Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Heddle's Interesting Post

Posted: May 31 2007,20:08

Quote

The dishonesty of the [ID] movement has done incalculable damage. It has not only polarized what was, for the most part, a tolerant community of scientists into believers versus unbelievers�it has caused a second order fracturing as well. Unbelievers are split between militants and moderates, and believers are split between those backing the ID movement and those who are painfully embarrassed, both as scientists and more importantly as believers, by its tactics. In addition to everything else, they made the common mistake of incessant wolf-crying...

Shimmyin' succotash, that is just sublime. Nailed it.

As for myself, I find myself volleying between militant and moderate. I do think the whole ID thing has made me much more militant. I'm not sure that that's a good thing - sometimes I'm tired of this whole thing. (What business is it of mine what someone believes?)

Until ID came out, I didn't pay much attention to scientists' religious beliefs - but I don't like being lied to and manipulated into "believing" in God through Dembski's outrageous tricks. I'm not even sure that Dembski believes in God at all, deep down. However, I do believe that Heddle does.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

The Wayward Hammer

Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 31 2007,20:48

The post and the comments represent to me my simultaneous respect and contempt for Mr. Heddle's views.

I respect that he calls them as he sees them - if ID was science, they would be doing ID science. And no one is. Or ever will. Or ever intended to. He notes correctly the tactics now employed by the tattered pathetic survivors of the ID-Armageddon. UD now looks like some bad Mad Max vision of a post apocalyptic world.

But he irritates me with that "the moral code comes from a single source whether you acknowledge it or not" crap. Yes, he admits that it is not testable, etc (see the comments) but then tosses out that extremely pissy"just-so stories" comment about evolution of ethics.

Tasks me at times, he does.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: May 31 2007,22:45

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ May 31 2007,20:48)

The post and the comments represent to me my simultaneous respect and contempt for Mr. Heddle's views. �

I respect that he calls them as he sees them - if ID was science, they would be doing ID science. �And no one is. �Or ever will. �Or ever intended to. �He notes correctly the tactics now employed by the tattered pathetic survivors of the ID-Armageddon. �UD now looks like some bad Mad Max vision of a post apocalyptic world.

But he irritates me with that "the moral code comes from a single source whether you acknowledge it or not" crap. �Yes, he admits that it is not testable, etc (see the comments) but then tosses out that extremely pissy"just-so stories" comment about evolution of ethics.

Tasks me at times, he does.

You have to excuse Heddle --- he thinks God talks to him. Or something.

He is indeed a Calvinist --- on many many different levels . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,12:59

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ May 31 2007,19:48)

I respect that he calls them as he sees them - if ID was science, they would be doing ID science. �And no one is. �Or ever will. �Or ever intended to. �He notes correctly the tactics now employed by the tattered pathetic survivors of the ID-Armageddon. �UD now looks like some bad Mad Max vision of a post apocalyptic world.

But he irritates me with that "the moral code comes from a single source whether you acknowledge it or not" crap. �

Yeah, I don't get that part either.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,13:26

One thing Heddle has never really assimilated is that Christian arguments are not compelling to non-Christians. He's a very smart guy, but he seems to think that Calvinist dogma is another form of scientific law right up there with the physics he learned as a grad student.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: June 01 2007,14:27

I don't think Heddle's post is interesting for what it gets wrong, but for the position it puts ID fans in. I don't know anything about that CThomas fellow, but if he's like the rest of them, when scientists try to clue him in to the fact that ID isn't a theory and the Discovery Institute is full of con men, he can just write them off as members of the evil atheist conspiracy. But it's hard to write off Heddle in such a way.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,14:29

Quote (stevestory @ June 01 2007,14:27)

I don't think Heddle's post is interesting for what it gets wrong, but for the position it puts ID fans in. I don't know anything about that CThomas fellow, but if he's like the rest of them, when scientists try to clue him in to the fact that ID isn't a theory and the Discovery Institute is full of con men, he can just write them off as members of the evil atheist conspiracy. But it's hard to write off Heddle in such a way.

Which is why he's banned from UD like everyone else.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: June 01 2007,14:58

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 01 2007,15:29)

Quote (stevestory @ June 01 2007,14:27)

I don't think Heddle's post is interesting for what it gets wrong, but for the position it puts ID fans in. I don't know anything about that CThomas fellow, but if he's like the rest of them, when scientists try to clue him in to the fact that ID isn't a theory and the Discovery Institute is full of con men, he can just write them off as members of the evil atheist conspiracy. But it's hard to write off Heddle in such a way.

Which is why he's banned from UD like everyone else. ???

Oh yeah, Heddle's much more dangerous than to Dembski's bank account than we are.

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,15:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 01 2007,11:26)

One thing Heddle has never really assimilated is that Christian arguments are not compelling to non-Christians. He's a very smart guy, but he seems to think that Calvinist dogma is another form of scientific law right up there with the physics he learned as a grad student.

Oh no, I'm sure he's aware of this. He's always quoting some Bible verse that says that Christian beliefs will always appear foolish to non-Christians. As far as I understand it, he evangelizes because the Bible instructs him to, but he doesn't expect it to make any difference in the beliefs of unbelievers, as only God can make them "see." Or somesuch.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: June 01 2007,15:37

I love how some of Heddle's respondents are saying the jury's still out on CSI and such.

"Welcome to Bill Dembski's Used Car Lot. Can I interest you in this little beauty? It was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church, and only for Christmas mass."

Heddle: "Uh...that looks like a piece of crap."
Other IDer: "Dave, give it some time. Sure, the experts say it's crap, but Bill told us they all work for the Carmax Conspiracy."
Heddle: "No, really, I used to be a mechanic, and that car is junk."
Dembski: "Get off my car lot! You're banned!"

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,15:52

If you're an ID proponent and would like to defend CSI, on an ID friendly blog:

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0

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

The Wayward Hammer

Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,16:01

Oh, he can put the hammer to ID better than anyone. They can't use the "athiest conspiracy" defense. They can't use the "you don't know math" defense. So they ban him because he's right. And that's, well, inconvenient.

Now, if he starts talking about we need to work on gloabl warming...it could get ugly.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,16:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 01 2007,15:52)

If you're an ID proponent and would like to defend CSI, on an ID friendly blog:

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0

Ah, Jason is another advocate of the "Darwinism is already dead, you scientists just don't know it yet" school.

He certainly has the shopworn anti-atheist cliches right at his fingertips, but as for scientific arguments, not so good. Ask him to explain the EF and he says "ask Dembski, he's friendly!"

Is it just an accident what fifth-rate minds ID attracts?

Dare I ask what Jason's, uh, credentials are?

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

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,16:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 01 2007,16:07)

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 01 2007,15:52)

If you're an ID proponent and would like to defend CSI, on an ID friendly blog:

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0

Ah, Jason is another advocate of the "Darwinism is already dead, you scientists just don't know it yet" school.

He certainly has the shopworn anti-atheist cliches right at his fingertips, but as for scientific arguments, not so good. Ask him to explain the EF and he says "ask Dembski, he's friendly!"

Is it just an accident what fifth-rate minds ID attracts?

Dare I ask what Jason's, uh, credentials are?

All of star trek TOS, TNG, DS9, Enterprise...

AND LOADS OF *REALLY* HARD SCI-FI. SO SHUT UP TARDEN CHATTERBOX.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 01 2007,16:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 01 2007,16:15)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 01 2007,16:07)

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 01 2007,15:52)

If you're an ID proponent and would like to defend CSI, on an ID friendly blog:

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0

Ah, Jason is another advocate of the "Darwinism is already dead, you scientists just don't know it yet" school.

He certainly has the shopworn anti-atheist cliches right at his fingertips, but as for scientific arguments, not so good. Ask him to explain the EF and he says "ask Dembski, he's friendly!"

Is it just an accident what fifth-rate minds ID attracts?

Dare I ask what Jason's, uh, credentials are?

All of star trek TOS, TNG, DS9, Enterprise...

Consider me totally humbled.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 12 2008,15:37

Quote

Along the way, O'Leary manages to dis Francis Collins (again), which is a bit like Paula Abdul dissing The New York Times entertainment writers.

I don't know what Paula Abdul has personally done to you, Dave, but comparing her to Denyse O'Leary is beyond the pale.

(edited to add linky: http://helives.blogspot.com/ )

Edited by stevestory on May 12 2008,16:37

Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: May 12 2008,16:18

I thought it a sublime, full-bodied analogy with just a hint of undergrowth--mushrooms perhaps. Or is it ginger?

GEM of TKI

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

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 12 2008,16:20

Quote (dheddle @ May 12 2008,16:18)

GEM of TKI

Oh, Bravo, Dave, Bravo!

Also Dave, checking out your blog on biblical inerrancy etc, where does that put YECism?

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

Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: May 12 2008,16:27

Richard,

Almost all YECs affirm inerrancy. However, many often also mistakenly insist on inerrancy == literality.

Except, that is, when they don't.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 12 2008,16:28

If someone compared my writing to that of Denyse O'Leary I think I'd be forced to choose pistols at dawn.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 12 2008,16:34

come to think of it, why wake up early for that? Pistols at noon. Better yet, leave lunch open for a stiff drink or two. Pistols at 2. Then again, why miss the last dinner? Okay, Lunch, some stiff drinks, a good read of the New York Times, some espresso, dinner at La Rez, cocktails at the Cellar, shots in Hell, and then pistols afterward. Good night and good luck.

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 12 2008,16:39

Quote (dheddle @ May 12 2008,16:27)

Richard,

Almost all YECs affirm inerrancy. However, many often also mistakenly insist on inerrancy == literality.

Except, that is, when they don't.

So its inerrant if you interpret it correctly?

Is there any allegory?

Flood?
Age of Earth / "days" / genesis account

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

Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: May 12 2008,16:47

stevestory

But Paula recently criticized both of an AI contestant's songs--even though he only sang one song. It was painful to watch. Hence:

DO'L:Collins::Abdul:Quality NYT Critic

p.s. that's enough alcohol, you are going to spoil your dinner.

Richard,

From my perspective or YECs? I certainly think there is a lot of allegory--YECs, less so.

But take something like Ezekiel's temple. That is alleged by the left-behinders (which have a high degree of overlap with YECs) to be the rebuilt temple (don't worry about that mosque in the way) in which Jesus will sit on the throne of David for 1000 years. Unfortunately Ezekiel also described animal sacrifices taking place in that temple, which generally Christians agree would be an abomination in the presence of Jesus. Hence the temple is taken literally, but the animal sacrifices, figuratively.

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

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 12 2008,16:54

Quote (dheddle @ May 12 2008,16:47)

stevestory

But Paula recently criticized both of an AI contestant's songs--even though he only sang one song. It was painful to watch. Hence:

DO'L:Collins::Abdul:Quality NYT Critic

p.s. that's enough alcohol, you are going to spoil your dinner.

Richard,

From my perspective or YECs? I certainly think there is a lot of allegory--YECs, less so.

But take something like Ezekiel's temple. That is alleged by the left-behinders (which have a high degree of overlap with YECs) to be the rebuilt temple (don't worry about that mosque in the way) in which Jesus will sit on the throne of David for 1000 years. Unfortunately Ezekiel also described animal sacrifices taking place in that temple, which generally Christians agree would be an abomination in the presence of Jesus. Hence the temple is taken literally, but the animal sacrifices, figuratively.

You'd have thunk in could have inspired / written a more useable text, eh?

Could one race this in NASCAR?

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

Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: May 12 2008,16:57

Nah, a good 'ole boy would take it before it made its second left turn.

EDIT: for stupidity

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

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 12 2008,17:03

Quote (dheddle @ May 12 2008,16:57)

Nah, a good 'ole boy would take it before it made its second left turn.

EDIT: for stupidity

We could weld the doors shut and paint a confederate flag on it?

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 12 2008,17:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2008,15:03)

Quote (dheddle @ May 12 2008,16:57)

Nah, a good 'ole boy would take it before it made its second left turn.

EDIT: for stupidity

We could weld the doors shut and paint a confederate flag on it?

Remove the tires and put it up on four blocks. Then it'll be believable.

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

Robert O'Brien

Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: May 12 2008,17:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2008,16:39)

So its inerrant if you interpret it correctly?

Is there any allegory?

Flood?
Age of Earth / "days" / genesis account

Adding my unsolicited view:

I favor the "literary framework interpretation."

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

Hermagoras

Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007