Send in the clowns

| 186 Comments | 1 TrackBack

In the I am not making this stuff up category, the ID crowd is planning on sending a battalion of pseudoscientists to Kansas this May for the upcoming ID Kangaroo Court. On the front page of the Intelligent Design Network‘s “we’re not promoting ID” website, we find:

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MINORITY REPORT. A Committee of the State board has scheduled hearings to provide for an in-depth examination of the Minority Report and its proposed changes. The hearings will be conducted in Topeka on May 5, 6 and 7, and May 12, 13 and 14 at a place to be announced. CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED TO TESTIFY FOR THE MINORITY REPORTIDnet science standards website

And what a list it is!

I’ll post it here, for when they change it after they come to their senses:

LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED BY AUTHORS OF THE MINORITY REPORT TO TESTIFY at hearings to be convened by the Science Committee of the Kansas State Board of Education On May 5, 6 and 7, 2005, in Topeka, Kansas Angus Menuge, PhD Professor of Philosophy at Concordia University Wisconsin; Author: Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 Bryan Leonard, MA High School Biology Teacher and candidate for doctoral degree in science education Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Bruce Simat, PhD Biochemistry and Human Physiology, Associate Professor North Western College, St. Paul, MN Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemist and co-author of The Mystery of Life’s Origin Date of anticipated testimony: May 5 Daniel Ely, PhD Professor of Biology, University of Akron, specializing in cardiovascular physiology Department of Biology, University of Akron Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Edward T. Peltzer III, PhD Oceanographer (PhD from Scripps Institution of Oceanography) with research interests in chemical evolution, Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, Senior Research Specialist Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Genoa), one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world; retired Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 James Barham, MA Independent scholar and author specializing in evolutionary epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and the foundations of biology Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

John Millam, PhD Theoretical Chemist, Project Manager, Semichem, Inc., a provider of solutions for computational chemistry. Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 John H. Calvert, J.D. Lawyer, specializing in constitutionally appropriate ways to teach origins science in public schools, Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc., an organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 John Sanford, PhD Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular and cell biologist, author of Icons of Evolution and Senior Fellow Discovery Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 5 Michael Behe, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Biochemistry Lehigh University, Author of Darwin’s Black Box Date of anticipated testimony: May 5 Mustafa Akoyl, MS Media Director of International Relations at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform (a foundation in Istanbul), freelance writer and spokesman for Islamic organizations interested in origins science Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 Nancy Bryson, PhD Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Kennesaw State University Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 Ralph Seelke, PhD Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin - Superior Date of anticipated testimony: May 5 Robert Disilvestro, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Nutrition, Ohio State University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Roger DeHart, BS High School Biology Teacher, Oaks Christian High School in San Diego, CA Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Russell Carlson, PhD Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Georgia Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 University of Georgia Complex Carbohydrate Research Center Scott Minnich, PhD Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 Stephen Meyer, PhD History and Philosophy of Science, including methodology of historical sciences; Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 Business: 509-777-4548; Cell: 509-467-5862 Warren Nord, PhD Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 William S. Harris, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory, St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, MO Date of anticipated testimony

That’s right, the creationists on the Kansas State Board of Education are planning to use Kansas taxpayer funds in order to:

1. Fly in these folks from all over the world – a collection of scientists outside their fields, non-scientists, and straight-up cranks. 2. Put on a pointless show trial which will be boycotted by most/all real experts on evolution 3. In order to provide political cover for the decision to use the power of the state to change the definition of science in Kansas 4. Actively misinforming Kansas’s bright young students and promoting “intelligent design”, which Charles Thaxton himself used to call “creationism” before he began promoting “intelligent design” 5. Provoking another round of international scorn and ridicule for the poor citizens of Kansas, and 6. Violating the U.S. Constitution as soon as a public school teacher attempts to teach ID as science 7. Provoking another round of international scorn, plus a nice expensive lawsuit 8. Which the state will eventually lose.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

1 TrackBack

Kansas and Creationism from The Hullite Chronicles on April 6, 2005 11:40 AM

The Panda's Thumb is an excellent resource for those of you interested in the ongoing debate over evolution and intelligent design/creationism. It recently showed the extent to which ID proponents are willing to go when they sense they have someth...

Read More

186 Comments

In 5, I think you mean “poor citizens of Kansas,” and yep, this will be a real circus. There’s about $20,000 or so of taxpayer money that will be spent on these guys.

KCFS and other organizations and individuals are working on a response to all this, and should have some announcements in a week or so. It will be an interesting month here - feel free to come join us. :-)

And looking at IDN’s website from the link above they have a little two minute skit which apprently “demonstrates a fundamental problem with a naturalistic definition of science”. Who Can Answer My Question?

STUDENT: I have a question - When I look at people, they look designed to me. I also hear there is a lot of evidence that confirms my intuition. Some chemists say that physical and chemical laws can’t account for biological information. Biochemists say many biological systems are irreducibly complex. Mathematicians say it is statistically impossible for the first cell to have been assembled out of nothing. Geologists say that the fossil record shows life appearing abruptly rather than gradually. Astronomers say the Universe is so finely tuned that if you just changed one constant by a smidgen, we wouldn’t be here. So, isn’t there a lot of evidence that we might be designed?

TEACHER: Science is the activity of seeking only natural explanations of what we see. These guys are inferring design from the evidence. Scientists aren’t allowed to do that. You are not allowed to discuss the possibility of intelligent design.

Bangs head against desk.….

Thanks Jack, I fixed that typo – KCFS on the brain, I fear.

PS for readers: see the previous post PT searched on “Kansas” for previous updates on this issue. In particular, Nature: Biologists snub ‘kangaroo court’ for Darwin shows what the reaction from the mainstream scientific community has been.

Hey, I have an idea, why don’t we get the state legislature decide to hold a statewide popular vote on the ID/evolution issue a year or so hence, that way both camps on the ID/evolution debate can race to get their followers to establish residency in the state, and whichever camp gets the most people to occupy the state of Kansas by vote time wins.

What could possibly go wrong?

[/sarcasm]

Hmm, looks like they left the eminently qualifed Prof. Steve Steve of the list. What is the Kansas BOE afraid of?

”…that way both camps on the ID/evolution debate can race to get their followers to establish residency in the state, and whichever camp gets the most people to occupy the state of Kansas by vote time wins.”

hmm. you may want to take a look at this… you aren’t the first to think of it!

http://christianexodus.org/

We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I swear, somebody has been inbreeding too much or something.

cheers

No lineup would be complete without Hovind! It seems to be the list’s gaping hole

2. Put on a pointless show trial which will be boycotted by most/all real experts on evolution

One of the participants on the quoted list of scheduled pro-Intelligent Design speakers is Dr. Jonathan Wells. He wrote, imo, one of the best criticisms of the “let’s boycott ‘em” evo-strategy that I’ve seen.

After participating in a well-attended (estimated 1000, plus Internet-broadcast) roundtable-discussion at Washburn University in 1999, he wrote the following observations in the November 29, 1999 Topeka Capital-Journal:

By the end of the evening, it was clear that the controversy was not about defending empirical science from biblical fundamentalism. Scientifically, what little evidence was presented challenged Darwinian evolution and favored intelligent design; philosophically, Darwinian evolution was shown to have as many implications for religion as intelligent design; and legally, teaching Darwinism while excluding other views in state-supported schools could not be justified on First Amendment grounds. Ignoring these considerations, a panelist who had the last word concluded that Darwinian evolution deserves its privileged status because it is the consensus of biologists. This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin’s theory. (The scientist on the pro-Darwin side was a psychologist.) I later learned that Washburn University biologists had been invited to participate, but declined because they didn’t want to provide a platform for creationism. They thereby reflected a nationwide tendency among Darwinians to demonize their critics rather than deal with the issues. They also made it clear that a “consensus” exists only because Darwinians refuse to tolerate any dissent. As the Washburn roundtable discussion showed, however, the strategy of sweeping the controversy under the rug is not working. The public clearly saw that there are important unanswered questions here. First, is the biological evidence more consistent with Darwinian evolution or intelligent design? If the latter, is it proper for Darwinians to decide the matter in their favor by redefining “science” to exclude design? Second, does Darwinian evolution have religious implications? If so, are state-supported institutions acting unconstitutionally when they teach Darwinism to the exclusion of other views? These are serious questions for empirical science and constitutional government. Pretending they do not exist will not make them go away.

I carefully monitored the op-ed pages for weeks afterward to see if the pro-evolution folks from Washburn, Kansas University, KCFS, or wherever would at least provide a response to Wells. Not one. Not at all.

You can call them “clowns” and “pseudoscientists” from the relative safety of this PT blog, Nick, but I honestly believe it would be a far different matter if you were to actually show up at the upcoming Kansas hearings and take on these PhD scientists and scholars face to face, Nick. I bet you would be forced to moderate your rhetoric much more than a little bit, before things were concluded.

But that’s the point of the KCFS boycott. To avoid, ummm, potentially troublesome situations, no? After all, it wouldn’t look good for alleged “real experts on evolution” to come out second best against mere “clowns” and “pseudoscientists” in a public matchup, nope nope. Safety first, you know!

Hence the strategy of ducking, hiding, and otherwise taking a powder on this public opportunity to engage these non-Darwinist PhD-level scientists and scholars at the upcoming hearings.

I would not be surprised if KCFS put on some separate events in which pro-evolution speakers show up in Kansas anyway, offering the usual evo-PR statements for public consumption (but without having to deal directly with the serious non-Darwinist challenges that would likely be offered to them if they actually showed up at the hearings.)

After all, in Topeka, that’s generally what happened in 1999-2000 as well. Safety first!

Fly in these folks from all over the world — a collection of scientists outside their fields, non-scientists, and straight-up cranks.

Can’t let this one slide without comment. First, re-read that list, folks. For example, Ely, Peltzer, Sermonti, Thaxton, Seelky, Carlson, Minnich, Harris—your phrase “scientists outside their fields” hardly seems an accurate description, Nick.

Second, regarding the listed scholars in such fields as philosophy of science (what, you think that’s not relevant to the subject of state science standards?), religion, and law, may I point out that the two of tha main evolutionist heroes of the McClean v. Arkansas trial were a philosopher (Ruse) and a theologian (Gilkey). So, first spend some time criticizing these two evolutionist “non-scientists”, for offering public testimony (and influencing public policy) without first obtaining a science PhD.

As for the “cranks”, go ahead and show up in Kansas for the hearings, publicly identify/verify those you deem to be “cranks”, and then publicly defend your labeling of them as “cranks” during the proceedings. Then I’ll listen and consider.

5. Provoking another round of international scorn and ridicule for the poor citizens of Kansas

No, I don’t think so, not by a long shot. Perhaps it’s because of the success in Ohio not too long ago. Or perhaps because the 2005 proposed modifications are much better thought-out and explained than the 1999 changes (assuming the reader has taken time to read the 2005 proposal. I was surprised–but shouldn’t have been—at the number of online 1999 critics who never took the time to read the 1999 proposal before offering criticism.)

Or perhaps because more Kansans and Americans (and especially more members of the media) have become familiar with the general claims associated with the ID movement (e.g. problems with pro-evolution textbooks, Intelligent Design as a plausible alternative explanation) in the intervening years since 1999.

Or maybe it’s all of the above. Anyway, the “international scorn and ridicule” games don’t look like they’re gonna work quite so well this time for evolutionists. Not nearly quite.

FL

Of ccourse Sermonti must be a fool. After all he published 6 of my papers. Don’t forget to add that to the list of reasons to discount him folks.

Giuseppe Sermonti is a fine scholar, a tolerant man and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of evolutionary science. I am sure his words will be taken very seriously indeed.

FL

Your comments and opinion are welcome. Thank you. But please do not identify evolutionists with Darwinians as your terminal sentence might suggest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism, the biggest hoax in recorded history.

John A. Davison

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 2, byte 1157 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Jonathan Wells Wrote:

This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin’s theory.

Wells is a biologist in pretty much the same sense that Mohammed Atta was an airline pilot.

Perhaps it’s because of the success in Ohio not too long ago.

Um, what “success”? IDers brought out all their big guns to try to force ID “theory” into the state standards. They lost (indeed, ID was specifically BANNED from the standards, by name), so badly and crashingly that they have now given up completely on even claiming to HAVE any “alternative theory”, and instead have retreated to a vague “something might be wrong with evolution” argument.

I’d like to know by what measurement you think Ohio was a “success” for the IDers . … . …?

I can’t think of ANY success, anywhere, for IDers. When they tried to insert ID into the Ohio standards, they lost. When they tried to pass the Santorum Amendment in Congress, they lost. When they tried to prevent textbooks that discuss evolution from being adopted in Texas and elsewhere, they lost. When they tried to insert “disclaimers” into textbooks, they lost. They will certainly lose in Dover (where they are in the curious position of supporting those who want to teach ID theory in class by testifying that, uh, ID theory “isn’t ready” to be taught in class). They will also certainly lose in Kansas (just as they already lost a few years ago).

Not exactly a record of “success”, is it . …

For those who might want to take a look at the big long string of court losses by creationists and IDers, see:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/legal.htm

A friend of mine offered a great metaphor for people like Wells - he called them “scientific vandals.” They’re like people who throw a brick throught a window, in five seconds making a mess that takes hours to clean up.

I like this quote from Peter Atkins reviewing Behe’s book:

That the creationists have resorted to this subversion should surprise none of us, for the ethical poverty of their actions matches the intellectual poverty of their beliefs.

Here’s the reference: http://www.infidels.org/library/mod[…]ns/behe.html

FL Wrote:

Hence the strategy of ducking, hiding, and otherwise taking a powder on this public opportunity to engage these non-Darwinist PhD-level scientists and scholars at the upcoming hearings.

In case you’ve never noticed, it matters not what we do. The IDists have a set of ready-made distortions – tailored for every possible way in which scientists might react – that get trotted out every time one of these public spectacles gets put on. If you ignore them, they say you’re afraid. If you engage them directly, they say you’re circling the wagons, desperately trying to protect the established orthodoxy. If you simply dismiss them as nuts, they say you’re persecuting them. I could have told you well in advance that we’d be seeing distortion #1 in this case.

If you wonder why no one is in a big hurry to enjoin these phony hearings, it’s because it’s been done a thousand times before without any discernalbe effect on the creationists. They’re not there to learn or discuss or even to debate, they’re there to put on a show. The relevant issues were already handled in the proper venue by the science writing committee and by public hearings. The IDists didn’t like the outcome, so they decided to create a dog and pony show. Could you explain what the point would be for any serious scholar to bother attending? The very fact that the board has resorted to this nonsense demonstrates that they’ve already made up their mind on the outcome. They’re only looking for a way to legitimize it.

I can’t believe JAD didn’t make the cut! I’d really feel much better about this whole thing if he were on the list. After he’s done making the iron-clad case for ID, he could put in a few words for his revolutionary Proscribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Shall we petition the Committee to add his name, or just correct their oversight ourselves, pass the hat around and buy him a plane ticket?

Ely, Peltzer, Sermonti, Thaxton, Seelky, Carlson, Minnich, Harris

These people, of course, should be ashamed of themselves.

I invite them to come here and show us their stuff. Somehow I doubt they will even manage to reach the heights of scientific rigor reached by retired software programmers.

I Googled the heck out of Bruce Simat, putatively a teacher of some kind at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota, because that’s the school I graduated from (with degrees in Bible, Sociology, and Communications). It took me almost 20 years to unlearn to utter nonsense that was passed off as biology at that school. I must say, my “biology” professor was one of the nicest people I’ve ever known, but the entire course was one long creationism apologetic–nothing more. Same with the school’s “earth science,” which was pure flood geology. Northwestern College is a small fundamentalist school with a popular Christian radio station, the patronage of Rose Totino (who became a millionaire selling pizzas), and the distinction of having Billy Graham as its president for a couple of years several decades ago. To paraphrase a Gospel passage (can’t let that Bible degree go utterly to waste), “Can any good science come out of Northwestern College?”

Lenny Flank Wrote:

I will simply point out here that in the only place where the “debate” REALLY matters, in court, the creationists/IDers have lost.

Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates. They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

RPM

Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates. They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

True enough. I think Lenny by “really matters,” Lenny was referring to where the debate “really matters” to creationists who want to promulgate their religious beliefs in science classrooms.

Creationists’ contempt for lab work and peer-reviewed publication is well-documented.

I’m against the idea of scientists participating in this kangaroo court, but if they did, I think it would be fun to match up the credentials of the IDers person-for-person (but obviously only the science credentials, not the, like, philosophers of education or whatever) with folks off the Project Steve list. All the “best and brightest” IDers in the world against just those real scientists named “Steve.”

Here’s what I could find regarding the some of the witnesses to be brought in to testify. I limited my discussion to the “biologists” with PhD’s as people way out of their field and with less than “expert” qualifacations hardly warrant mentioning.

Bruce Simat, PhD Biochemistry and Human Physiology, Associate Professor North Western College, St. Paul, MN Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

See previous post.

Daniel Ely, PhD Professor of Biology, University of Akron, specializing in cardiovascular physiology Department of Biology, University of Akron Date ofanticipated testimony: May 6

There’s not much on him at the Univ of Akron Biology Department website, but he specialize in physiology. He should be aware of the importance of evolution in his research considering he uses rats as a model for human behavior. Apparently he does not understand why we can use model organisms for biomedical research. I’d be interested to hear his opinion on IDC.

Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Genoa), one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world; retired Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

Apparently he’s buddy-buddy with JAD. How seriously can we take him? Well, not only is the editor of Riv Biol, it’s also the only place he’s published recently according to a PubMed search (Riv Biol has an impact factor of 0.5). I’m not too sure what to think of him. He appears to be a credible scientist (at least judging by his early work), but his recent work attempts to find purpose in nature; kinda off the beaten path if you ask me.

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

I graduated with a Bachelors in Genetics from Cornell, so I was extremely interested to find out who John Sanford was. I thought, no way he was really in the Molecular Biology and Genetics department, and I didn’t remember him from my undergrad days. For those of you unfamiliar with the field, Cornell is a leader in evolutionary genetics. It turns out Sanford is at the agricultural research station in Geneva, NY (about an hours drive from the main campus in Ithaca). He’s in the Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, and he describes his research as “at the interface between molecular genetics and plant breeding, for the purpose of crop improvement.” I’m not sure what to make of him.

Michael Behe, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Biochemistry Lehigh University, Author of Darwin’s Black Box Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Enough has been written about him, so I won’t add any more.

Ralph Seelke, PhD Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin - Superior Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

He’s one of the few (only?) people trying to study ID using laboratory experiments. For that, we must give him some credit. I’ll leave it for another place/time/person to discuss the credibility of his research design and/or findings.

Robert Disilvestro, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Nutrition, Ohio State University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

He’s a nutritional biochemist (what is it with chemists & biochemists and understanding evolution?), which doesn’t say whether or not he has a firm grasp on evolutionary theory. He has a response to critiques to Darwin’s Black Box here.

Russell Carlson, PhD Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Georgia Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 University of Georgia Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Another biochemist! He studies the interaction between plants and bacteria (specifically microrhizae). UGA has an excellent evolutionary genetics program, and I wonder if Reed (or Dr. Steve Steve) have anything to say about this fellow.

Scott Minnich, PhD Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Minnich is the bacterial flagellum expert witness. See here for a discussion of the flagellum argument.

William S. Harris, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory, St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, MO Date of anticipated testimony

Another nutritional biochemist. He can tell you all about why you should eat fist, but I’m not sure what he’s knows about evolutionary theory. He was an author (along with John Calvert) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution.

Does anyone know if any of these “star witnesses” do not have strong religous beliefs?

RPM wrote: Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates. They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

Ultimately this is true, but how often does Joe Public read the peer reviewed journals? At some point Joe public needs to know what good science is. Do we expect them to just take it on faith that we the scientists know what is best?

GWW wrote: Creationists’ contempt for lab work and peer-reviewed publication is well-documented.

There seems to be another battle going on for public opinion, which is prehaps more important than scientific debate. Public opinion will not determine what good science is, but if we lose that battle then at some point in the future will that not impact on tax payer funded research grants? As things are there’s the republican govt in the US (or at least some elements anyway) can be seen as anti-science.

@JAD:

I must admit, I had never taken the time previously to examine your publications, and how they have “evolved” (no pun intended) over the years.

However, As i read through:

AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE

I was struck by one particular line in section II-1, which for me at least, is the core by which to measure all subsequent postulates from yourself:

“A second alternative view is Creationism. Here caution must be observed. While it is true that the existence of a Creator, while a logical necessity, has never been rigorously proved and perhaps never can be…”

How can you call yourself a student of evolutionary theory, and purport to having logical grounds to challenge it, while postulating that there is a “logical necessity” for a Creator, a priori?

Indeed, if you purport yourself to be a scientist, how would one even approach rigorously proving the existence of a creator to begin with, using the scientific method?

ask yourself, why should ANYONE who subscribes to the scientific method, even bother to continue taking you seriously, when you have laid such untestable assumptions at the base of your “new hypothesis”.

You should be ashamed. You are simply continuing the trend towards the betrayal of science and reason that has become so commonplace in the last 20 years or so. It’s obvious that intelligence has little to do with logic.

I can only ask myself: Are you THAT unsure of your own faith that you seek to project it into areas where it is innapropriate?

I’m sure I am not the first to raise this point, and I hope i won’t be the last.

If you want to do your faith a service, stop trying to pretend it works to explain the world around us.

Go back and re-read the book of Job. You seem to have missed a lesson there.

In the meantime, I would say your sermons are better served in a church, but even there, they are too misleading to be appropriate.

no cheers, big raspberry instead.

I’m in the process of doing brief web biographies of the clowns. You can see what I have so far here. I’d be happy to get useful info to include.

RPM Wrote:

He’s [Seelke] one of the few (only?) people trying to study ID using laboratory experiments.  For that, we must give him some credit.  I’ll leave it for another place/time/person to discuss the credibility of his research design and/or findings.

Actually, he’s studying evolution. There’s no indication that he’s doing anything that would qualify as “ID research” unless one takes the position that any observed anomoly or difficulty in evolution automatically counts as studying ID. (If that’s the case, then it may as well count as studying panspermia, or spontaneous generation.) There’s no mention of ID on that page, nor do the experiments seem to contradict evolution in any way. (So much evolution is going on that they haven’t even made it past a few hundred generations.)

He’s a nutritional biochemist (what is it with chemists & biochemists and understanding evolution?)…

Speaking as someone who is in a biochemistry department, I can attest that many (if not most) biochemists come from a strict chemistry background, and have never studied biology. They usually know about the system that they work on (maybe a protein or cellular system) but have usually had no exposure to any other kind of biology. Certainly not subjects like ecology, organismal biology, and, you know, evolution.

“As things are there’s the republican govt in the US (or at least some elements anyway) can be seen as anti-science.”

CAN BE???? your kidding right? It is well documented that the current administration has done more to twist science than perhaps ANY previous US administration in history. Here is just one of the MANY sites documenting the betrayal of science and reason that is the Bush white house:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_re[…]m?newsID=381

make no mistake, those of us who acknowledge and utilize the scientific method are under direct attack by those who are deluding themselves that they believe in “common sense”, and by those who would use that ignorance to further their own aims (whether they really believe in the parsimony that is science or not).

I’m not pointing out anything new here, you can read Paul Ehrlich’s book:

Betrayal of Science and Reason - How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens our Future

which was published in 1996, to see a good consesus of where the battle lines are being drawn and recognize that things are getting worse, not better, since then.

In fact, the mere re-election of GW shows at least the lack of concern of the average citizen for what the administration truly represents, and a growing number of folks actually support the administration’s approach to science in general. while certainly not the primary reason in most folks minds as to why they voted one way or the other, it behooves us all to be aware of that, and make others aware as well.

It’s like a growing portion of the population has simply decided to shoot their nose off to spite their face.

very frustrating.

cheers

Russell Carlson, a professor at my university, is one of the names on the list. I’ve discussed the failures of intelligent design in his presence before and he was very silent through it. He did agree that “sentient design” was a better name for what the IDists were trying to establish.

I’m in the process of doing brief web biographies of the clowns. You can see what I have so far here. I’d be happy to get useful info to include.

JAD, you know *nothing* of computers. You even get confused with such easy concepts as posting lag and website broadband limitations. Your pathetic attempts at giving us “facts” of computers, like you do in other sujects, are particularly ridiculous after you yourself having admitted you have no knowledge of the topic.

The fact that Avida was not front loaded is what makes it so damn amazing. The fact that computers can be “creative” (in the sense that they come up with designs that far surpass human design) is a fact, and I have given you a link to it before. And I am giving it to you again. This won’t shut you up, of course, since you’ve reached the point were being found to lie about every single fact you utter has long since stopped you from continuing to try and pass those lies as facts.

JAD, your stated goal is to somehow show people at PT how intelligent you are and how stupid the rest of us are. So far, the fact that you must resort to distortions of reality and, more often, to blatant lies, makes that goal *very* far fetched. After all, why should we believe your opinion about evolution when you have been shown to be wrong about everything else?

Want us to take you seriously? Try posting things that are true, for a change. Or at least some that make me engage my brain to answer them. And maybe you should stop trying to teach us about computers, given that you cannot even operate a webrowser

Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gen[…]/genalg.html

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

“Darwimpian Damnfoolishnessism”

lol. sorry, just had to laugh at that one.

how bout “Creationist Crockery”

“Right-wing rockheadedism”

“PEH puerileism”

Why the heck is everyone wasting their time on such a drooling idiot? Haven’t we got enough REAL enemies who are actually able to DO something?

Let the pit yorkies yap harmlessly. They’re not even worth kicking. We have MUCH more important things to worry about.

Geez.

c’mon, Lenny.

some of us like throwing rocks at the trolls.

it’s just mindless diversion.

geez.

I think I’m going to start a new list:

You can tell a noob on PT by:

1. they respond to John Davison as if he was rational.

2. they respond to John Davison at all.

3.…

feel free to fill in the list

My comment is in response to Comment #23535 Posted by Greg on April 6, 2005 12:15 PM

I graduated from Northwestern College, the institution of Dr Bruce Simat’s employment, in May of 2004. I received degrees in Bible, Biology and Psychology. Greg’s comments were incredibly disparaging of the college, and I am here to say he is dead wrong in his understanding of the school’s current science program. Greg says he’s spent 20 years unlearning the science he learned at NWC. The science program has been in existence for less than ten years. Any science classes he would have received would not have been from the most credible of professors or based on the hardest of sciences. This is most certainly not the case at Northwestern today. Upon graduation, I looked back on the body of knowledge I had been introduced to and “saw that it was good” (to also borrow from the bible). Of course it is hard to objectively determine how good one’s education is until they are able to have a benchmark to compare it to. I have since found my benchmark. I am currently in my first year of medical school at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, PA. When looking around at my classmates in discussion and workshops, I quickly notice that I am tutoring them and helping them along far more than they are helping me. These concepts I am learning now had all been introduced to me in the four years that I spent at Northwestern. Hearing Greg’s comments frustrates me to no end. I may not like or defend everything about Northwestern college but I will always defend the scientific education I received there.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on April 5, 2005 10:46 PM.

Einstein’s Black Box was the previous entry in this blog.

John Rennie on Universities on ID is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter