose of a stalled freight train in the vicinity of Canton, Miss?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Nov. 03 2014,16:09

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2014,14:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ENV has reviewed Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig's book Our Domestic Dog: A Shrew in Wolf's Clothing?, which shows in detail that dogs have been sculpted by human beings over the centuries not by adding function but by taking it away.
[...]
The only regrettable thing about Lönnig's book is that it's currently available only in German. That's why the interview with Casey, estimably thorough, lucid, and informative, is so useful. It almost substitutes for reading the book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(all emphasis mine)

I am just wondering who at UD can comprehend a German text when even for a native German speaker Loennig's writing is hardly readable.
< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Google Translate improves it.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 04 2014,22:35

Here's what Loennig writes straight-faced about DI's own  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[...] Casey Luskin, a geologist and lawyer [...] This rare combination of subjects may be reminiscent of Charles Lyell, the main founder of modern actualistic geology.

(Original: [...] Casey Luskin, ein Geologe und Jurist [...] Die seltene Fächerkombination erinnert vielleicht an Charles Lyell, dem Hauptbegründer der modernen aktualistischen Geologie.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(page 174 of "Unser Haushund:Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz?" last update May 11, 2014)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2014,00:51

Let it not be said that the DI have a Theocratic agenda...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle and a contributor to Evolution News & Views. He is the author most recently of How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative (Random House, 2008). His previous books are Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History (Doubleday, 2005), The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism (Doubleday, 2003) and the spiritual memoir The Lord Will Gather Me In (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 1998), a National Jewish Book Award finalist. His forthcoming book is Shattered Tablets: What the Ten Commandments Reveal about American Culture and Its Discontents (Doubleday, 2006). A former literary editor of National Review magazine, Klinghoffer has written articles and reviews for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Commentary, and other publications. He lives on Mercer Island, Washington with his wife and children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 05 2014,21:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2014,22:51)
Let it not be said that the DI have a Theocratic agenda...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To paraphrase JoeG, that agenda discussion is for AFTER the Theory of Intelligent Design leads us all to acknowledge the Fingerprints of the Designer (Fingerprints only, cuz science). THEN they can discuss how the world can be run based on the Principles of Love thy God, Love thy neighbor, enticing Jesus to Return to Earth, Prophecy Fulfillment, Ultimate Judgment, etc etc as the Designer (whichever Deity that might be, wink wink nudge nudge) intended (probably, though the communication channel is a little noisy). So, until then, ix-nay on the eocratic-thay genda-ay.

Forward the Wedge! Unveil the Fingerprints!

edit: corriction to mispallings
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 26 2014,23:19

I don't quite see much of an argument here but maybe I overlooked something?
< Behe at DI EN&V >
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 27 2014,04:18

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2014,23:19)
I don't quite see much of an argument here but maybe I overlooked something?
< Behe at DI EN&V >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strangely enough, Behe interprets the  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
phylogenetic distribution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

a      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
conserved structural core
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

the notion that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all flagella had the same necessary components in the same relative spatial relationships
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and again the emphasis of a      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
strongly conserved core
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

as signs of designs. Shouldn't he rather base his arguments on things that are unique to single species and better not dismiss those      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
novel and divergent structures
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 which could serve as an argument for special creation? Of course it may be difficult to claim irreducible complexity for structures displaying      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
somewhat altered shapes and unidentified regions of photographic density
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If he had to rely on an out of focus photgraph of a mouse trap he might have chosen something else to describe his ideas about irreducibility.
It's just the usual hammer and nail reasoning.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 04 2015,12:55

Casey the Gerbil has refreshed Jon Wells again. I'll have a rebuttal up soon.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015....01.html >
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 29 2015,23:00

The IDiots must have really given up Dembski's ID charade when they announce a < Cosmos + Creator > conference.
Posted by: The whole truth on Jan. 30 2015,02:24

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2015,21:00)
The IDiots must have really given up Dembski's ID charade when they announce a < Cosmos + Creator > conference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the sponsors is Pensmore Foundation. I looked at their website and there's some pretty entertaining crap there but this really cracked me up:

"LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE: HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? TELEVISION SERIES
This 13-part original TV series, developed from the 2013 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith, captures the presentations of some of the world’s greatest thinkers in the realm of science and religion, including Oxford University’s Dr. John Lennox, microbiologist Dr. Douglas Axe, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer, and other noted and renowned scholars. They examine such questions as, what is the origin of the universe, of life?, why is the beginning important, and why do people argue about it?, what’s wrong with Darwinism?, did Darwin doubt his own theory?, and other related topics."  (my bold)

And WHEN are creobots going to stop the "Darwinism" bullshit? Yeah, I know, they are never going to stop that. They are thoroughly obsessed with Darwin and their hatred of him, and to further their theocratic agenda they need to attack what they perceive as and assert is an evil authority figure. To them, Darwin is THE evil authority figure, at least when it comes to humans. To them, Darwin was and is the anti-christ, and even though he has been dead for a long time and evolutionary theory has moved on in important ways, Darwin and his influence must be destroyed over and over and over again.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 30 2015,02:40

Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 30 2015,02:24)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2015,21:00)
The IDiots must have really given up Dembski's ID charade when they announce a < Cosmos + Creator > conference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the sponsors is Pensmore Foundation. I looked at their website and there's some pretty entertaining crap there but this really cracked me up:

"LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE: HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? TELEVISION SERIES
This 13-part original TV series, developed from the 2013 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith, captures the presentations of some of the world’s greatest thinkers in the realm of science and religion, including Oxford University’s Dr. John Lennox, microbiologist Dr. Douglas Axe, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer, and other noted and renowned scholars. They examine such questions as, what is the origin of the universe, of life?, why is the beginning important, and why do people argue about it?, what’s wrong with Darwinism?, did Darwin doubt his own theory?, and other related topics."  (my bold)

And WHEN are creobots going to stop the "Darwinism" bullshit? Yeah, I know, they are never going to stop that. They are thoroughly obsessed with Darwin and their hatred of him, and to further their theocratic agenda they need to attack what they perceive as and assert is an evil authority figure. To them, Darwin is THE evil authority figure, at least when it comes to humans. To them, Darwin was and is the anti-christ, and even though he has been dead for a long time and evolutionary theory has moved on in important ways, Darwin and his influence must be destroyed over and over and over again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm amused by the description of John Lennox as "Sometimes described as our generation's C.S. Lewis". I thought that was J.K. Rowling. Has Lennox even written a childrens book?
Posted by: The whole truth on Jan. 30 2015,03:21

Another sponsor of the "Conference" is Westminster Theological Seminary. From their website:

"POWER OF THE WORD's theme is "Teaching all the Word and applying it to all the World."

Through Conferences, special productions and Biblical teaching, PTW equips you to be better prepared to witness to your faith in our contemporary culture."  (my bold)

And:

"OUR MISSION

The Mission of The Power of the Word is to provide a unique blend of Reformed Biblical teaching and a discussion of world and life shaping events that affect our daily lives, teaching the Bible from the perspective of its timeless and pivotal role in shaping and redeeming our culture for the Glory of God."

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

From the website of the Proclamation Presbyterian Church, where the "Conference" is going to be held:

"Our Vision, Values & Mission

Our Vision

Reaching the world with the Gospel for Salvation.
Building God’s people as the Church for his Glory.
Sending every Christian, equipped for service, to live and speak for Christ.

Our Values

The Supremacy of Christ
Over all things for his Father’s glory and his people’s good
As the One we trust for salvation and are called to obey
The Priority of the Church
As God’s new community
As God’s worshiping community
As God’s serving community
The Responsibility of Serving Christ
Every Christian has been given gifts for service
Every Christian is called to use their gifts for God
Every Christian is to live for Christ wherever they are
Every Christian is to be a witness to Christ in every sphere of life

Our Mission

To lead people to faith in Christ that we may grow together as the body of Christ and serve Christ as we live and labor for him to the glory of God."

And:  

"Our Worship

For information on our Sunday morning and evening worship services, please read about what happens on Sundays.

our-worship

We at Proclamation believe that the highest activity we can engage in as human beings is to worship God as our great Creator and glorious Redeemer. To do so in a way that is fitting for God as he makes himself known in the Bible means we seek to worship him with reverence and awe. To gain a better idea of what to expect on Sundays, click here. And for a more in depth exploration of our view of worship, please read In Spirit and In Truth, a statement on worship approved by the Eldership.

Our services follow a pattern that begins with a call to worship from a verse or passage in the Bible, which leads into a sequence of hymns and prayers, readings from Scripture and the giving of tithes and offerings to God’s work. Preaching is a key component of worship which provides a focus on specific aspects of God and his gift of salvation and how we respond to him. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or communion, play an important part in our services as well.

Of course, the best way to get a feel for worship in Proclamation is to join us for one of our services."


And:

"Our Beliefs

We are a Bible-believing, Reformed and Christ-centered church. Our congregation belongs to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as our statement of faith and practice. In essence this means that we take the Bible seriously as God’s inspired and inerrant word. We stand in line with the historic understanding of the Christian Faith traced back through the Protestant Reformation to Augustine and the Early Church. And we see that understanding of the Faith best expressed in the Confession and Catechisms produced by the Westminster Assembly. Our greatest goal in life is to live for God’s glory and life’s greatest joy is found in fellowship with him.  (my bold)

Creeds

We believe that God has made himself known in the Bible. It is the final authority in how we understand who God is, what he is like and how we relate to him. However, throughout its history the church has produced summaries of the Bible’s teaching in the form of creeds, confessions of faith and catechisms. Some of the oldest creeds of the ancient church that still play a vital part in contemporary Christianity are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed – both of which are used regularly in our church.  (my bold)

Along with Presbyterian churches worldwide, Proclamation holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms as a widely used summary of the faith, which, though over 350 years old, provides one of the most concise, yet comprehensive summaries of Bible teaching that has ever been drawn up.

Those who hold office in the church are required to subscribe to this statement of faith as the summary of their own beliefs and commit to ensuring that these teachings are safeguarded in the life and work of the congregation.

Church Affiliation

Proclamation is a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America – a denomination which was formed in 1973 and currently is made up of around 1,500 churches throughout North America.

The PCA is Reformed and Evangelical in its beliefs and is committed to outreach and mission both at home and abroad. The denomination is organized regionally into Presbyteries and Proclamation belongs to the Philadelphia Metro West Presbytery of the PCA. This provides a forum in which we can relate to other like-minded churches in a meaningful way.

Throughout its history, Proclamation has also sought to connect and co-operate with other faithful churches in the local area and more widely with a view to furthering the gospel and assisting in joint-ventures to uphold Christian values and principles.

The church has also enjoyed close relationships with Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and has benefited greatly from help given by its faculty over the years, as well as providing internships and mentoring opportunities for students from the seminary.  (my bold)

Leadership

The spiritual leadership of Proclamation is provided through Elders chosen by the congregation. Some of them are Teaching Elders, others are Ruling Elders, together they are known as the ‘Session’ and provide teaching, pastoral care and leadership for the church.  (my bold)

The Eldership is supported and helped by the Board of Deacons and Deaconesses. They are responsible in part for many of the practical needs in running the church. They look after finances and property; but they make sure that people’s needs are taken care of as well. More widely they exercise a ministry of care to those who are facing particular needs both within the congregation and also in the community.

There are other layers of leadership throughout the home groups, various meetings and ministries in the church. These are staffed by suitably gifted people in the church and all function under the oversight of the Session.

We seek to provide ongoing training for those who are asked to serve in the leadership positions in the church."

And:

"Westminster Confession of Faith

When the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was formed in 1788, it adopted (with minor revisions) the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms (1647), as its secondary standards (the Bible itself being the only infallible rule of faith and practice). Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America take a vow to “sincerely receive and adopt” these confessional documents “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”" (followed by a list of PDF files)  (my bold)

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

Link to the "Conference" agenda:

< http://www.discovery.org/scripts....d=11031 >


All science so far!
Posted by: The whole truth on Jan. 30 2015,04:15

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 30 2015,00:40)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 30 2015,02:24)
   
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2015,21:00)
The IDiots must have really given up Dembski's ID charade when they announce a < Cosmos + Creator > conference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the sponsors is Pensmore Foundation. I looked at their website and there's some pretty entertaining crap there but this really cracked me up:

"LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE: HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? TELEVISION SERIES
This 13-part original TV series, developed from the 2013 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith, captures the presentations of some of the world’s greatest thinkers in the realm of science and religion, including Oxford University’s Dr. John Lennox, microbiologist Dr. Douglas Axe, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer, and other noted and renowned scholars. They examine such questions as, what is the origin of the universe, of life?, why is the beginning important, and why do people argue about it?, what’s wrong with Darwinism?, did Darwin doubt his own theory?, and other related topics."  (my bold)

And WHEN are creobots going to stop the "Darwinism" bullshit? Yeah, I know, they are never going to stop that. They are thoroughly obsessed with Darwin and their hatred of him, and to further their theocratic agenda they need to attack what they perceive as and assert is an evil authority figure. To them, Darwin is THE evil authority figure, at least when it comes to humans. To them, Darwin was and is the anti-christ, and even though he has been dead for a long time and evolutionary theory has moved on in important ways, Darwin and his influence must be destroyed over and over and over again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm amused by the description of John Lennox as "Sometimes described as our generation's C.S. Lewis". I thought that was J.K. Rowling. Has Lennox even written a childrens book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does seem odd to say that Lennox is "Sometimes described as our generation's C.S. Lewis", but when looked at from a bible thumper point of view, odd is normal, and they apparently believe that comparing Lennox to a religious fiction writer is a badge of honor. In their delusional minds religious fiction is the truth (or at least fictional stories that fit within their religious beliefs, and there's a lot of room for crazy shit in their beliefs but not much, if any, room for reality). Religious zealots, such as the IDiot-creationists, obviously greatly prefer and revere fiction over reality.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 31 2015,19:05

The < Argus Leader > carried a story on the South Dakota "teach the controversy" proposal.

Ho Hum. But, I got boss Disco'tute John West on the hook.
:)
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 31 2015,19:39

Disco'tute attack gerbil Casey Luskin has offered his insight:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015....31.html >
 :D
Posted by: DiEb on May 22 2015,15:22

< Letter to a Young Darwin Activist's Parents >

David Klinghoffer to Mrs. and Mr. Kopplin: "Control your boy, he outwitted me again and again...."
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2015,16:14

Quote (DiEb @ May 22 2015,15:22)
< Letter to a Young Darwin Activist's Parents >

David Klinghoffer to Mrs. and Mr. Kopplin: "Control your boy, he outwitted me again and again...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zach is 21. He can buy beer and die for his country. He is a man, not a boy. Writing to his parents is simply trying to frame him as childish. Rather than writing to Mr. klinghoffer's parents in an open letter we would be better served attaching magnets to them so they can generate free energy as they turn in their graves.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2015,16:17

LULZ?

< http://discoveryu.thinkific.com/courses....-design >
Posted by: Woodbine on May 22 2015,18:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2015,22:17)
LULZ?

< http://discoveryu.thinkific.com/courses....-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't Cornholio try something like this?
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 22 2015,18:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2015,16:17)
LULZ?

< http://discoveryu.thinkific.com/courses....-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's free. Anyone want to take the hit and download the PDFs for fisking?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on May 22 2015,20:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2015,16:17)
LULZ?

< http://discoveryu.thinkific.com/courses....-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn.  Not only does Luskin sound like a single digit IQ mouth-breather he also looks like a sleazy greaseball.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 22 2015,22:25

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 22 2015,18:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2015,16:17)
LULZ?

< http://discoveryu.thinkific.com/courses....-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's free. Anyone want to take the hit and download the PDFs for fisking?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I downloaded some of them...they are bad...really, really bad.
Posted by: Cubist on May 23 2015,00:15

Yeah, it's as ghastly as you'd expect. I signed up for the course; it's technically free, since there's no monetary fee, but they do want you to give them your name (I provided a pseudonym) and email address (I gave them one I don't hardy ever use).

It's divided up into a number of "sections", each of which has at least one quiz. Here's the first quiz in the 1st section, with the answers they count as 'correct' in boldface:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Section 1: Defining Moment

Quiz

1. Which of the following terms best describes intelligent design?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Religion.
  B Fact.
  C Hypothesis.
  D Theory.

2. ID scientists study structures, sequences, or events primarily to distinguish between which two types of causes?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Supernatural and natural.
  B Intelligent (i.e., guided) and material (i.e., unguided).
  C Audible and inaudible.
  D Physical and non-physical.

3. Which of the following could be considered an intelligent agent?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Human.
  B God.
  C Gravity.
  D Both A and B.

4. Many elements common to our daily lives require information produced by intelligent agents. In which of the following examples would we not detect information produced by an intelligent agent?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Computer code.
  B The Blind Watchmaker (book by Richard Dawkins).
  C Sample of rainforest soil.
  D Sand castle.

5. When ID theorists investigate intelligent design, what is the first step they take?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Infer an intelligent agent created a natural object.
  B Infer a supernatural being created a natural object.
  C Study the types of information known to be produced by intelligent agents.
  D Study a natural object to determine if it contains information that is known to be produced by intelligent agents.

6. Which of the following most accurately represents intelligent design reasoning?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Nature contains structures too complex to have arisen through natural processes, therefore God must have designed all living and non-living structures.
  B High levels of complex and specified information, in our experience, come from intelligent agents. Therefore, some information-rich structures in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause.
  C There is evidence of design in nature, and design in our experience results from blind and unguided processes. Therefore, all living and non-living structures are the result of blind and unguided processes.
  D There is no evidence of design in nature, therefore all living and non-living structures are the result of blind and unguided processes.

7. The objects in the picture below were discovered in the desert and buried in layers of sand. Which feature of these objects is the best indicator of intelligent design?
[the picture is a photograph of wht appears to be a museum display of pottery]
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A The objects were found buried in sand.
  B The objects are made of clay.
  C The objects have shapes that match those of objects from other excavation sites, known to be produced by intelligent agents.
  D The objects were found 10 miles from a small city.

8. A biologist is studying the sequence of a protein consisting of 300 amino acids. Which feature below is not a possible indicator of intelligent design?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A The protein is 300 amino acids in length.
  B Proteins with identical (or very similar) amino acid sequences are found in several other species.
  C The probability of creating an identical (or similar) protein sequence via unguided processes is extremely low.
  D The protein's function is significantly reduced when one or more amino acids are removed or modified.

9. Is the sequence of letters below complex, specified, or both?
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Complex but not specified.
  B Specified but not complex.
  C Complex and specified.

10. Is the sequence of letters below complex, specified, or both?
“aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou"
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Complex but not specified.
  B Specified but not complex.
  C Complex and specified.

11. Is the sequence of letters below complex, specified, or both?
“yStdTVzWDR LQiAivSvAtUwrHxbnLmhAWOHecIMf foyETdMXOk NcYZPIBiDojPqYqsFaPK hbgioyrgqYGkG fzpL XZSfmIvpMEORKrt"
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Complex but not specified.
  B Specified but not complex.
  C Complex and specified.
(desired answer: A Complex but not specified.)

12. Is the image below complex, specified, or both?
[the image consists of amorphous red cloud-like forms on a very dark grey background]
  A Complex but not specified.
  B Specified but not complex.
  C Complex and specified.

13. Is the image below complex, specified, or both?
[the image consists of hand-printed block letters which read "I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER"]
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Complex but not specified.
  B Specified but not complex.
  C Complex and specified.

14. Is the image below complex, specified, or both?
[the image consists of four columns of dots, with four dots in each column; every dot in the 1st and 3rd columns is red, and tevery dot in the 2nd & 4th columns is black]
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Complex but not specified.
  B Specified but not complex.
  C Complex and specified.

15. Critics sometimes equate intelligent design with creationism. Which statement below is only true of intelligent design?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Starts with a religious text (e.g., the Bible).
  B Concludes God created all things.
  C Recognizes design in living and non-living structures in nature.
  D Refrains from specifying the nature or identity of an intelligent agent.

16. Which option below best describes a hurricane?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Natural and unintelligent.
  B Natural and intelligent.
  C Supernatural.

17. Which option below best describes a bird building a nest?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Natural and unintelligent.
  B Natural and intelligent.
  C Supernatural.

18. Which option below best describes a ghost appearing out of thin air?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Natural and unintelligent.
  B Natural and intelligent.
  C Supernatural.

19. Which option below best describes humans building a skyscraper?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Natural and unintelligent.
  B Natural and intelligent.
  C Supernatural.

20. Which option below best describes prayer miraculously healing a dying child?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Natural and unintelligent.
  B Natural and intelligent.
  C Supernatural.

21. Which option below best describes a meteor shower?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Natural and unintelligent.
  B Natural and intelligent.
  C Supernatural.

22. Which of the following options claims that there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Creationism.
  B Materialism.
  C Intelligent design.
  D Both A and C.

23. Which of the following claims that God created all things?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Creationism.
  B Materialism.
  C Intelligent design.
  D Both A and C.

24. Which of the following claims that God does not exist?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Creationism.
  B Materialism.
  C Intelligent design.
  D Methodological naturalism.

25. Which of the following claims that you should assume God doesn't exist when doing science?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Methodological naturalism.
  B Intelligent design.
  C Materialism.
  D Both B and C.

26. An intelligent design proponent is a theist (one who believes in God).
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Always.
  B Sometimes.
  C Never.

27. An intelligent design proponent is an atheist (one who doesn't believe in God).
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Always.
  B Sometimes.
  C Never.

28. An intelligent design proponent is a creationist.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Always.
  B Sometimes.
  C Never.

29. An intelligent design proponent is a materialist.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A Always.
  B Sometimes.
  C Never.

30. Materialism holds that life originated from inorganic material through guided processes.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A True.
  B False.

31. Materialism holds that the physical laws and constants of the universe were intelligently designed.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A True.
  B False.

32. Materialism holds that all living organisms on earth are related through universal common ancestry.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A True.
  B False.

33. Intelligent design challenges materialism by proposing that:
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
  A The universe is uncaused.
  B Intelligent design is a scientific conclusion.
  C All structures originate from an intelligent cause.
  D Life arose in outer space.
  E Both B and C.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kinda speaks for itself, don't it?
Posted by: Woodbine on May 23 2015,01:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
29. An intelligent design proponent is a materialist.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
 A Always.
 B Sometimes.
 C Never.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



DIE MATERIALIST SCUM
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 23 2015,04:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. Many elements common to our daily lives require information produced by intelligent agents. In which of the following examples would we not detect information produced by an intelligent agent?
CHOOSE ONLY ONE BEST ANSWER
 A Computer code.
 B The Blind Watchmaker (book by Richard Dawkins).
 C Sample of rainforest soil.
 D Sand castle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's some admission. Whether it's of the utter failure of ID or Luskin's utter ignorance of what's actually in soil (flagella and all) so someone else can decide.
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 23 2015,08:48

Just out of curiosity, does the course actually define specified and complex so that one can answer these questions?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on May 23 2015,08:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 23 2015,08:48)
Just out of curiosity, does the course actually define specified and complex so that one can answer these questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Complex specified information is information that is both specified and complex!" - Jorge Fernandez, IDiot at TheologyWeb
Posted by: Henry J on May 23 2015,11:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 23 2015,07:48)
Just out of curiosity, does the course actually define specified and complex so that one can answer these questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Complex is when a number has an imaginary part.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 23 2015,11:38

To give you another taste, these are the learning objectives from Chapter 15 Sudden Gradual Change

1
D I S C O V E R I N G I N T E L L I G E N T D E S I G N
Chapter 15: Sudden, Gradual Change
Main point
Explain how the abrupt appearance of new organisms in the fossil record challenges Darwinian evolution and points to design.

Opening Chapter Question
Do you think the fossil evidence supports Darwinian evolution?
Learning Objectives
• I can explain how Darwin’s theory of evolution via descent with modification requires that
organisms evolve gradually and predicts that a large number of intermediate or transitional forms
have existed.
• I can explain that when transitional forms weren’t found, Darwin conceded that this was a serious
challenge to his theory, but then suggested that these transitional fossils were missing because the
geological record was incomplete (e.g., the “artifact hypothesis”).
• I can explain that many paleontologists recognize that missing transitional fossils are not the
product of an incomplete geological record, but rather that there are real gaps between major
taxonomic categories, and that those gaps are unlikely to be filled by future investigations.
• I can explain that the fossil record shows a pattern of extinctions (sudden disappearance of
organisms) and explosions (sudden appearance of new types of organisms) rather than a series
of transitional fossils showing gradual change from one species to the next. I understand that the
main patterns in the fossil record contradict the predictions of Darwinian evolution.
• I can describe the Cambrian explosion as a major event in the history of life, roughly 530 million
years ago, that occurred in a period of no more than about 5-10 million years, where nearly all the
major living animal phyla appeared.
• I can explain that evolutionary scientists have attempted to explain the absence of transitional
fossils in the Cambrian explosion by postulating that Precambrian fossils were too small or too softbodied
to have been preserved, and I evaluate why this explanation is problematic, because
small and soft-bodied fossils are abundant in the Cambrian explosion and are even found in
Precambrian strata (e.g., Precambrian sponge embryo fossils), though known Precambrian fossils
are not thought to be ancestors to the Cambrian phyla.
• I can list other examples of explosions in the fossil record including: (1) fish, (2) non-flowering plants,
(3) flowering plants (angiosperms), (4) mammals, (5) birds, and (6) our genus Homo.
• I can explain how scientists like Stephen Jay Gould have attempted to account for the absence
of transitional forms by invoking punctuated equilibrium, where evolution occurs in small
populations over short periods of time (too rapid for transitional forms to be fossilized), interspersed
by long periods of little change (called “stasis”).
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
2
DID | Chapter 15: Sudden, Gradual Change
• I can identify problems with punctuated equilibrium, including: (1) it requires too much genetic
change too quickly, (2) it compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small
populations that lived over short periods of time, thereby affording too few opportunities for
beneficial mutations to arise, and (3) it seems more like an excuse for the lack of transitional fossils
than a testable theory.
• I can explain how scientists in the field of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo devo”)
have attempted to explain how large-scale changes to a body plan could arise rapidly through
mutations in the genes controlling an organism’s development (e.g., Hox or homeobox genes).
• I can identify the problems of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo devo”) as: (1) mutations
in developmental genes (e.g., Hox genes) are typically lethal, (2) mutations in developmental
genes cannot produce new body parts but can only rearrange parts that are already present,
and (3) known examples of “evo-devo” mutations cause loss, rather than gain, of function.
• I can identify different models of change in the fossil record, including Darwinian gradual
evolution, explosions, and punctuated equilibrium
• I can discuss how only intelligent design can explain explosions of fully formed body plans in
the fossil record, as these would require rapid infusion of massive amounts of new biological
information to encode and integrate the necessary proteins, cell types, tissues, and organs to
form the new body plans.
3
DID | Chapter 15: Sudden, Gradual Change
C H A P T E R O U T L I N E
I. Darwinian Gradualism
A. The hallmark of Darwinian evolution is gradual change.
B. Darwin proposed that all organisms evolved via descent with modification, and predicted that
“[t]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be
truly enormous.”’
C. When those transitional forms weren’t found, he called it “the most obvious and gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory.”
D. A lack of fossil evidence for evolutionary transitions presents a critical and persistent problem for
materialists.
E. This lack of transition fossils challenges Materialism Tenet #7: All living organisms are related
through universal common ancestry.
F. Darwin attempted to save his theory of gradual evolution by claiming that intermediate fossils
are not found because of “the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
G. In recent decades, however, leading paleontologists have recognized that gaps between
major taxonomic categories are not simply the result of an incomplete fossil record.
H. Rather, many of the gaps are real and are unlikely to significantly change based on new
discoveries.
I. Despite the incompleteness of the fossil record, only a tiny fraction of known fossil species are
claimed to be transitional forms.
J. The scarcity of transitional fossils is problematic for Darwinian theory.
II. Explosions in the History of Life
A. The record consistently shows a pattern where new forms come into existence abruptly, which
many have called “explosions” in the history of life.
B. A prime example of an “explosion” occurred during the Cambrian period about 530 million
years ago, when nearly all of the major living animal phyla appear in the fossil record.
C. This landmark event in the history of life is called the Cambrian explosion, and it took place
within a geological eye blink—5 to 10 million years (or possibly much less).
D. Evolutionary scientists have failed to explain the Cambrian explosion.
1. Some postulate that the Precambrian fossils were simply too small or too soft-bodied to be
preserved.
2. This explanation has severe deficiencies as small and soft-bodied organisms were commonly
fossilized. In fact, the Cambrian explosion is full of them.
3. Indeed, Precambrian sponge embryos have been discovered, demonstrating that if small
and soft-bodied transitional organisms existed, they could have been fossilized.
E. There are other examples of explosions in the fossil record.
1. Most major fish groups appear abruptly.
2. Plant biologists observe that the initial appearance of many land plants “is the terrestrial
equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.”
4
3. Later in the fossil record there is an explosion of flowering plants, sometimes referred to as the
“big bloom.”
4. Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion with the abrupt
appearance of many orders of mammals.
5. There is also a bird explosion, with major bird groups appearing in a short time period.
6. Some have even described the abrupt origin of our own genus Homo as an explosion.
III. Punctuated Equilibrium (“Punc Eq”)
A. Because the fossil record has not confirmed Darwin’s predictions of gradual evolution,
paleontologists like Stephen Jay Gould proposed a theory where evolution takes place rapidly.
B. According to this theory, most evolution takes place in small populations over relatively short
geological time periods—too rapidly for transitional forms to be fossilized.
C. These hypothetical periods of rapid change are interspersed between long time spans without
much change, called stasis.
D. Punctuated equilibrium faces a number of problems:
1. The punc eq model requires too much genetic change too quickly.
2. It compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived
during a small segment of time, allowing too few rolls of the dice for beneficial mutations to
arise.
3. Punc eq can appear to be simply an excuse for why transitional fossils are missing: Would
you believe someone who claimed to capture fairies and Leprechauns on video, but when
asked to produce the film, declares “well, they are on camera but they are too small or too
fast to be seen”?
IV. Evo Devo
A. Some evolutionists have hoped that a field called evolutionary developmental biology (“evodevo”)
could explain how large evolutionary changes could arise rapidly through mutations in
the genes controlling the development of an organism.
B. Proponents of evo-devo contend that changes to the master genes that control the
development of an organism, such as Hox or homeobox genes, can cause large, abrupt
changes in body plans.
C. Evo Devo faces various problems:
1. Developmental genes are tightly interconnected, and thus changes in one gene will affect
many others, making most mutations lethal.
2. Hox genes do not encode proteins that build body parts—they merely direct the genes that
encode body parts. Thus, Hox mutations can only rearrange parts that are already there;
they cannot create truly novel structures.
3. The best examples of evolutionary change produced by evo-devo mechanisms are meager,
and often entail loss, rather than gain of function.
DID | Chapter 15: Sudden, Gradual Change
5
V. Intelligent Design and the Fossil Record.
A. The explosions of fully formed body plans in the fossil record require a cause that can rapidly
infuse massive amounts of information to encode and integrate the necessary proteins, cell
types, tissues, and organs.
B. There is only one known cause that can accomplish these tasks: intelligence.
1. Design theorists have observed that intelligent agents are uniquely capable of rapidly
infusing large amounts of information into the biosphere.
2. Only intelligence can produce the complex and specified information necessary to
coordinate many levels of organization into a functional body plan.
3. Only intelligence can conceive of a fully formed blueprint ahead of time, prior to
implementing the design in the real world.
C. The fossil record supports ID’s prediction that species might appear abruptly, indicating the
rapid infusion of new information into the natural world.
D. Design theorists have observed that intelligent agents are uniquely capable of using large
amounts of information to create blueprints, which lead to fully functional machines and new
types of organism.
DID | Chapter 15: Sudden, Gradual Change
Posted by: Woodbine on May 23 2015,12:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record supports ID’s prediction that species might appear abruptly....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID prediction spotted!

ID predicts something might happen.

Brilliant.

Checkmate Darwin thugs!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 23 2015,13:12

Quote (Woodbine @ May 23 2015,12:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record supports ID’s prediction that species might appear abruptly....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID prediction spotted!

ID predicts something might happen.

Brilliant.

Checkmate Darwin thugs!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well that's nothing new, quite some time ago they predicted that some "junk DNA" would be found to have function.

They also predicted that day would follow night.

Match that, materialist thugs.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 23 2015,14:06

So, he, like Meyer, is actively lying. Good to know.
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 24 2015,05:00

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2015,13:12)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 23 2015,12:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record supports ID’s prediction that species might appear abruptly....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID prediction spotted!

ID predicts something might happen.

Brilliant.

Checkmate Darwin thugs!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well that's nothing new, quite some time ago they predicted that some "junk DNA" would be found to have function.

They also predicted that day would follow night.

Match that, materialist thugs.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've also predicted that day would subsequently follow night. So there.

P.S. Pttttttt
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 03 2015,09:21

File under the "Instant argument without considering the larger implications", Luskin basically gives up the ghost. < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015....41.html >

He admits that evolution is science and that the religious implications of evolution are just that, not a core part of the science, and therefore evolution can be taught in schools.

He then says


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many evolutionists, however, would probably dislike this way of thinking. Why? Because the very same approach would justify teaching about intelligent design in public schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since he's never asked any "evolutionist" about this, he's just making stuff up.

Interestingly, he quotes several court decisions on the subject. But totally fails to quote the big one.

Kitzmiller decision:
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

And that, Casey, is why you people fail every single time.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 03 2015,09:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 03 2015,17:21)
File under the "Instant argument without considering the larger implications", Luskin basically gives up the ghost. < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015.......41.html >

He admits that evolution is science and that the religious implications of evolution are just that, not a core part of the science, and therefore evolution can be taught in schools.

He then says


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many evolutionists, however, would probably dislike this way of thinking. Why? Because the very same approach would justify teaching about intelligent design in public schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since he's never asked any "evolutionist" about this, he's just making stuff up.

Interestingly, he quotes several court decisions on the subject. But totally fails to quote the big one.

Kitzmiller decision:
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

And that, Casey, is why you people fail every single time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Preacher, School Board, Judge, Journalist, LAWYER
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 27 2015,11:56

Kirk Dunstan has an amazing case of hypocrisy.

He posts about whether we should have faith in science here: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015....51.html >

Of course, he completely fails to mention that ID fails all of the tests he mentions.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 05 2015,22:02

I took a look at this today.

Durston, K. K., Chiu, D. K., Abel, D. L., & Trevors, J. T. (2007). "Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling" Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 4, 47.

I get the sense that editors and reviewers are easily baffled by bullshit.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 16 2015,13:35

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:32)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 16 2015,13:27)

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


 

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


Idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Listen kid. If you want to behave like at the  kindergarden yard,  fine with with me.  

I prefere to have a grown up debate with adults.

Have a nice day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and another IDiot runs for the hills when he realizes he can't BS his way through the actual science.   :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 16 2015,13:37

Otangelo's discussion has its own thread. Replies on that topic posted here will be deleted. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 05 2015,00:55

EN&V:< Rubik's Cube Is a Hand-Sized Illustration of Intelligent Design >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Explain that the cube is a search problem. Take the scrambled one, and show how you want to get from that one to the solved one. You need a search algorithm. Which approach is more likely to find the solution -- intelligent causes or unguided causes? The answer is obvious, but go ahead; rub it in. A robot randomly moving the colors around could conceivably hit on the solution by chance in short order with sheer dumb luck (1 chance in 43 x 1018), but even if it did, it would most likely keep rotating the colors right back out of order again, not caring a dime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just one click away:
< An Evolutionary Approach for Solving the Rubik’s Cube Incorporating Exact Methods >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To provide a brief performance overview 100 random scrambles of minimum length 10 and maximum length 50 were generated and and solved in 5 repetitions.
Solution lengths and calculation time are of particular interest to us. The test was conducted with the TWES using (μ, λ) = (1000, 50000), weighing factors
(5, 5, 5, 5, 5), mutation lengths (5, 5, 13, 15, 17) and maximum generations before reset (250).
[...]
As seen in Table 1, the solution sequences hit an average of about 50 single moves, further demonstrating a consistent performance throughout the repetitions.
Most scrambles are solved in 35-45 moves, outliers are responsible for the higher average count. Extensive additional benchmarks can be found in 3.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 17 2015,20:36

< The Discovery Institute Does More Myth-Making: Looking at #10 >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 18 2015,09:56

Nick Matzke's < paper on the evolution of antievolution legislation > was published in Science yesterday. The DI's John G. West posted a < screed > accusing Nick of misusing NSF research funding.

Here is Nick's bit in the paper that West is upset about:



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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Helpful comments were provided by E. Scott, G. Branch, J. Rosenau, E. Meikle, C. Knight, J. Felsenstein, S. Kawano, J. Louys, M. Lawing, and N. Jackson. N.J.M. was supported by NSF Awards 0919124, DBI1300426 and Australian Research Council DE150101773.

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



And here is West's accusation:



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

A more serious issue is whether Matzke misappropriated taxpayer funds in order to write his article. Matzke discloses in the article's acknowledgements that his research was funded by two National Science Foundation grants. But if you look up those grants, they appear to have nothing to do with the article he published.

Indeed, NSF Grant 0919124 is a $422,000 grant intended to "develop bivalve molluscs as a preeminent model for evolutionary studies...." And NSF Grant DBI-1300426 is a $12 million+ grant for the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, which told the NSF it would "provide scientific insights into problems such as the control of invasive species, limiting impacts of infectious diseases, and suggesting new methods for drug design."

Perhaps Matzke claims academic freedom bills are an "infectious disease," but I doubt most taxpayers who paid for the grant would agree. And I have no idea how he might connect his writing on academic freedom legislation to research about molluscs.

If Matzke used taxpayer funds intended to underwrite serious scientific research to produce this silly piece about the politics of the evolution debate, then the National Science Foundation should consider asking for some of its grant money back.

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



There is a difference between "research was funded by" and "I was supported by".

West apparently doesn't understand the concept of "support". Even when one has personal projects, if one publishes those one acknowledges the funding sponsors who made it possible for one to eat, have a roof over one's head, and pay the broadband internet bill. It doesn't mean that the grants were specifically about those things, and it doesn't mean that the funds were "misused" that one has a life beyond one's specific funded research. But in West's depauperate world, apparently courtesy is merely one of the things lacking besides charity.

I'd say that Nick might have grounds for a defamation case in West's intemperate response.


Posted by: someotherguy on Dec. 18 2015,11:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2015,09:56)
Nick Matzke's < paper on the evolution of antievolution legislation > was published in Science yesterday. The DI's John G. West posted a < screed > accusing Nick of misusing NSF research funding.

Here is Nick's bit in the paper that West is upset about:

 

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Helpful comments were provided by E. Scott, G. Branch, J. Rosenau, E. Meikle, C. Knight, J. Felsenstein, S. Kawano, J. Louys, M. Lawing, and N. Jackson. N.J.M. was supported by NSF Awards 0919124, DBI1300426 and Australian Research Council DE150101773.

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



And here is West's accusation:

 

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

A more serious issue is whether Matzke misappropriated taxpayer funds in order to write his article. Matzke discloses in the article's acknowledgements that his research was funded by two National Science Foundation grants. But if you look up those grants, they appear to have nothing to do with the article he published.

Indeed, NSF Grant 0919124 is a $422,000 grant intended to "develop bivalve molluscs as a preeminent model for evolutionary studies...." And NSF Grant DBI-1300426 is a $12 million+ grant for the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, which told the NSF it would "provide scientific insights into problems such as the control of invasive species, limiting impacts of infectious diseases, and suggesting new methods for drug design."

Perhaps Matzke claims academic freedom bills are an "infectious disease," but I doubt most taxpayers who paid for the grant would agree. And I have no idea how he might connect his writing on academic freedom legislation to research about molluscs.

If Matzke used taxpayer funds intended to underwrite serious scientific research to produce this silly piece about the politics of the evolution debate, then the National Science Foundation should consider asking for some of its grant money back.

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



There is a difference between "research was funded by" and "I was supported by".

West apparently doesn't understand the concept of "support". Even when one has personal projects, if one publishes those one acknowledges the funding sponsors who made it possible for one to eat, have a roof over one's head, and pay the broadband internet bill. It doesn't mean that the grants were specifically about those things, and it doesn't mean that the funds were "misused" that one has a life beyond one's specific funded research. But in West's depauperate world, apparently courtesy is merely one of the things lacking besides charity.

I'd say that Nick might have grounds for a defamation case in West's intemperate response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The amount of both desperation and ignorance that goes into a claim like that is just amazing.  Matzke really strikes a nerve with those folks, and for good reason.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 18 2015,11:22

Nick has < a response at PandasThumb > pointing out that he used techniques for the creationist legislation that he had developed and applied under the research grants in the acknowledgments, giving another reason why West is out to lunch on this.

Plus, he got in a dig at West over the whole intolerance for academic freedom thing. Bonus!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 18 2015,11:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2015,09:56)
Nick Matzke's < paper on the evolution of antievolution legislation > was published in Science yesterday. The DI's John G. West posted a < screed > accusing Nick of misusing NSF research funding.

Here is Nick's bit in the paper that West is upset about:

 

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Helpful comments were provided by E. Scott, G. Branch, J. Rosenau, E. Meikle, C. Knight, J. Felsenstein, S. Kawano, J. Louys, M. Lawing, and N. Jackson. N.J.M. was supported by NSF Awards 0919124, DBI1300426 and Australian Research Council DE150101773.

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



And here is West's accusation:

 

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

A more serious issue is whether Matzke misappropriated taxpayer funds in order to write his article. Matzke discloses in the article's acknowledgements that his research was funded by two National Science Foundation grants. But if you look up those grants, they appear to have nothing to do with the article he published.

Indeed, NSF Grant 0919124 is a $422,000 grant intended to "develop bivalve molluscs as a preeminent model for evolutionary studies...." And NSF Grant DBI-1300426 is a $12 million+ grant for the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, which told the NSF it would "provide scientific insights into problems such as the control of invasive species, limiting impacts of infectious diseases, and suggesting new methods for drug design."

Perhaps Matzke claims academic freedom bills are an "infectious disease," but I doubt most taxpayers who paid for the grant would agree. And I have no idea how he might connect his writing on academic freedom legislation to research about molluscs.

If Matzke used taxpayer funds intended to underwrite serious scientific research to produce this silly piece about the politics of the evolution debate, then the National Science Foundation should consider asking for some of its grant money back.

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



There is a difference between "research was funded by" and "I was supported by".

West apparently doesn't understand the concept of "support". Even when one has personal projects, if one publishes those one acknowledges the funding sponsors who made it possible for one to eat, have a roof over one's head, and pay the broadband internet bill. It doesn't mean that the grants were specifically about those things, and it doesn't mean that the funds were "misused" that one has a life beyond one's specific funded research. But in West's depauperate world, apparently courtesy is merely one of the things lacking besides charity.

I'd say that Nick might have grounds for a defamation case in West's intemperate response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We have nothing to hide.

So quit exposing our tawdry shifts and dissimulations.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 18 2015,15:43

This has been too funny.  :D
Posted by: KevinB on Dec. 18 2015,16:27

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2015,11:22)
Nick has < a response at PandasThumb > pointing out that he used techniques for the creationist legislation that he had developed and applied under the research grants in the acknowledgments, giving another reason why West is out to lunch on this.

Plus, he got in a dig at West over the whole intolerance for academic freedom thing. Bonus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The DI is probably having a conniption fit, because one paper in Science probably outpoints the DI's entire publication record for the last 5 years.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 18 2015,22:46

If West looked up < NSF Grant 0919124 > he'd find, to his great surprise, that it had been awarded by the < NSF Program in Phylogenetic Systematics >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. Phylogenetic Systematics program. Supports research that addresses significant questions about organismal evolution using phylogenetic approaches. The primary foci of this program are to investigate the origins of biodiversity and to resolve the relationships among species across the hierarchy of life. All "tree-based" approaches to studies of organismal evolution, including tree-building at all taxonomic levels, tree-based studies of character evolution, and tree-enabled comparative biology fall within this program. Projects that build, refine, and use phylogenies to study biogeographic distributions; temporal patterns of evolution; evolution of morphological, physiological, developmental, behavioral and molecular traits; adaptation; or other macroevolutionary patterns are appropriate. Projects that use phylogenies to produce revisionary classifications and monographs are also appropriate. Additionally, proposals that advance theory and methods of phylogenetic analysis and phylogenetic comparative approaches are also encouraged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Dec. 19 2015,00:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The amount of both desperation and ignorance that goes into a claim like that is just amazing.  Matzke really strikes a nerve with those folks, and for good reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Good old soccer tactics (if you can get away with it), get the man, not the ball.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 19 2015,08:35

It looks like all the DI has left to do is feed the confirmation bias of their supporters.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 19 2015,09:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And NSF Grant DBI-1300426 is a $12 million+ grant for the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, which told the NSF it would "provide scientific insights into problems such as the control of invasive species, limiting impacts of infectious diseases, and suggesting new methods for drug design."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think "invasive species" and "infectious disease" describe ID quite well. So it appears that the funding was appropriately used.
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 21 2015,10:13

< >

From here:

< http://www.discovery.org/id....i....d....id >

Read this page:

< http://www.faithbibleonline.org/about-u....beliefs >

All science so far!
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 21 2015,11:23

< http://www.faithbibleonline.org/about-u....beliefs >

worked better for me...
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 21 2015,12:36

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 21 2015,09:23)
< http://www.faithbibleonline.org/about-u....beliefs >

worked better for me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quack, I'm not sure what you mean. Did my link not work for you? I just tried your link and mine and both of them took me to the same page.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 21 2015,16:25

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 21 2015,12:36)
 
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 21 2015,09:23)
< http://www.faithbibleonline.org/about-u....beliefs >

worked better for me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quack, I'm not sure what you mean. Did my link not work for you? I just tried your link and mine and both of them took me to the same page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know either, now your link works but it did not work for me earlier today. Must've been a quirk somewhere around here.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Jan. 03 2016,21:38

This news is a few days old now, and has been mentioned at various blogs, but I think it merits marking here: Casey Luskin is leaving the DI - < ENV link >. The question that no-one else seems to have asked is what is going to happen to the Casey Luskin Award?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 03 2016,22:56

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 03 2016,21:38)
This news is a few days old now, and has been mentioned at various blogs, but I think it merits marking here: Casey Luskin is leaving the DI - < ENV link >. The question that no-one else seems to have asked is what is going to happen to the Casey Luskin Award?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It will still be awarded.


Posted by: sparc on Jan. 08 2016,22:56

Ann Gauger, molecular biologist and new director of science communication at Discovery Institute, denies evolution theory. Thus, it is surprising that she thinks loss of genetic diversity might impose a problem for wild salmon populations:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gauger is concerned about possible unintended consequences such as the loss of genetic diversity. If the sterile, genetically engineered salmon become the main version of salmon, they will all be of one genotype, leaving them particularly vulnerable to disease. Our knowledge of the way things are designed is very limited, she said: “We don’t know what a particular change will do downstream.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One may wonder how sterile fish could become the dominating salmon in the first place, though.
< ASSF >. Also at < EN&V >.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 18 2016,12:40

< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
Posted by: khan on Jan. 18 2016,13:40

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,13:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Institute pointed out that it did not advocate pushing intelligent design into public school science classes. Furthermore, the theory of intelligent design as articulated by scholars affiliated with Discovery Institute was not "faith-based," although it had positive implications for faith.

"Lying piece of shit" comes to mind.

I further reiterated our request to Ms. Kenaston that the UMC disclose the list of approved exhibitors at the General Conference and the list of members of the "Commission on the General Conference" that made the decision to ban Discovery Institute.

So they can publish them with phone and address?
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Jan. 18 2016,13:51

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. People being banned simply because they disagree? This sounds vaguely familiar. Where have I seen something like this happening before?....
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 18 2016,13:56

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The DI claims UMC leadership is "under fire" because the DI got disinvited.

So far as I can see, the only "fire" going on is the DI itself being annoyed and whining about it.

The UMC has a short, clear resolution from 2008 noting that the UMC supports separation of church and state, and thus opposes religious antievolution in public school science classrooms.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 18 2016,14:13

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 18 2016,14:29

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,15:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How to win friends and influence people; discotute version?
Posted by: REC on Jan. 18 2016,15:37

Quote (khan @ Jan. 18 2016,14:29)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,15:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How to win friends and influence people; discotute version?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would the DI do at a vendor fair? Sell Meyer's books (from other publishers) or hand out Luskin's pamphlets?

Because this will stir up evangelical hate towards mainline Protestants, the UD thread will be a thing of beauty. Already:

"UMC is full of anti-Christian phonies" followed by a link to a page ranting about feminist pro-gay pastors who don't punish adultery.

"opposition to ID is opposition to the God of the Bible"

"Many public schools are now teaching the basic tenets of Islam. Is the United Methodist Church on record as opposed to this as well"

Big tent, right....
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 18 2016,15:54

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,12:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That ploy worked really well for Bill Dembski at Baylor.

:D
Posted by: NoName on Jan. 18 2016,16:13

Quote (REC @ Jan. 18 2016,16:37)
...

"opposition to ID is opposition to the God of the Bible"

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly.
Any form of design-based theology points to a deity or set of deities who are not omnipotent.  Design as such is required only for beings subject to the recalcitrant nature of materials.  It is prima facie absurd, and heretical, to assert that the standard-model Christian god performed acts of design.
Heretics, the lot of them.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 18 2016,18:08

I hear that the UMC is keeping out flat-earthers, too.

It's astonishing.

ppolish:  "History shows that when the Church is uncomfortable with your scientific idea – you probably have a deep idea. Exciting times:)"

Yeah, better get interested in that scientific idea of evolution that a bunch of religious zealots opposes without evidence.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 18 2016,18:30

Quote (REC @ Jan. 18 2016,15:37)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 18 2016,14:29)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,15:13)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How to win friends and influence people; discotute version?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would the DI do at a vendor fair? Sell Meyer's books (from other publishers) or hand out Luskin's pamphlets?

Because this will stir up evangelical hate towards mainline Protestants, the UD thread will be a thing of beauty. Already:

"UMC is full of anti-Christian phonies" followed by a link to a page ranting about feminist pro-gay pastors who don't punish adultery.

"opposition to ID is opposition to the God of the Bible"

"Many public schools are now teaching the basic tenets of Islam. Is the United Methodist Church on record as opposed to this as well"

Big tent, right....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DonaldM at UD explains why we should all take the DI's side against the UMC.  Seems the UMC has Home Depot and Staples as sponsors and everyone knows those two God-hating stores are advocates of gay rights and same-sex marriage!

Whatever are the ID Christian homophobic bigots to do??   :D
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 19 2016,01:28

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,15:54)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,12:13)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That ploy worked really well for Bill Dembski at Baylor.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to see them still true to form. Bodes well for evolution.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 19 2016,10:04

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 19 2016,01:28)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,15:54)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,12:13)
     
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That ploy worked really well for Bill Dembski at Baylor.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to see them still true to form. Bodes well for evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Tooter butthurt continues unabated.  :D  They've got three more posts, two at EN&V and another at UD whining about the Methodists being so unfair!  I even saw one IDiot at TSZ suggesting the DI should sue the Methodists for not allowing the IDiot anti-science stupidity to be presented.

Do these people have any connection to reality at all?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 19 2016,20:56

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 19 2016,08:04)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 19 2016,01:28)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,15:54)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 18 2016,12:13)
       
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 18 2016,12:40)
< The Disco'tutes banned from United Methodist conference. >

Heheheh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, the Tooters really have a carrot up their butt over this one!  :D   Besides screaming bloody murder at both EN&V and UD they've also set up a web page with the names and email addresses of the UMC leadership and requested all IDiots to flood UMC with nastygrams.

What a bunch of shitheads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That ploy worked really well for Bill Dembski at Baylor.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to see them still true to form. Bodes well for evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Tooter butthurt continues unabated.  :D  They've got three more posts, two at EN&V and another at UD whining about the Methodists being so unfair!  I even saw one IDiot at TSZ suggesting the DI should sue the Methodists for not allowing the IDiot anti-science stupidity to be presented.

Do these people have any connection to reality at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. They do not.

Hint: The name of that site is pronounced ENVY.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 20 2016,02:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. They do not.

Hint: The name of that site is pronounced ENVY.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had to take a peek, my monitor gave off a whiff of sulphur.
Posted by: KevinB on Jan. 20 2016,06:42

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 20 2016,02:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. They do not.

Hint: The name of that site is pronounced ENVY.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had to take a peek, my monitor gave off a whiff of sulphur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like you were standing to windward of the active eruption on Montserrat (or possibly to windward of the volcano....)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2016,08:05

I wrote < an open letter > to the United Methodist Church about the Discovery Institute hissy fit.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 20 2016,13:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,06:05)
I wrote < an open letter > to the United Methodist Church about the Discovery Institute hissy fit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good letter.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 20 2016,13:36

Of course they really hate it when religious organizations and people disagree with their stance, because it potentially gives the lie to their demonization of science--that it simply won't allow design inferences in biology due to ideological commitments.

Hence the caterwauling when Methodists say the same thing, that it's not science and that it is religious apologetics aimed at turning public education into a propaganda machine for their purposes.

Now it's an unwritten pact between these evil religionists and the impossibly wicked Darwinists.  Christianity is being sold out by the Quislings (to use Barry's word from a different context), and, worst of all, there is a small threat that they'll have to confront the reality that they're just pushing apologetic pseudoscience.

But it's a small threat that can be drowned out by bellowing out threats and demonizing rhetoric.  I really doubt that they're trying to do much more than quell their own fears of inadequacy and of the discovery of their real motives (like everyone paying attention doesn't already know) with this tempest in a teapot, since the Methodists and the wider world are highly unlikely to give a single damn.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 20 2016,13:59

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,11:07)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,06:05)
I wrote < an open letter > to the United Methodist Church about the Discovery Institute hissy fit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good letter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear, hear.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2016,14:21

I got a nice "thank you" note back from my email to the UMC. Apparently the DI didn't make friends and failed to influence people in part by using personal email addresses for the harassment campaign.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 20 2016,16:42

< More butt-hurt from the Disco'tutes. >

:p
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Jan. 20 2016,17:00

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,16:42)
< More butt-hurt from the Disco'tutes. >

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must be missing something here. DI and UD seem to have their knickers in a knot for not being allowed to present their science (no religion here) at a religious conference. I wonder if Dawkins, or Moran, or Gould, or any other evolutionary scientist would be as upset as the DI and UD are if they were told that they were not allowed to have a table at a religious conference? Somehow, I think not.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 20 2016,18:16

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 20 2016,17:00)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,16:42)
< More butt-hurt from the Disco'tutes. >

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must be missing something here. DI and UD seem to have their knickers in a knot for not being allowed to present their science (no religion here) at a religious conference. I wonder if Dawkins, or Moran, or Gould, or any other evolutionary scientist would be as upset as the DI and UD are if they were told that they were not allowed to have a table at a religious conference? Somehow, I think not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're not pissed off because someone wouldn't help them propagate the lie the ID movement isn't about pushing religion.  That happens all the time.  They're pissed off because this time another religious institution said no to their lying.   :D
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 20 2016,18:21

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,16:42)
< More butt-hurt from the Disco'tutes. >

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Counting UD the IDiots have put out 9, count 'em, 9 separate articles in the last two days attacking the UMC. :p

I don't remember seeing the Liars for Jesus get this spun up over Kitzmiller v Dover.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 20 2016,18:28

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 20 2016,16:21)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,16:42)
< More butt-hurt from the Disco'tutes. >

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Counting UD the IDiots have put out 9, count 'em, 9 separate articles in the last two days attacking the UMC. :p

I don't remember seeing the Liars for Jesus get this spun up over Kitzmiller v Dover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have they done a video of John Wesley farting yet?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 20 2016,18:45

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 20 2016,18:28)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 20 2016,16:21)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,16:42)
< More butt-hurt from the Disco'tutes. >

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Counting UD the IDiots have put out 9, count 'em, 9 separate articles in the last two days attacking the UMC. :p

I don't remember seeing the Liars for Jesus get this spun up over Kitzmiller v Dover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have they done a video of John Wesley farting yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're saving that for the movie.

Got to keep it special.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 20 2016,20:56

Dylan sang about him. Hell, gave him an album cover.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2016,21:37

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 20 2016,20:56)
Dylan sang about him. Hell, gave him an album cover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL

Nice use of ambiguity there.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 20 2016,22:00

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 20 2016,21:59)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2016,11:07)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,06:05)
I wrote < an open letter > to the United Methodist Church about the Discovery Institute hissy fit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good letter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear, hear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded. An excellent potted history of Creo-Fundy legal shenanigans and abject losses.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 21 2016,15:09

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,14:21)
I got a nice "thank you" note back from my email to the UMC. Apparently the DI didn't make friends and failed to influence people in part by using personal email addresses for the harassment campaign.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For shame, Dr. Elsberry. You know very well that the DiscoTute did "influence people… by using personal email addresses for the harassment campaign". It may be that the specifics of said influence are a tad different from what the DiscoTute crew originally envisioned, but influence is influence! How dare you spread such mendacious lies about the fine, upstanding Xtians of the DiscoTute? Harrumph!

Yours,

Sincerely,

In nomine domine,

Et cetera ad nauseum,

[illegible signature]
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 21 2016,23:35

LOL!  Another day, another three whiny posts over at EN&V bawling at the UMC.  Apparently UMC leadership is getting pretty pissed off at the spam emails being generated by the DI's clown army.  Can you just imagine what Joe G and mapou wrote?  :p  This has the potential to be an even bigger FAIL for the DI than it already is.   :D
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 22 2016,03:02

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 21 2016,23:35)
LOL!  Another day, another three whiny posts over at EN&V bawling at the UMC.  Apparently UMC leadership is getting pretty pissed off at the spam emails being generated by the DI's clown army.  Can you just imagine what Joe G and mapou wrote?  :p  This has the potential to be an even bigger FAIL for the DI than it already is.   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Schadenfreude, the best freude there are?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 22 2016,13:30

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 21 2016,23:35)
LOL!  Another day, another three whiny posts over at EN&V bawling at the UMC.  Apparently UMC leadership is getting pretty pissed off at the spam emails being generated by the DI's clown army.  Can you just imagine what Joe G and mapou wrote?  :p  This has the potential to be an even bigger FAIL for the DI than it already is.   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is they've already printed the books.
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 26 2016,06:15

They put a remarkable amount of time and effort in it. It is most beautiful to see how they fail to gather a big media storm: The UMC is doing the right thing, as there is no press-release, but  only private correspondence with the DI.

Here are my thoughts on their latest stunt - a poll:

< OMG - The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1! >


Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Jan. 26 2016,09:25

Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 26 2016,06:15)
They put a remarkable amount of time and effort in it. It is most beautiful to see how they fail to gather a big media storm: The UMC is doing the right thing, as there is no press-release, but  only private correspondence with the DI.

Here are my thoughts on their latest stunt - a poll:

< OMG - The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The link to your web-site that was posted at UD does not work.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 26 2016,10:05

Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 26 2016,06:15)
They put a remarkable amount of time and effort in it. It is most beautiful to see how they fail to gather a big media storm: The UMC is doing the right thing, as there is no press-release, but  only private correspondence with the DI.

Here are my thoughts on their latest stunt - a poll:

< OMG - The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Tooters' latest phony poll is hilarious!  They made up their own incredibly biased questions in a do-it-yourself poll website then cherry picked the answers to show "70% of the country thinks the DI's shit doesn't stink".   :D

These clowns continue to provide entertainment that's worth the price of admission.  :)
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 26 2016,11:19

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 26 2016,18:05)
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 26 2016,06:15)
They put a remarkable amount of time and effort in it. It is most beautiful to see how they fail to gather a big media storm: The UMC is doing the right thing, as there is no press-release, but  only private correspondence with the DI.

Here are my thoughts on their latest stunt - a poll:

< OMG - The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Tooters' latest phony poll is hilarious!  They made up their own incredibly biased questions in a do-it-yourself poll website then cherry picked the answers to show "70% of the country thinks the DI's shit doesn't stink".   :D

These clowns continue to provide entertainment that's worth the price of admission.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Gary thought he was posting here and clicked their vote button 900,000 times by accident before breakfast when he was dreaming about making shit up.
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 26 2016,12:06

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 26 2016,17:19)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 26 2016,18:05)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 26 2016,06:15)
They put a remarkable amount of time and effort in it. It is most beautiful to see how they fail to gather a big media storm: The UMC is doing the right thing, as there is no press-release, but  only private correspondence with the DI.

Here are my thoughts on their latest stunt - a poll:

< OMG - The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Tooters' latest phony poll is hilarious!  They made up their own incredibly biased questions in a do-it-yourself poll website then cherry picked the answers to show "70% of the country thinks the DI's shit doesn't stink".   :D

These clowns continue to provide entertainment that's worth the price of admission.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Gary thought he was posting here and clicked their vote button 900,000 times by accident before breakfast when he was dreaming about making shit up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The poll-website is absolutely kosher. The Diso'tute isn't: When you look at the results, you see that the first six questions Q1-Q6 are missing from their reports. I strongly suspect that those were meant to set the right "mood" for the all important seventh question Q7....
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 26 2016,12:07

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 26 2016,15:25)
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 26 2016,06:15)
They put a remarkable amount of time and effort in it. It is most beautiful to see how they fail to gather a big media storm: The UMC is doing the right thing, as there is no press-release, but  only private correspondence with the DI.

Here are my thoughts on their latest stunt - a poll:

< OMG - The Discovery Institute is Committing Censorship!!!11!!1! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The link to your web-site that was posted at UD does not work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, I added the correct link!


Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 02 2016,09:08

Over at Evolution Creationist News & Victimhood Lee M. Spetner a retired PhD physicist and Jewish creationist < spits chips > over < David E. Levin's review of Spetner's latest vanity publication for sale on Amazon >.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 02 2016,12:44

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 02 2016,09:08)
Over at Evolution Creationist News & Victimhood Lee M. Spetner a retired PhD physicist and Jewish creationist < spits chips > over < David E. Levin's review of Spetner's latest vanity publication for sale on Amazon >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The false handedness of  the DNA molecule on Spetner's book should not be left unnoticed

Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 02 2016,13:00

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 02 2016,09:08)
Over at Evolution Creationist News & Victimhood Lee M. Spetner a retired PhD physicist and Jewish creationist < spits chips > over < David E. Levin's review of Spetner's latest vanity publication for sale on Amazon >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well somebody doesn't understand evolution, but I'm sure that Spetner does not correctly identify that person...
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Feb. 02 2016,14:04

Say what you want, but you can't deny that Spetner has a firm grasp of probability theory:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That [certain] proteins arose by random mutation is not only an unsupported conjecture, but to have these proteins evolve by random mutations defies the essence of probability that says that an event with too small a probability is unlikely to occur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 02 2016,17:24

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 02 2016,12:04)
Say what you want, but you can't deny that Spetner has a firm grasp of probability theory:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That [certain] proteins arose by random mutation is not only an unsupported conjecture, but to have these proteins evolve by random mutations defies the essence of probability that says that an event with too small a probability is unlikely to occur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Awesome!

I look forward to Joe's co-authorship of the statistical methods section (see my sig) in the next edition.
Posted by: KevinB on Feb. 03 2016,07:52

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 02 2016,14:04)
Say what you want, but you can't deny that Spetner has a firm grasp of probability theory:
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....but with the wrong hand?

< Flanders and Swann - Misalliance >
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 30 2016,23:08

What would the ID/creationist movement be without Granville Sewell? And what would he be without outlets not allowing comments?
< link >
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 31 2016,09:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Common Sense Law of Physics

Granville Sewell March 27, 2016 1:16 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've only read the title, and i already want to punch someone.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 31 2016,10:49

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 31 2016,17:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Common Sense Law of Physics

Granville Sewell March 27, 2016 1:16 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've only read the title, and i already want to punch someone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a physics law for that!
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 31 2016,10:57

These posts are from Feb. but  < see Joe Gallien get his ass kicked by reviewer David E. Levin on the Amazon re: Dr Lee M Spetner's "The Evolution Revolution" - Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 31 2016,20:49

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 02 2016,07:08)
Over at Evolution Creationist News & Victimhood Lee M. Spetner a retired PhD physicist and Jewish creationist < spits chips > over < David E. Levin's review of Spetner's latest vanity publication for sale on Amazon >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The comments following Levin's Amazon review were great.


Posted by: DiEb on April 08 2016,17:46

The same procedure as every year:

< Good News for Summer Seminar Students -- We Are Extending the Application Deadline Through April 14 >
Posted by: Woodbine on April 08 2016,19:10



Fuck's sake.
Posted by: JohnW on April 08 2016,23:39

Quote (Woodbine @ April 08 2016,17:10)


Fuck's sake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a well, it's a latrine.
Posted by: rthearle on April 09 2016,05:59

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2016,12:44)
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 02 2016,09:08)
Over at Evolution Creationist News & Victimhood Lee M. Spetner a retired PhD physicist and Jewish creationist < spits chips > over < David E. Levin's review of Spetner's latest vanity publication for sale on Amazon >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The false handedness of  the DNA molecule on Spetner's book should not be left unnoticed

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The false handedness of  the DNA molecule on Spetner's book should not be left unnoticed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think it's clear enough which strand is in the foreground for that charge to be made.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 09 2016,07:17

Look again.
Posted by: Learned Hand on May 16 2016,17:57

Casey Luskin isn't twiddling his thumbs in retirement. But neither is he accomplishing much. The DI's latest "please pay attention to us" newsletter reminds us all that he published a law review article complaining that teaching evolution is inextricably intertwined with "anti-religious activism."

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016....25.html >

This article comes to us by way of the Harv- nope. I mean Ya- no, not that either. Maybe the Stanf-... hmmmm. Oh, Trinity Law School. Which has a long-term goal of being approved by the ABA (in other words, yikes). But if its graduates have trouble passing the bar, at least they know they're shoveling money down the maw of the #2 institution on the list of "Most Devout Christian Law Schools."

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._School >

All science and/or serious jurisprudence so far.
Posted by: Henry J on May 16 2016,20:34

The reason it's "intertwined" is largely because science deniers like them keep telling everyone that their dogma conflicts with the scientific conclusions. Keep doing that, and the percentage of educated people in their religions is going to drop. And, as far as I can tell, it's largely (maybe even mostly?) them doing it, not scientists as a group.
Posted by: sparc on May 16 2016,22:02

Quote (Learned Hand @ May 16 2016,17:57)
This article comes to us by way of the Harv- nope. I mean Ya- no, not that either. Maybe the Stanf-... hmmmm. Oh, Trinity Law School. Which has a long-term goal of being approved by the ABA (in other words, yikes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did Waterloo come to my mind?
Posted by: KevinB on May 17 2016,11:03

Quote (sparc @ May 16 2016,22:02)
 
Quote (Learned Hand @ May 16 2016,17:57)
This article comes to us by way of the Harv- nope. I mean Ya- no, not that either. Maybe the Stanf-... hmmmm. Oh, Trinity Law School. Which has a long-term goal of being approved by the ABA (in other words, yikes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did Waterloo come to my mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um. This isn't the Mornington Crescent thread.

BTW "Waterloo" is a very risky move. People have been dismissed for playing "Waterloo" at the wrong time.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 17 2016,13:58

Doesn't mix well with metal.
Posted by: Learned Hand on May 19 2016,00:35

Maybe this is already a known thing, but yikes: Dembski goes anti-vax.

< https://billdembski.com/tribeca....-vaxxed >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 19 2016,05:58

Quote (Learned Hand @ May 19 2016,00:35)
Maybe this is already a known thing, but yikes: Dembski goes anti-vax.

< https://billdembski.com/tribeca....-vaxxed >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< It was discussed at TSZ, > but I don't know about here per se.  Dreary old censorship accusation.  They certainly don't have much imagination.

Not bad to remind us of crank magnetism in any case.  ID may be remembered not only for demonizing evolutionary theory and anything associated with it, but for Phillip Johnson's HIV denials, along with Dembski's faith healing and anti-vax BS (Corny's managed to mangle some of that too--Darwinists claim that there are no risks from vaccines, or something along that line).  The AGW conspiracy must be pointed out repeatedly, of course.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 20 2016,13:53

I recon this will be mentioned eventually:

< David DeWolf, a Gonzaga University law professor and senior fellow at the conservative Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. > is running for the Washington State Supreme Court.  :O
Posted by: sparc on July 21 2016,23:07

According to EN&V sex is ID. However, one may wonder how they could make this groundbreaking discovery with the lights off.
< links to chapters of Glicksman's "The designed body" at EN&V >
Posted by: fusilier on July 22 2016,06:35

Quote (sparc @ July 22 2016,00:07)
According to EN&V sex is ID. However, one may wonder how they could make this groundbreaking discovery with the lights off.
< links to chapters of Glicksman's "The designed body" at EN&V >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My excised prostate gland begs to differ with Dr. Glicksman.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 17 2016,21:05

Oh goody... Now Klinghoffer has suggested the fiction offers a way to breach the science/religion barrier in his praise of an ID "thriller" The Soul of the Matter. < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016....37.html >

Good grief...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The story is one of redemption and enlightenment, as a cynic rethinks the tenets of materialism he previously took for granted. The book can serve as a helpful introduction to ID, as accessible (in its very different way) as Doug Axe's new book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. The argument for design can be recondite and these two books together go a long distance to making it comprehensible to the most general of readers.

Obviously, Mr. Buff hasn't advanced the scientific case for ID. However he has done a service by offering a smart, often exciting story that is intellectually serious and spiritually earnest and that will, one hopes, place ultimate questions about man's place in the universe before a deservedly wide audience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All science so far... except for the religion... and the fiction parts.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 18 2016,12:34

Take out those exceptions, and what's left?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 18 2016,13:05

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 18 2016,12:34)
Take out those exceptions, and what's left?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Farty noises?

Edited to correct autocorrect.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 18 2016,17:08

...spirituality earnest..?
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 19 2016,06:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously, Mr. Buff hasn't advanced the scientific case for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Klinghoffer doesn't seriously and earnestly want to imply anyboy else had or does he?
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 19 2016,10:20

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 18 2016,20:34)
Take out those exceptions, and what's left?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A basket of idiots.
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 19 2016,10:57

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 17 2016,19:05)
Oh goody... Now Klinghoffer has suggested the fiction offers a way to breach the science/religion barrier in his praise of an ID "thriller" The Soul of the Matter. < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016.......37.html >

Good grief...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The story is one of redemption and enlightenment, as a cynic rethinks the tenets of materialism he previously took for granted. The book can serve as a helpful introduction to ID, as accessible (in its very different way) as Doug Axe's new book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. The argument for design can be recondite and these two books together go a long distance to making it comprehensible to the most general of readers.

Obviously, Mr. Buff hasn't advanced the scientific case for ID. However he has done a service by offering a smart, often exciting story that is intellectually serious and spiritually earnest and that will, one hopes, place ultimate questions about man's place in the universe before a deservedly wide audience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All science so far... except for the religion... and the fiction parts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The argument for design...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Argument Regarding Design, Klingy.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 20 2016,00:58

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 19 2016,10:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 17 2016,19:05)
Oh goody... Now Klinghoffer has suggested the fiction offers a way to breach the science/religion barrier in his praise of an ID "thriller" The Soul of the Matter. < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016.......37.html >

Good grief...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The story is one of redemption and enlightenment, as a cynic rethinks the tenets of materialism he previously took for granted. The book can serve as a helpful introduction to ID, as accessible (in its very different way) as Doug Axe's new book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. The argument for design can be recondite and these two books together go a long distance to making it comprehensible to the most general of readers.

Obviously, Mr. Buff hasn't advanced the scientific case for ID. However he has done a service by offering a smart, often exciting story that is intellectually serious and spiritually earnest and that will, one hopes, place ultimate questions about man's place in the universe before a deservedly wide audience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All science so far... except for the religion... and the fiction parts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The argument for design...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Argument Regarding Design, Klingy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


according to abbrevations.com TAFD refers to "Theoretical Air Free Density" of concrete but surely describes Klinghoffer's arguments as well
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 20 2016,01:03

< here > the book is listed under  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New Hardcover Mysteries for September 2016
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just wondering if this refers to the fact that such books still find some readership.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 20 2016,10:08

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 20 2016,09:03)
< here > the book is listed under      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New Hardcover Mysteries for September 2016
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just wondering if this refers to the fact that such books still find some readership.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends if you're a Dan Brown clone fan.
After reading this
< The Lost Symbol and The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown's 20 worst sentences > which has this gem
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Famously, comedian Stewart Lee mocked him for using the sentence “The famous man looked at the red cup” in his bestselling The Da Vinci Code....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I'd spelunk briefly into the shallow fetid nether world of Fundy true crime fiction. And I was not disappointed....bingo! The THIRD! sentence begins with


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Through bursts of showers on a chilly, black night,....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The above image was plagiarized from some smarty pants best selling author's web page here....
< Dark and Stormy Was the Night: The Bulwer-Lytton Writing Contest >
With amongst other quotable quotes ......this snotty nosed bit of snark. Quite my cup of tea really.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman did a riff on it in their wonderful novel, Good Omens:
“It wasn’t a dark and stormy night. It should have been, but there’s the weather for you. For every mad scientist who’s had a convenient thunderstorm just on the night his Great Work is complete and lying on the slab, there have been dozens who’ve sat around aimlessly under the peaceful stars while Igor clocks up the overtime.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 20 2016,12:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there have been dozens who’ve sat around aimlessly under the peaceful stars while Igor clocks up the overtime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, that's probably why they're mad!

Or maybe not.
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 20 2016,14:44

I just read "Jingo", originally published 20-some years ago but quite timely today.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 08 2016,13:20

From David Klinghoffer we learn that ID proponents Paul Nelson (of Paul Nelson's Day famous) and Biological lab lead "scientist" Doug Axe joined the RoyalSociety meeting on < "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" >. Seemingly, it did go as well as Doug may have expected since he was somewhat pissed off by this slide from Andy Gardner's presentation (< https://twitter.com/DougAxe....2630144 >



Posted by: NoName on Nov. 08 2016,14:24

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 20 2016,15:44)
I just read "Jingo", originally published 20-some years ago but quite timely today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only we had a Vetinari.  And a Vimes.
Posted by: fusilier on Nov. 09 2016,06:31

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2016,15:24)
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 20 2016,15:44)
I just read "Jingo", originally published 20-some years ago but quite timely today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only we had a Vetinari.  And a Vimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, we may now have a Lorenzo the Kind.
Posted by: NoName on Nov. 09 2016,06:45

Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 09 2016,07:31)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2016,15:24)
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 20 2016,15:44)
I just read "Jingo", originally published 20-some years ago but quite timely today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only we had a Vetinari.  And a Vimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, we may now have a Lorenzo the Kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it was that or Lord Snapcase* in a pantsuit.
[*I hope I'm remembering that right]

The was one election guaranteed to continue the trend of my lifetime (which goes back before Nixon) -- each president is worse than the ones before.  It has been consistently, persistently, true.
And in this election it simply wouldn't have mattered who won.  Each was worse than the other.

Or as a friend put it on Facebook -- "How much did America not want Hillary for president?  Trump.  That's how much."
Posted by: DiEb on Dec. 09 2016,03:03

I don't get it: A two year old < Open Letter to Professors Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers > is re-published at DI EN&V - hasn't anybody replied to it in the meantime?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 09 2017,14:32

Over at DI EN&V, Denyse O'Leary interviewed an “anonymous” Israeli biochemist who has studied sphingolipids (a class of phospholipids) for 30 years after his 1987 post doc. His lab has focused on Gaucher disease for several years. He was unnamed because,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“He asked that his identity be kept in confidence -- a fair request given that those who dislike his views have targeted him in the past. For scientists sympathetic to ID, it's a familiar story.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have these idiots not heard of Google? Tony Futerman probably isn’t stupid enough to think he would be “anonymous” for more than the 20 seconds to type “Israel sphingolipids Gaucher” into the search window, pick out his public relations department blurb from the Weizmann Institute of Science and read enough to confirm his data. < http://www.weizmann-usa.org/media......se.aspx >


Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 09 2017,15:17


Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 25 2017,18:05

A new movie was released last week, < "Is Genesis History" >  which claims there are big numbers of 'scientists' proving the earth is ~6,000 years old, and Noah's Flood really happened.

One of the 'scientists' interviewed was Disco'tute Paul Nelson.

Today Nelson is all butt sore;

< New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It >
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 26 2017,01:46

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 25 2017,18:05)
A new movie was released last week, < "Is Genesis History" >  which claims there are big numbers of 'scientists' proving the earth is ~6,000 years old, and Noah's Flood really happened.

One of the 'scientists' interviewed was Disco'tute Paul Nelson.

Today Nelson is all butt sore;

< New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He could have been aware of how creationist "documentary" filmmakers treat their interviewees or did he miss "Expelled" a film he actually appeared in?



ETA:
BTW, it's only 40 days until the 13th Paul Nelson Day.


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Feb. 26 2017,19:12

I'm glad to see that Paulie still has his bag of powerful intuitions.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 01 2017,03:45

Over at EN&V you are invited to meet Amy a young biology student with a heartbreaking history:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meet Amy, for example, who has been passionate about math and biology as long as she can remember. In her late teens, she devoured books by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and Stephen Meyer. Full of hope for the future, she headed off to college to study molecular biology at a prestigious research university in the Midwest.
But in her first college biology class she was immediately confronted by ridicule for the idea that anything but purposeless and random processes are responsible for the seeming design of life. Instructors stifled any discussion that went outside of their materialist views of life's origins.

She persevered because her passions and convictions were strong. After years of increasing hostility, Amy felt alone and isolated in the midst of all these bright minds that had been constricted by the limits of Darwinian materialism.

But Amy was lucky. A friend and longtime supporter of Discovery Institute's CSC told her about the Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences. She applied and was accepted. The experience transformed her life, as evidenced by her comment in the closing survey we distribute to students:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel deeply privileged to have met the Discovery Institute people...I think that without their intervention I would not have gone back to university. Being around like-minded people makes me feel less alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


However, you should be aware that the picture illustrating the text is just < another stock photo downloaded from the web >.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Mar. 01 2017,12:10

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 01 2017,02:45)
Over at EN&V you are invited to meet Amy a young biology student with a heartbreaking history:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meet Amy, for example, who has been passionate about math and biology as long as she can remember. In her late teens, she devoured books by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and Stephen Meyer. Full of hope for the future, she headed off to college to study molecular biology at a prestigious research university in the Midwest.
But in her first college biology class she was immediately confronted by ridicule for the idea that anything but purposeless and random processes are responsible for the seeming design of life. Instructors stifled any discussion that went outside of their materialist views of life's origins.

She persevered because her passions and convictions were strong. After years of increasing hostility, Amy felt alone and isolated in the midst of all these bright minds that had been constricted by the limits of Darwinian materialism.

But Amy was lucky. A friend and longtime supporter of Discovery Institute's CSC told her about the Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences. She applied and was accepted. The experience transformed her life, as evidenced by her comment in the closing survey we distribute to students:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel deeply privileged to have met the Discovery Institute people...I think that without their intervention I would not have gone back to university. Being around like-minded people makes me feel less alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


However, you should be aware that the picture illustrating the text is just < another stock photo downloaded from the web >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So?

Maybe the photo was taken while Amy was interning for Dr. Gauger.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 01 2017,13:40

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 01 2017,03:45)
Over at EN&V you are invited to meet Amy a young biology student with a heartbreaking history:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meet Amy, for example, who has been passionate about math and biology as long as she can remember. In her late teens, she devoured books by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and Stephen Meyer. Full of hope for the future, she headed off to college to study molecular biology at a prestigious research university in the Midwest.
But in her first college biology class she was immediately confronted by ridicule for the idea that anything but purposeless and random processes are responsible for the seeming design of life. Instructors stifled any discussion that went outside of their materialist views of life's origins.

She persevered because her passions and convictions were strong. After years of increasing hostility, Amy felt alone and isolated in the midst of all these bright minds that had been constricted by the limits of Darwinian materialism.

But Amy was lucky. A friend and longtime supporter of Discovery Institute's CSC told her about the Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences. She applied and was accepted. The experience transformed her life, as evidenced by her comment in the closing survey we distribute to students:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel deeply privileged to have met the Discovery Institute people...I think that without their intervention I would not have gone back to university. Being around like-minded people makes me feel less alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


However, you should be aware that the picture illustrating the text is just < another stock photo downloaded from the web >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Special ed, like DI classes, clearly has some value.

But you really wouldn't want a picture of her drooling.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 01 2017,21:30

Re "But you really wouldn't want a picture of her drooling."

Then don't ring Pavlov's bell?
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 02 2017,10:50

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2017,05:30)
Re "But you really wouldn't want a picture of her drooling."

Then don't ring Pavlov's bell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For whom the comatose trolls.
Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 02 2017,13:59

Meanwhile, W. Dembski goes for the triple:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William Dembski, a science and culture analyst who formerly served as a leading voice in the Intelligent Design movement, told Baptist Press a "'March for Science' only becomes necessary when ideologues, claiming the mantle of science and seeking to deny it to others, look to politics to decide issues that properly need to be decided by reason and evidence."

Dembski added in written comments that "humanity's role in global warming, the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, the teleology in evolution all deserve healthy debate."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From < http://www.bpnews.net/48419......oncerns >
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2017,14:35

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 02 2017,12:59)
Meanwhile, W. Dembski goes for the triple:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William Dembski, a science and culture analyst who formerly served as a leading voice in the Intelligent Design movement, told Baptist Press a "'March for Science' only becomes necessary when ideologues, claiming the mantle of science and seeking to deny it to others, look to politics to decide issues that properly need to be decided by reason and evidence."

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


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


Maybe if he left out the phrase "claiming the mantle of science", it might become accurate. After all, the reason for said march in the first place was because of ideologues trying to deny stuff.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 16 2017,02:19

The use of left-handed DNA to symbolize ID related threads at EN&V is quite telling


ETA: Unfortunately, this board doesn't recognize png-images.
Here's the link:
< https://www.evolutionnews.org/wp-cont....ign.png >


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 16 2017,03:19

Seemingly, Ann Gauger hasn't learned anything from what she experienced at the < 2007 Wistar Retrospective Symposium >:    

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

< “Nylonase was a pre-existing enzyme, had a pre-existing activity. It was easy to convert it to the ability to degrade nylon [by a] step-wise path. Therefore, there’s no reason to think that the enzyme is a newly derived enzyme from a frame shift. We don’t need that explanation.” >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if the explanation is wrong the fact remains that a pre-existing protein was turned into another (aka derived) protein which degrades a substance not present in nature before the 20th century.
How does this not qualify as evolution?
And why does the DI train students to become professional idiots when they have Ann Gauger?


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 10 2017,09:53

I have a response to David Klinghoffer's < *remarkably* ignorant post on falsifiability >.

< Confusion on Falsifiability Still Prevalent at Discovery Institute >
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 10 2017,16:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 10 2017,07:53)
I have a response to David Klinghoffer's < *remarkably* ignorant post on falsifiability >.

< Confusion on Falsifiability Still Prevalent at Discovery Institute >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.
Posted by: sparc on June 24 2017,23:22

This is just cynical: Turkey wants to ban teaching evolution theory from the 9th grade curriculum and the discovery institute says < this is a bad idea >.
Posted by: sparc on June 24 2017,23:36

In another < EN&V article by Granville Sewell > reports from a conference which name changed over the years from    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First International Conference on Queried Evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

via
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third International Conference on Evolution under Scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

to    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fifth International Congress of Evolution"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and that the latest change was suggested by DI fellow Glenville Sewell.

It should not pass un-noticed Sewell again plagiaraized himself by paraphrazing parts from an older UD article:

UD 20014:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unsatisfied and unconvinced by what he was being taught about evolution at Marmara University in Istanbul, Turkey, 21-year old student Enes Kayan knew there was another side which was never presented in his courses. So in 2012, Enes, a member of the Marmara Young Vision Student Club, decided to organize a symposium in which he and other Marmara students could hear alternative views on evolution, including intelligent design. The idea that evidence against Darwinism, and even for intelligent design, could be freely presented at a university angered some students and professors, and about 300 of them staged a protest, which Enes said actually worked to his advantage as it brought publicity to the event, which was held on May 16-17, 2012.

The event was such a success that Enes decided to organize a similar event the following year, and invite scientists from outside Marmara University, including some from outside Turkey, and the “First International Conference on Queried Evolution,” was held on May 4, 2013 at Marmara University.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

EN&V 2017:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unsatisfied and unconvinced by what he was being taught about evolution at Marmara University in Istanbul, Turkey, 21-year-old student Enes Kayan knew there was another side that was never presented in his courses. So in 2012, Enes, a member of the Marmara Young Vision Student Club, decided to organize a symposium in which he and other Marmara students could hear alternative views on evolution, including intelligent design.

The idea that evidence against Darwinism, and for intelligent design, could be freely presented at a university angered some students and professors. About 300 of them staged a protest, which Enes said actually worked to his advantage as it brought publicity to the event, which was held on May 16-17, 2012.

The symposium was such a success that Enes decided to organize a similar event the following year. He invited scientists from outside Marmara University, including some from outside Turkey. Thus the “First International Conference on Queried Evolution” was held on May 4, 2013, at Marmara University. The meeting was run entirely by students from Marmara Young Vision Student Club, who found sponsors to pay the expenses of the visiting scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


UD 2014:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The following year Enes organized a second international conference with the Erzurum Young Vision Student Club, this time it was held at Ataturk University in Erzurum in eastern Turkey, and sponsors included the city government of Erzurum and the university itself. Enes again invited me, this time I decided to accept despite the fact that it was again held in the middle of the last week of my classes, May 7, 2014. And so this year I was able to participate in the event and witness the work he and his fellow students had done in organizing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

EN&V 2017    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The following year Enes organized a second international conference with the Erzurum Young Vision Student Club. This time it was held at Ataturk University in Erzurum in eastern Turkey. Sponsors included the city government of Erzurum and the university itself. Enes invited me as one of the international speakers, and I decided to accept despite the fact that it was held in the middle of the last week of my classes. And so on May 7, 2014, I was able to participate in the event and witness the work he and his fellow students had done in organizing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


UD 2014    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since some of the talks were in English while others were in Turkish, simultaneous translation was provided by a student interpreter. I heard (through the interpreter) mentions of “specified complexity,” “the explanatory filter,” “irreducible complexity” and other familiar ID terms during some talks, but other speakers presented a range of different viewpoints, including at least one who defended the traditional Darwinist viewpoint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

EN&2017    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since some of the talks were in English while others were in Turkish, a student interpreter provided simultaneous translation. I heard (through the interpreter) mentions of “specified complexity,” “the explanatory filter,” “irreducible complexity,” and other familiar ID terms during some talks. But other speakers presented a range of different viewpoints, including some who defended the traditional Darwinist viewpoint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 16 2017,02:07

Klinghoffer's hurt over at EN&V because I appear in Wikipedia and one of their guys is having issues there.

If Klinghoffer wanted to know about "notability" and Wikipedia, he could have consulted < Wikipedia >. Ironically, Klinghoffer bringing up my name (again) on EN&V adds another data point for my notability.

And Klinghoffer's sneering is, as usual, off the mark. I have a track record in marine biology that is itself not erased because I have changed my career path. Besides collaborating in published research, this includes professional recognition by the Society for Marine Mammalogy and professional involvement in a < NOAA workshop on harm to cetaceans from Navy SONAR >. It's almost as if Klinghoffer is assuming that whatever place you end up is the only place you ever could have been, which would probably discomfit any number of DI Fellows were it to be applied uniformly and without hypocrisy.  

Additionally, if Klinghoffer had bothered to examine the "Talk" tab for my Wikipedia page, he might have seen that I had noted my change in employment there quite some time ago. It isn't as if I have been keeping it a secret known only to people who can visit LinkedIn. And property managers are noting my current employer, < thanks >. At least some small part of that has to do with my bringing evolutionary computation to analysis and forecasting there.

ETA: Point on hypocrisy.


Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 16 2017,14:41

Your Wiki page ought to mention TO archive, and Panda's Thumb.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 16 2017,16:13

Way down at the bottom, there are mentions of my association with them.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 17 2017,22:26

Thinking about it further...

My notability in Wikipedia terms has more to do with my public opposition to religious antievolution efforts (and press and other notice of such, including the DI's own intermittent ragging on me) than with the details of what I did as a marine biologist or am doing now with real estate. As Klinghoffer notes with frustration, just being good at a job doesn't make someone necessarily notable. Lots of people do good to superb jobs in their chosen profession without ever coming near having "notability" in the Wikipedia sense. It's entirely fair to say that had I only stuck to marine biology, or real estate, or medical research, or photojournalism, or aerospace, or digital cartography, or statistics, or web design and programming, the odds are that, no, I wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm proud of what I have accomplished in my marine biology career, which has spanned work on histology and epidemiology of fin whales, biosonar sound production in dolphins,  hearing sensitivity in dolphins, white whales, and sea lions, and data integrity for records of manatee mortality, but I would have to say that that alone would not have made me notable for Wikipedia. (As mentioned previously, I have received recognition within the field of marine mammalogy, so whatever notability can be said to be attached to having your peers commend you for an award in innovation in research methods covering a two-year period is mine.) Because I have been an effective advocate for science in a public controversy, yes, that does makes a difference for notability. So the Wikipedia formulation of "X is a notable Y" isn't necessarily that X is notable solely for Y, but rather that X is a notable person (someone who verifiable sources have actually taken notice of) who does Y. Klinghoffer would like people to be incensed about that.

Klinghoffer can, though, look forward to Bechly becoming notable in exactly that way as he does publicly foolish -- and thus notable -- stuff for the Discovery Institute involving undermining science education. Bechly has a ways to go to catch up with DI Fellows who have broken that path before, including Dembski and Behe, whose pages at Wikipedia certainly meet anyone's standards of notability concerning exactly that public controversy, and their notability for Wikipedia is, just like mine, not based upon whatever degree of success they've had in the academic careers they have chosen (more for Behe than Dembski, certainly). The "top scientist" label Phil Johnson wanted to hang on them simply doesn't fit. In the meantime, I would think Bechly could be added to the DI C®SC page noting his affiliation, like Casey Luskin is noted there. It would be a start.

For my own involvement in the public controversy, I can point folks at < TalkOrigins >, < Panda's Thumb >, and < The Austringer >, in addition to this site. What is not up for debate is whether I have actually been a marine biologist, or any of the other things I have successfully turned my hand to over my lifetime.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 18 2017,08:36

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 17 2017,22:26)
Thinking about it further...

My notability in Wikipedia terms has more to do with my public opposition to religious antievolution efforts (and press and other notice of such, including the DI's own intermittent ragging on me) than with the details of what I did as a marine biologist or am doing now with real estate. As Klinghoffer notes with frustration, just being good at a job doesn't make someone necessarily notable. Lots of people do good to superb jobs in their chosen profession without ever coming near having "notability" in the Wikipedia sense. It's entirely fair to say that had I only stuck to marine biology, or real estate, or medical research, or photojournalism, or aerospace, or digital cartography, or statistics, or web design and programming, the odds are that, no, I wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm proud of what I have accomplished in my marine biology career, which has spanned work on histology and epidemiology of fin whales, biosonar sound production in dolphins,  hearing sensitivity in dolphins, white whales, and sea lions, and data integrity for records of manatee mortality, but I would have to say that that alone would not have made me notable for Wikipedia. (As mentioned previously, I have received recognition within the field of marine mammalogy, so whatever notability can be said to be attached to having your peers commend you for an award in innovation in research methods covering a two-year period is mine.) Because I have been an effective advocate for science in a public controversy, yes, that does makes a difference for notability. So the Wikipedia formulation of "X is a notable Y" isn't necessarily that X is notable solely for Y, but rather that X is a notable person (someone who verifiable sources have actually taken notice of) who does Y. Klinghoffer would like people to be incensed about that.

Klinghoffer can, though, look forward to Bechly becoming notable in exactly that way as he does publicly foolish -- and thus notable -- stuff for the Discovery Institute involving undermining science education. Bechly has a ways to go to catch up with DI Fellows who have broken that path before, including Dembski and Behe, whose pages at Wikipedia certainly meet anyone's standards of notability concerning exactly that public controversy, and their notability for Wikipedia is, just like mine, not based upon whatever degree of success they've had in the academic careers they have chosen (more for Behe than Dembski, certainly). The "top scientist" label Phil Johnson wanted to hang on them simply doesn't fit. In the meantime, I would think Bechly could be added to the DI C®SC page noting his affiliation, like Casey Luskin is noted there. It would be a start.

For my own involvement in the public controversy, I can point folks at < TalkOrigins >, < Panda's Thumb >, and < The Austringer >, in addition to this site. What is not up for debate is whether I have actually been a marine biologist, or any of the other things I have successfully turned my hand to over my lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blechly has his own entry in the German version of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günter_Bechly) I guess self-written. The funny thing about him is the fact that he followed Darwinian paths in his published scientific work and organized an exhibition celebrating Darwins aniversaries back in 2009.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 18 2017,09:15

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion < a decade ago >. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 18 2017,10:23

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 16 2017,16:13)
Way down at the bottom, there are mentions of my association with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, just TO is mentioned, and this site. PT ought to be, too.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 18 2017,14:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 18 2017,09:15)
My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion < a decade ago >. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.
end


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