Teach the uhh… our controversy

| 74 Comments

As reported by Reed Cartwright, the strict comment policy of IC blog sites and other websites, is ‘explained’ by Jay Richard by claiming that

the ID contributors ruled out comments because the debate about intelligent design often becomes malicious. “We would have one post and 30 comments that are vitriolic,” he said.

Of course, without much supporting evidence, such preemptive measures seem hard to defend or support.

On Corante we hear from Ernest Miller, whose trackbacks and comments were summarily deleted by William Dembski.

Personally, I have found that ID blogs tend to be quick to delete comments which bring out the flaws in the ID arguments.

For a movement which seems to be rally behind the battle cry of “teach the controversy”, they are quick to censor comments which show how this ‘controversy’ is more about the scientific vacuity of intelligent design and the theologically risks involved.

Perhaps it’s time for ID to not just ‘talk the talk’ but also ‘walk the walk’ but given the scientific vacuity and theological risks, it may not be surprising that ID is not ready to allow an open comment policy of their ideas any times soon.

74 Comments

Bravo! Even the suppousedly open minded Telic thoughts seems to delete posts which are not “Telic” enough. Just look in there memory hole, I can’t imagine how they could possibly think that some of the stuff there was offensive in any way.

Yes, I believe that Telic has been quite swift to enforce their own rules as to what is considered ‘offensive’.

The first thing I often hear when I mention Panda’s Thumb with some people is how vitriolic it all is. Well, there are some things said that are not kind to people such as Bill Dembski and Michael Behe, but for crying out loud these guys started it and brought it on themselves.

I’ve learned not to expect everything I post at, say, Ernest Miller’s blog on Corante, to stay up, but I was surprised by the rapidity with which I was banned from Bill Dembski’s blog–twice–for saying things which were not in any way offensive. “Don’t bore me” was his blanket statement to all those who might disagree.

I think what’s going on here is that IDists, shunned by the scientific community, have done what groups of pariahs do and formed their own little fantasy world wherein what they want to believe is true. People who try to puncture that contrivance are first seen to be wrong, then become an annoyance. I’ll bet each one of these guys has had his day when he just shrugged his shoulders and said “I know I’m right, but I just don’t have the time to convince these hardened skeptics. Many of them probably just want to waste my time anyway. I am forced, reluctantly, to ignore them and shun them from discussion whenever convenient. There’s simply no relevant conversation with these ignoramuses–they either can’t or won’t understand, and it doesn’t matter which. It’s much more interesting to talk with people who do understand what I’m saying.”

I suppose they could use slashdot-style moderation, at least – it IS effective in removing flames, for the most part, and one CAN go see the modded-down comment if they really want to.

Or they could use disemvowelling, Nielsen Hayden style.

PandasThumb is not particularly vitriolic. But it’s necessarily more vitriolic than the ID websites’ mutual admiration society.

Slashdot-style moderation (with minor changes) would be perfect for PT.

But it’s necessarily more vitriolic than the ID websites’ mutual admiration society.

That is actually the main problem with ID - they lack even an internal system of serious, critical peer-review. All they do is prop each other up, a “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” system, no matter what nonsense one spews.

They refuse to take any criticism seriously, and even when they venture into the actual peer-reviewed literature, they turn to friendly editors to “pilot” their submissions (see Meyer and all the crappy ID papers in Rivista di Biologia). Heck, apparently Dembski is afraid to even submit his mathematical papers to straight peer-review by mathematicians - he said at some point he was going to send his latest math work to a journal edited by an ID-friendly engineering Professor. The mathematist orthodoxy is probably out to get him too.

Andrea Wrote:

That is actually the main problem with ID - they lack even an internal system of serious, critical peer-review.

Yes, check out the continued (ab)use of the Cambrian explosion for instance or just have a look at ISCID or IDEA Center. I have a posting on the latter one showing how it treats scientific papers.

One of the tenets of effective PR is to maintain complete control over what is and isn’t said, so it makes no sense for them to allow comments from real scientists unless they have to. They can easily sell the idea that ANY criticism=”vitriol” for as long as their audience is willing to buy it. Though IDC doesn’t have a research program (never will, apparently), its PR program HAS been effective.

It is all about maintaining appearances for all intents and purposes. Creationists are the same way and have probably learnt from mistakes in the past. They are probably trying to avoid another AIG like article where AIG essentially got into a battle of who is more ridiculous with Kent Hovind. The damage they did to eachother was fairly considerable, particularly as even AIG noted that Hovind deliberately misrepresented their own arguments. It also demonstrated that AIG has a worthless ‘peer review’ system because it’s evidently just ‘their’ system and not creationists, as evidenced by Hovind and many other creationists not bothering to ascribe to their ‘arguments creationists should not use’. Just look at how often creationists spout crap about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contrary to what creationist ‘peer reviewed’ literature would apparently point out.

Creationists really can’t afford to have a proper peer review structure or even give any indication of arguing among themselves. Remember they are debating what is *truth* to them and to be indecisive at all just demonstrates how worthless that truth actually is in reality. This is why the same disproved rubbish comes up over and over again.

Perspectives for Science and the Christian Faith (ASA) will print pro-ID papers but they will also publish criticism of ID. (often side by side) There was a recent correspondence with Nature that confused the ASA with being a pro-ID organization probably because they will occasionally publish pro-ID papers. It should be noted that kinds of papers in this journal are not the normal peer-reviewed types but are of a more informal nature. When ID does try to pass off a paper like that the result is when ASA Executive Director Randy Isaac plays peer-reviewer and rips it to shreds (see PT entry ASA: Bias in Science, Part 2).

Post Kansas I wonder how much the pro-ID folk will want to publish there because I looked up the Editorial Board and found Keith Miller’s name on it. If you look at the history of creationist and ID organizations they are often split off from the ASA. They are not content with merely having a place to publish but apparently also wanted it in a criticism-free zone. So much for teaching the controversy.

At the risk of being labeled an ignoramus by the Darwinists at Panda’s Thumb, I would like to make a simple comment/observation. It is continually frustrating to see both sides of this debate continue to sling mud at the other in the name of “science”. I keep reading the one side calling Intelligent Design “creationism repackaged”. I am also growing weary of many hard-core creationists calling people who believe in evolution “molecules to man” advocates. This is what I have realized in my 43 years of life on planet earth: 1. The more we know, the more we DON’T know. Life is far more complex than we realize and to say it is not is the height of arrogance. 2. We observe and interpret data based on our preconceptions and world view. A creationist views DNA in all life forms and says that God used the same alphabet to make everything. An evolutionist views the sameinformation as “proof” of common ancestry for all beings. Same information, different interpretation. 3. One side does not like or tolerate the other side. The ID people criticize the Darwinists for poor scholarship and the Darwinists criticize the Idists for “pseudoscience”.

Well, as a fence sitter, I look at both sides and see the science in each. But then, maybe my world view isn’t as stilted as those at the Panda’s Thumb, who flatly refute any artilce that doesn’t agree with Darwinian evolution before the ink is dry.

Respectfully,

K.E.

the problem is, Dr. Elling, both sides are not equivalent. one side constantly lies and misreprents itself and the evidence. it’s NOT just interpretations that lie at the fundamental impasse between the two groups.

One side has presented a literal mountain of evidence; the other, only obfuscation and deceit.

Could you please describe for us where you see science on the side of ID? I’m very confused as to how you can see any scientific method being applied by IDers. they have no published research supporting ID of any kind. they don’t even have a scientific theory of ID (and most will readily admit this, even leaders like Paul Nelson).

If you can’t see the damage inherent in teaching religious philosophy as science, I have serious doubts you are a “fence sitter” as you claim.

Can you please tell us where the “poor scholarhip” lies on the side of evolutionary biologists?

I think perhaps you are the exact person the IDers look to influence; those who appear reasonable, but don’t bother to see through the facade the IDers have set up.

please take the time to examine the actual arguments presented here on PT; take the time to examine the evidence in support of science and evolutionary theory over at talkorigins.org.

why do you think the argument of “goddidit” was rejected by science hundreds of years ago?

there is no comparison between the two sides; one side has hundreds of years and thousands of case studies supporting it’s argument… the other has… nothing.

Boy! Talk about a loaded arguement that is clearly one-sided and biased! So, you are saying that IDists are constantly telling lies and misreprenting themselves and the evidence? I don’t think so at all! They look at the information that Darwinists look at and have a different interpretation which is dependent on their world view. Others see the very same information and infer that macroevolution occurred - completely at polar opposites!

You said,”one side has presented a literal mountain of evidence; the other, only obfuscation and deceit.” This implies that people like Behe and Denton are somehow seeking to be decietful. Is this not more attacking the person versus the information they are presenting? They are viewed as “flat earthers” by some of your writers when perhaps they are more forward thinking like Darwin was in his day… For example, I have viewed the information on the bacterial flagellum and its 40 moving parts and find it fascinating and interesting evidence for design (versus “climbing Mt. Improbable”) Yet, I look at the fossil record (gaps and all)and the dating of rocks and C-14/Potassium-Argon dating and wonder if the earth is perhaps as many say, billions of years old and maybe evolutionists have some good ideas after all. I have not made up my mind on all of these matters…I am looking at the evidence and attempting (although not always successfully) to set aside my bias and worldview to look at evidence. What I do NOT see from this side of the fence (the PT side) is a willingness to consider any evidence presented from an opposing view. Rather, there is an arrogance at calling all things non-Darwinian as “pseudoscience.” To me, that comment and those like them are deceitful in and of themselves.

Regarding “Can you please tell us where the ‘poor scholarhip’ lies on the side of evolutionary biologists?”

Sure, I think it’s appalling that Haeckel’s Embryos are still in textbooks. Sure, evolutionary biologists know and admit that they were faked yet they still appear, albeit sonetimes in an abridged form and only because creationists cried “foul!” I just read in the NABT journal last month an author’s ripping of IDists for daring to mention Haeckel when biologists have known for dozens of years that they were faked. But, if science is self-correcting, why wasn’t this taken care of sooner? I think it’s poor scholarship to even mention them, except in the hall of shame with Piltdown Man.

Another example of shoddy work is not letting the public clearly know what exactly is found at fossil digs. Typically, National Geographic Magazine shows full color images of hominids or ancestors like “Java Man” or some new find with all of the body parts supplied (hair and all) when all they found at the site was a jaw bone and a few skull fragments. One has to dig a little deeper to discover that a lot was inferred in putting him together. These may seem feeble arguements but they first come to mind. Maybe I can think of a few tonight while I lay awake.…

Lastly, regarding “there is no comparison between the two sides; one side has hundreds of years and thousands of case studies supporting it’s argument … the other has … nothing.”

I do not agree with you and neither does our President and his cabinet. They feel it is the right thing to do to present both the theory of evolution and the problems with it as was laid out in the NCLB Act. (I have also read that more than a few evolutionists consider Santorum an idiot but I have never met the man).

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience.

Still looking at the evidence,

Dr. E

KE Wrote:

1. The more we know, the more we DON’T know. Life is far more complex than we realize and to say it is not is the height of arrogance.

No, the height of arrogance is that our ignorance should be evidence of ‘intelligent design’

2. We observe and interpret data based on our preconceptions and world view. A creationist views DNA in all life forms and says that God used the same alphabet to make everything. An evolutionist views the sameinformation as “proof” of common ancestry for all beings. Same information, different interpretation.

Other than that ID is based on an appeal to ignorance while scientists attempt to explain the data in scientific terms. It’s not that there is a difference in interpretation but that ID is lacking much of any scientific explanation.

3. One side does not like or tolerate the other side. The ID people criticize the Darwinists for poor scholarship and the Darwinists criticize the Idists for “pseudoscience”.

I would say that scientists criticize ID’ers for scientific vacuity. Their poor scholarship may be understood when realizing that their arguments are scientifically vacuous and that internal peer review seems to be mostly absent.

What is real pseudoscience is looking for gaps in our knowledge and argue that this somehow is a problem for evolution when ID has no scientific explanation of their own.

Yes, scientific magazines make errors, as does science itself. As far as Haeckel is concerned, oe should not rely on ID sources to understand these issues.

Well, as a fence sitter, I look at both sides and see the science in each. But then, maybe my world view isn’t as stilted as those at the Panda’s Thumb, who flatly refute any artilce that doesn’t agree with Darwinian evolution before the ink is dry.

You are projecting. PT does not object to scientific disagreement but does object to using these gaps in our knowledge as somehow supporting intelligent design.

If you are interested in looking at the evidence then I suggest you read the papers by Riohardson on Haeckel. As far as the flagellum is concerned, science is increasing our understanding as to the origin of the flagellum. What has ID to offer? Nothing…

Before you criticize evolutionary theory, you may want to familiarize yourself with it.

Start thinking for yourself. If you are interested, I can provide you with some relevant links to Haeckel, the flagellum, humanoid evolution, radiometric dating or even the real story behind the Santorum amendment.

So, you are saying that IDists are constantly telling lies and misreprenting themselves and the evidence?

yes, that’s it exactly. don’t believe me? take a look around here yourself. try to examine the actual refutations of the things behe and demski and co say. we have proved them to be liars over and over again. just open your eyes and see. It really isn’t “interpretation” at all. have you actually even read any of the posts that start the threads here? if so, do you understand them?

when you see commenters here asking dembski or behe or any of the others to present a scientific theory of intelligent design, why do you think they never do? can you show me any scientific theory of intelligent design? we’ve been waiting an awfully long time to see one.

You said,”one side has presented a literal mountain of evidence; the other, only obfuscation and deceit.” This implies that people like Behe and Denton are somehow seeking to be decietful. Is this not more attacking the person versus the information they are presenting?

people like behe and denton ARE seeking to be deceitful. there is little doubt. i guess you don’t read much. tommorrow, i guess i will email you a list of some of the things they have been intentionally deceitful on, if someone doesn’t beat me to it.

They are viewed as “flat earthers” by some of your writers

hmm. i think you are quite mistaken. please show me where any official PT contributor has stated that they think behe or dembski are flat earthers. again, please READ the actual contributions before you make untrue statements about them.

For example, I have viewed the information on the bacterial flagellum and its 40 moving parts and find it fascinating and interesting evidence for design (versus “climbing Mt. Improbable”)

how did you exactly come to that conclusion? mere fitting of a description to an observed event doesn’t make it science. did you bother to read any of the actual science done on this issue? the evolution of flagella is represented by a whole series of well thought out actual RESEARCH experiments, not just random musings by someone who isn’t even a biologist. Would you care for the references to read for yourself? probably not, since you think the ID musings you read are actual “evidence”. There are folks here on PT who are well versed with the research in this area, should you actually care to avail yourself of learning what real research contributes to our understanding. you could start by reading the article provided by Nick Matzke here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

What I do NOT see from this side of the fence (the PT side) is a willingness to consider any evidence presented from an opposing view.

that’s because those who support ID have not presented any scientific evidence in support of their beliefs (not even a theory). the moment they actually do a scientific study testing any prediction from the theory they have yet to invent, we’d welcome it with open arms.

Look, you seem to be operating under the delusion that science doesn’t require any actual research to be done, or that scientists are all in “lockstep” on any particular issue. nothing could be further from the truth. If you would actually attend the discussion sections of any serious scientific forum, you would see the real story; scientists often disagree, even vehemently, but those disagreements are usually wrt to specific methods, statistics, or designs of a study. not whether the study is scientific by its very nature or not. Scientists don’t accept natural selection as a mechanism of evolution because other scientists say so, but because they have seen the results of the application of the theory in the field and the lab, and the results just keep on supporting the theory.

believe me, if anyone could show a valid scientific hypothesis with testable predictions that would directly refute current evolutionary theory, they would be famous overnight in the scientific community, as everyone and their grandmother applied for a grant to test it. This has NOT happened, even though evolutionary theory has been perhaps even more rigorously and thoroughly tested than quantum theory.

Yet, I look at the fossil record (gaps and all)…

this implies you feel there are gaps in the record wrt to transitional fossils. if this is true, please go see just a few examples of very detailed transitional fossil series here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq[…]/part1a.html

continue on to part b, and realize that even more transitional fossils have been found since the original article was put online.

I’ll cover your incorrect misgivings about “poor scholarship” tommorrow (it’s late here), but let me end by clarifying something:

I do not agree with you and neither does our President and his cabinet.

better check your facts again. Bush’s science advisor is a firm believer in evolutionary theory. As far as Santorum is concerned, easy enough for you to do a quick google search and see why so many (not just PTers) think he is an idiot. In fact, speaking of deceit, check the posts on this very site about how Santorum deceived the Senate in order to try and get his creationist ideas into the “no child left behind act”. Which, by the way of refuting your above claim yet again, does not include provisions within the act to “teach the controversy”.

Even someone as science illiterate as Bush recognizes the history of the ID movement, that it is just a front for creationism, and would be in violation of our constitution to teach it, as well as an afront to what is by definition called science. Of course, he has a science advisor to give him information. Where are you getting yours from?

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience.

that’s what you don’t seem to get. A good teacher of evolutionary theory does just that. However, we teach SCIENTIFIC criticisms of evolutionary theory, not religious criticisms of it. relgious criticism of science does not belong in a science classroom; it would more appropriately be addressed in a philosophy class.

you really are not on the “fence” if you continue to maintain such a poor understanding of what science is and how it should be taught. there are many here who would lead you to answers that would help your thinking, if you would but ask a question, rather than spout unconfirmed and incorrect assumptions about science and the nature of evidence.

if you have questions about actual evidence, ask them, otherwise you apparently have already made up your mind, and you are just deceiving yourself.

“the real story behind the Santorum amendment”

lol. you mean like the fact that there ISN’T one.

Re: Dr. E:

Hmmm, let’s see…

World View - check Haekel’s Embryos - check Piltdown Man - check Argument from Authority (President & cabinet) - check

He’s missed some of the standard fare, perhaps in a follow up.

At the risk of being labeled an ignoramus by the Darwinists at Panda’s Thumb, I would like to make a simple comment/observation. It is continually frustrating to see both sides of this debate continue to sling mud at the other in the name of “science”.

“Both sides”? What is the “other side”? I’ve heard IDers crow for over a decade now about this “alternatvie scientific theory” of theirs, but have never seen anyone actualy, PRODUCE it . …

Why is that?

Maybe you can help. What *is* the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we test it using the scientific method?

Show us how this “scientific theory of ID” works. Pick a specific example (say, the wonderful flagellum with all its moving parts) and show us how ID explains it. According to the “scientific theory of ID”, what did the designer do to produce the bacterial flagellum? Did the designer super-glue a flagellum onto a poor unsuspecting bacterium? Did the designer use its Acme Super-Duper DNA Re-Sequencer to produce the flagellum? Did the designer use the genetic engineering lab on board its interstellar flying saucer to manufacture a flagellum and graft it onto a bacterium?

What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory, does the designer do? What mechanisms, according to this scientific theory of ID, does the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it does? Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

Why won’t IDers answer any of these questions?

I have also read that more than a few evolutionists consider Santorum an idiot but I have never met the man

I have.

He’s not only an idiot, but a liar as well.

An excerpt from my “Creation ‘Science’ Debunked” website:

The “intelligent design” movement got its first legal test in June 2001, when the Senate was debating the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Authorization Bill (later renamed the “No Child Left Behind” Act). During the debate, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum introduced an amendment that had been partially written by Discovery Institute lawyer Phillip Johnson (and based on a law journal article written by Discovery Institute activist David DeWolf). The Santorum Amendment, introduced as a “sense of the Senate” resolution, read:

“It is the sense of the Senate that (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.”

Because the House version of the No Child Left Behind Act did not include any corresponding version of the Santorum Amendment, a House/Senate Conference Committee was required to reach agreement on a joint bill to be agreed upon by boht chambers of Congress. After a flood of letters and testimony from prominent science and education groups pointed out that the Santorum amendment was nothing but a thinly veiled excuse for teaching “intelligent design theory” in classrooms, the conference committee dropped the amendment, noting, in their Conference Report, “The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.” When the final version of the No Child Left Behind bill was passed by both the House and the Senate, it did not contain any portion of the Santorum Amendment.

Creationists/IDers and their supporters have, however, attempted to claim that the No Child Left Behind bill not only permits but actually requires schools to teach “intelligent design theory”. Santorum himself, for instance, wrote in March 2002, “At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the “No Child Left Behind” bill. The new law includes a science education provision where Congress states that “where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist. If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.” (Washington Times, March 14, 2002, cited in “ID-Activists-Guide”, NCSE website). Two Ohio Congressmen also claimed, “The Santorum language is now part of the law”. (Washington Times, March 20, 2002, cited in “ID-Activists-Guide”). Neither of these claims, of course, are true — the Santorum language was dropped from the bill in committee, and the only time it is mentioned is in the accompanying Conference Report, which is not a part of the bill and has no legal force or authority.

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

But then, maybe my world view isn’t as stilted as those at the Panda’s Thumb

What, um, “world-view” would that be, Dr . …?

Please be specific.

You met Sanctorum, Lenny?

Does he come off in person the same way he comes off on camera… like a dissembling ideologue? or is there more to the man?

What were the circumstances?

do tell!

What I do NOT see from this side of the fence (the PT side) is a willingness to consider any evidence presented from an opposing view. Rather, there is an arrogance at calling all things non-Darwinian as “pseudoscience.” To me, that comment and those like them are deceitful in and of themselves.

Suppose that we “looked at the evidence” for voodoo causes of sickness in our society? Would we be justified in treating this as legitimate science? There might have been once, but the continual failure to produce and present proper evidence is enough reason to reject it, and to call those who promote such ideas as fakes and pseudoscientists.

Yet the yapping of those who promote a “science” that has never even begun to deal with evidence in the proven epistemological methods used by courts and scientists makes ignorant people like Dr. E claim that there is reason to look at old, discredited, and clearly unscientific ideas. He doesn’t understand the issues, he doesn’t know the reasons why we recognize the necessity of calling pseudoscience by its right name. He even claims to see science on both sides, but fails to give us any reason why we should believe that the other side has science.

Why Dr. E, afraid that your “science” won’t stand up to scrutiny? The fact is that you’re attacking without bringing in any light, merely repeating the tired old canards that have been refuted thousands of times, as if we should pay attention to your ignorant claims. We’re happy enough to discuss actual scientific questions, but we’re rarely met with any at all, rather we’re only accused of intolerance by those who can’t make a case for the other side being treated tolerantly.

If you want to learn something, read some science. Talkorigins is a good place. If you want to whine, I’ll just go ahead and call you an ignoramus, since I have good reason to believe that you can’t show the slightest bit of reason to take ID seriously.

The more we know, the more we DON’T know.

Written like a true ignoramus. The more we know, the more we understand evolution. The question is, what do you actually know? I’m getting a better view of the history of life as I read the journals, while you apparently aren’t gaining much knowledge by paying attention to the pseudoscientists.

We observe and interpret data based on our preconceptions and world view. A creationist views DNA in all life forms and says that God used the same alphabet to make everything. An evolutionist views the sameinformation as “proof” of common ancestry for all beings. Same information, different interpretation.

That is so, we do interpret data based on our worldview and preconceptions. This is why it is important to challenge preconceptions. Methods of getting to the truth about the data have been worked out, notably by the Greeks, then through the Christian (plus Jewish and Muslim) scholastics, then into science and its methods. The hope is that we can continue to pass these “preconceptions” down to our children, rather than have simple bias inform people about biology. You’re once again equating vastly different things, the methods that work for all peoples and cultures regardless of their born preconceptions (some of which must be jettisoned for science to work for them), and peculiar cultural prejudices based in Western religion, philosophy, and mythology.

Learn something about it before you go flinging accusations.

One side does not like or tolerate the other side. The ID people criticize the Darwinists for poor scholarship and the Darwinists criticize the Idists for “pseudoscience”.

If you don’t want to be labeled an ignoramus, learn why we say what we do, and about the dishonesty that exists on the other side. I’m sure you aren’t willing to grant respect to any number of charlatans and quacks, so you have no right to demand that we do.

(You know what would happen if we pretended that the other side had a legitimate case? It would be used as propaganda by DI and other IDists, perhaps even yourself. And it would be our fault for giving credence to voodoo science. Learn about the ethics of science.)

You met Sanctorum, Lenny?

Does he come off in person the same way he comes off on camera … like a dissembling ideologue? or is there more to the man?

What were the circumstances?

do tell!

It was in 1990, during my political campaign worker days. It was while he was running for a Pennsylvania Congressional seat – he was at a fundraiser for then-PA Republican Congressman Don Ritter. I crashed the party and Ritter invited me to stay as long as I “behaved myself” – he and I were on a first-name basis, me having been arrested at his office several times and all, and his then-campaign manager was a friend of mine. (As an aside, shortly after, Ritter lost re-election on the same night that Clinton was elected, so me and a few of my radical friends crashed his “victory” party —- you can just close your eyes and picture a gaggle of long-haired Wobblies sitting in the middle of all those uptight corporado suit-and-ties, toasting the downfall of the Republicans with their own bubbly. I still remember one remark I made to poor Don as he sat at the table with us —- “You know, Don, now you and I finally have something in common; we’re both unemployed.”)

Anyway, Santorum struck me as a person who was utterly incapable of an original thought unless someone else told him about it first. He was also sickeningly obsequious in his fawning over every Republican bigwig in the room, and gave me the impression that he can’t take a shit without asking someone higher up the food chain, what color they wanted it to be.

He still strikes me that way.

As with most people who can only follow scripts, the best way to turn Santorum into a blithering idiot is to force him to go offscript and answer things off the cuff. He very quickly demonstrates that he’s, uh, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

” he and I were on a first-name basis, me having been arrested at his office several times and all”

hey, that sounds like a good story too. I’ve done my fair share of er, “politiking” but managed to avoid being arrested.

care to elaborate? do so in private if you think it wiser.

“Anyway, Santorum struck me as a person who was utterly incapable of an original thought unless someone else told him about it first. He was also sickeningly obsequious in his fawning over every Republican bigwig in the room, and gave me the impression that he can’t take a shit without asking someone higher up the food chain, what color they wanted it to be.”

ahh, the quintessential neocon toadie. *sigh*

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience.

Do you also think that to simply teach students the germ theory of disease and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience?

How about heliocentric theory?

Quantum electrodynamics?

Plate tectonics?

Why is it only evolution that seems to get your panties all in a bunch, and not the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, or plate tectonics? Why is it that IDers only crow about “teach the controversy” about evolution, and not anything else? Why is it that IDers only complain about the “gaps” in evolutionary theory, and not anything else? (Or is it your opinion that all the rest of science is finished and complete with perfect knowledge of everything – unlike evolution?)

Why is that, Dr?

Oh, and I have a question for you about this whole “teach the controversy” thingie, and it’s a crushingly simple question.

My question is this:

What *IS* the controversy that you want to teach. Exactly. Who is on one side, and who is on the other. One side says . . what, and the other side says … what.

See, Dr, it seems to me that ID actually involves SEVERAL “controversies”. Those that can be legally taught, have nothing to do with ID. Those that DO involve ID, cannot be legally taught.

I see some of the possible “controversies” as:

(1) whether evolution happens or not (2) whether science should include supernatural explanations or not () whether this evolutionary hypothesis is more correct for this or that observation than that evolutionary hypothesis is

See, Dr, it looks to ME as if IDers do a bait-and-switch whenever they talk about “*the* controversy”. Most of the “science” they cite concerns “controversies” of the third group in my list – controversies over how evolution happens; things like “did birds evolve from dinosaurs or from some other group of archosaurs?” or “did this trait evolve through selection or through neutral drift?” or “is phyletic gradualism more prevalent in the fossil record than punctuated equilibrium?”. I have no objection to teaching those “controversies” (of course, students need to first possess a basic understanding of science and evolution before they can even begin to understand what these “controversies” involve and how they can be settled). The problem, though, is that IDers tend to bait and switch — they want to present Type 3 “controversies” AS IF they were “type 1 controversies” —- they want to present controversy over HOW evolution operates AS IF it were controversy over WHETHER evolution operates. And, as usual, IDers are flat-out dishonest when they do so. (Just witness the DI’s penchant for putting out list after list of “scientists who disagree with ‘darwinism’” — which is nothing but a flat-out dishonest bait-and-switch attempt to turn an argument over HOW evolution happens into an argument over WHETHER evolution happens.)

It would seem to me as if the only “controversy” that IDers should be interested in teaching would be “does the scientific theory of ID explain this observation better than the scientific theory of evolution does”? Alas, such a “controversy” is dead, finished, kaput,right form the get-go, simply because THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF ID. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a one. There simply cannot be a “controversy” between evolution and ID when ID says … nothing.

It is, of course, the SECOND “controversy” in my list that ID is really concerned about — it is indeed the only one that matters to them, and all of their yammering about “controversy” is simply an attempt to equate any criticism of evolution with the “controversy” between “naturalism” and “supernaturalism”. Of course, IDers cannot SAY so openly, especially in court, since that would make their theocratic religious aims too clear for even a Bush-appointed Judge to let slide. Hence, the old bait-and-switch ——– act as if you are talking about Type 3 controversies, when you are really talking about “the” Type 2 “controversy”. The Kansas Kangaroo Kourt was just a big long exercise in this type of bait-and-switch.

I.e., the entire “teach *the* controversy” mantra is, as is typical of IDers, dishonest, evasive and deceptive. When it comes to scientific controversy, there simply *isn’t any* over evolution, despite IDers dishonest attempts to paint Type 3 controversies as Type 1 controversies. When it comes to “the” REAL “teach the controversy” that ID wants – supernaturalism vs naturalism — they can’t talk about it openly, since it’s not only NOT a scientific “controversy”, but is illegal to teach.

Like I said, the old bait-and-switch.

Hence my question to you. What, exactly, *IS* “the controversy” that you and other IDers want to have taught. Who is on one side, and who is on the other. One side says what, and the other side says what.

Drop the whole bait-and-switch thing, and just tell us what “the controversy” is, exactly, that IDers want taught.

Naturally, I expect no answer.

Which is, of course, a quite eloquent answer all by itself.

” he and I were on a first-name basis, me having been arrested at his office several times and all”

hey, that sounds like a good story too. I’ve done my fair share of er, “politiking” but managed to avoid being arrested.

Heck, I’ve been arrested at least 20 times, in places ranging from several different picket lines to the White House to Wall Street to the UN to the Russian Embassy to the Pentagon (I actually managed to get inside the Pentagon and ended up running randomly through a confusing maze of hallways with three or four MPs chasing after). I once had the honor of being arrested with Abbie Hoffman, shortly before his suicide (at the Liberty Bell, of all places) – we shared a holding cell and had a nice long talk. Another time, I was arrested at an anti-apartheid rally at the South African Embassy with Amy Carter.

The cops would always just keep me for a few hours and then kick me out (I never carried any ID with me, so they had the choice of either letting me go, or keeping me until they could figure out who I was). As for Congressman Ritter, his response was always to have us all arrested and dragged off, then he would decline to appear at the court hearing, which led to all charges being dropped.

It was all civil disobedience for various and sundry things – I was very active back in the 80’s in the movement opposing intervention in Central America (I was in Nicaragua during the Contra War as a human rights observer), and also did stints with various human rights, environmental, labor activist, and antiwar groups.

Even way back then, I always preferred action to words.

As I always tell people, “I am NOT a liberal —– I am a radical.” :>

I think it’s time you wrote a book, Lenny. We could use a few more radicals these days. I kinda had the radical kicked outta me.

How on earth did you ever find time to get your PhD?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 22, column 2, byte 1064 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

I’m a fence sitter too. I think the world is only partly flat, that both sides are sincere but the round-earthers are abusive, and I’m here with open-minded questions, to wit: Why are you people so stupid? Why do you hate God so much? Why can’t you accept fairly tales based on wishful thinking, which are AT LEAST as valid as hundreds of thousands of careers spent doing reviewed research? How dare you ask me any questions, which is abusive all by itself? How dare you jump to conclusions without asking me questions first? Why are you all such jerks?

See, I have asked LOTS of questions. I’m here to learn, after all.

I’ll make it easy for Dr. E: Please give us one (1) example of evidence which is positive for ID and negative for the theory of evolution. Or one (1) problem with evolution which ID solves.

Just one caveat: it cannot have been addressed in either PT or http://www.talkorigins.org

If you have been able to stay sat on the fence, it must be because you have found evidence for both camps. ALl I am asking is for one. Easy enough, isn’t it?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: failure to comply with such a simple and easy request will mark you as a full-fledge creationist. If you don’t understand why, it’s because creationists like to state that there is evidence for their position and then never produce any. Just FYI.

“PD: failure to comply with such a simple and easy request will mark you as a full-fledge creationist. If you don’t understand why, it’s because creationists like to state that there is evidence for their position and then never produce any. Just FYI.”

So, let’s see…all I need to do is read each and every esaay, paper, and critique on this site AND everything at talkorigins,org AND make sure none of my questions have already been answered (even if they are not to my satisfaction. Hmm…I don’t think I have 15 hours of my time to spend on that task, sorry. So, I guess you can just paint me with a broad, non-scientific brush that I am somewhow an enemy of yours and write me off as a loony because I dare to think about how perhaps macroevolution doesn’t work for me as I look at the evidence?

Oh, and by the way, I didn’t say that EVERYONE was a beer-swiller with an honorary doctorate (read the post) I said “is a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary “doctors” of various subjects.” But then again, if one paints with a broad brush (ie. anyone who has problems with macroevolution it is because of religious bias PERIOD)then I guess we are at an impasse.

As I stated, Behe’s contention that the flagellum has 40 moving parts that all need to be there in one evolutionary step in order for it to work is intruiging. But most of what I’ve read about his evidence at this site and others attacks him for academic and scholarly dishonesty and/or lies versus addressing the issue and evidence. Now, I am not a biochemist, nor am I a bacteriologist, so all I’m saying is that it’s interesting information I’d like to see addressed in a professional, non-character-assassinating manner. But It’s a bit like a baseball game that an outsider wishes to be a part of. Someone else makes up the rules as to who and who can’t play. “No creationists” makes up 5 of the 10 rules and the others are based on those as well. Then, someone who has a question or two and MAYBE is leaning away from macroevolution as the answer to it all asks to play. “No, you’re a creationist.” “Actually, I’m not sure I am, I say.” “Sure you are,” they say, you don’t follow our rules so you can’t play.” Or something like that. But wouldn’t the game be more fun for everyone of someone actually sat down and said, “OK, I’m willing to set aside my bias and look at your evidence” (versus saying, THAT!? THAT”S not evidence! How ridiculous!) But maybe I’m living in a world that doesn’t exist…

Anyway getting back to Behe…I read the Nature magazine article about him and his flagellum theory (that it’s irreducibly complex)and remember someone discussing his “mousetrap” analogy and as I remember it, they went after the analogy and ignored the issue. They talked about how the parts of a mousetrap could all have had a use as something else (a tie clip comes to mind). They never discussed how all of the parts could come together at the exact same time in order for it to work. (If it didn’t work, natural selection would select it “out”) The same thing happened in the latest issue of my state’s science teacher magazine, except with J. Welles’ problems with Haeckel…they addressed a side issue (that everyone knew about the fraud) versus the central issue (that they are still in textbooks as “evidence”). So, yeah…I’m a questioner. I don’t always listen to and fiollow the party line…I look…I question…I reason. I’m trying to be a “real” scientist. But maybe I have to find another ball park to play in because Darwin-forbid, I might resemble an ACCCCCK! creationist! And THEY aren’t allowed!

Maybe y’all could take one step back and look at some of the acidic tone of your posts and realize that you CAN discuss science without being so polemic, if you’d only let go of all of that anger. ???

I guess this is a longer retreat than I planned. Maybe I’m hoping someone can be humane and respond with evidence that doesn’t contain any poison. Might be easier to swallow.…just a thought

Dr. E

Dr. E., on the axiom that you are indeed interested and not just being a pain, let me state the major objection to the IDC crowd’s argument. The argument from design assumes that whatever complex structure is under discussion (the eye, the flagellum, the mousetrap) arose in one fell swoop, and that is of course impossible. But that’s not the way evolution works. Changes go in a direction mandated by selection, and the changes are cumulative. In fact, the flagellum is a great example of the process: different organisms have co-opted different proteins, some flagella are missing parts that are in other bacteria (e.g., they can’t change direction but they still move), etc.

I read Behe’s book. He writes well and can be superficially convincing, especially to someone who is neither a biochemist or a microbiologist. He picks and chooses, though, and has been debunked thoroughly by experts in these systems.

His argument boils down to “If we don’t know how it happened, then God did it.” This is a fallacy. God is (by definition) unknowable, but not all that we don’t know is unknowable. Sometimes we just don’t know. Sometimes we can’t know, but that still doesn’t mean the laws of chemistry and physics don’t apply to those systems.

Finally, unless you can give evidence of the science teacher who is mocking students’ faith, (rather than telling them that their personal beliefs are not accorded equal time in science class) please drop the subject. It smells of an urban legend.

Dr. E: Think of an argument. Lets say you think that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution wrong. Now go to the search functions in either website (I recommend you start in talkorigins, it is by far the mroe complete) and put the key words. In my example, “second law thermodynamics”. If you find a reference, read through it, because it means that your “argument” is not actually a valid one. Iterate through all your arguments and problems with evolution till you find one that is not contemplated in either place. Should take, tops, 20 minutes, if you really have such good arguments and problems. Recommendation: start with the most promising (i.e. *don’t* use the one I used for the example, one of the oldest cannards of creationism).

If the argument is not answered to your satisfaction, come here and explain why. That will either: 1) reveal you don’t actually know what you’re talking about or 2) open our eyes to your supreme knowledge. I expect 1, but only because in 150 years of evolution there has been as of yet no creationist argument that holds water. Maybe you’ll change the pattern, though.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

all I need to do is read each and every esaay, paper, and critique on this site AND everything at talkorigins,org AND make sure none of my questions have already been answered (even if they are not to my satisfaction. Hmm … I don’t think I have 15 hours of my time to spend on that task,sorry.

Yes, I’m sure you don’t have time to actually become informed, rather you’ll spout tendentious questions fed to you by people you shouldn’t have read before you learned about evolutionary science.

So, I guess you can just paint me with a broad, non-scientific brush that I am somewhow an enemy of yours and write me off as a loony because I dare to think about how perhaps macroevolution doesn’t work for me as I look at the evidence?

How could you think with such an intellectual attitude as you exhibit, along with your unwillingness to study? I guess you’re faulting us for not giving you the glib answers that IDists and creationists do. Well guess what, science takes work. If you’re not going to put ou the effort, don’t claim to think, and go off to your simple answers that you obviously prefer already.

But then again, if one paints with a broad brush (ie. anyone who has problems with macroevolution it is because of religious bias PERIOD

Give it up you little weasel. Your ethics leave a lot to be desired, what with you portraying the well-deserved response you got as a broad-brush indictment of all who bring in questions about “macroevolution”. I know it’s a lot easier for you to blame others and not the ill-temper and lack of openness that you evinced in your very first post, so I’m sure it’ll do you little good to point to your tantrum at the beginning, but here is the worst:

But then, maybe my world view isn’t as stilted as those at the Panda’s Thumb, who flatly refute any artilce that doesn’t agree with Darwinian evolution before the ink is dry.

By the way, we’re not waiting with bated breath for each new anti-Darwinian attack, nor for each new psychic claim. I guess you take our preference for science as being “stilted”, but this only goes to show how really hostile and tendentious your opening blast was. I doubt you’ll ever get it, since your mind is so very closed, however we have no reason to toady to some little git know-nothing coming along and cutting down those who know immensely more than do you.

As I stated, Behe’s contention that the flagellum has 40 moving parts that all need to be there in one evolutionary step in order for it to work is intruiging. But most of what I’ve read about his evidence at this site and others attacks him for academic and scholarly dishonesty and/or lies versus addressing the issue and evidence. Now, I am not a biochemist, nor am I a bacteriologist, so all I’m saying is that it’s interesting information I’d like to see addressed in a professional, non-character-assassinating manner.

What does “40 moving parts” mean in a flagellum? Do you know? Oh that’s right, you’re not a biochemist nor a bacteriologist, and you’re too indolent to check out the relevant sources. So you demand a simple answer to a complex question, without in the least even asking if that is the proper question.

Why don’t you ask about the genetic evidence for evolution, or more to the point, why don’t you learn about it in the proper venue? Why are you bringing up the flagellum and not considering how all of the evidence of biology is tied together by evolution, both synchronically and diachronically? That is to say, why are you, who think so critically and so open-mindedly show the least bit of integrity in your claims to openness by actually questioning Behe’s target and focus? You seem to have no questions to ask of his tendentious focus on the gaps, instead you parrot one simplistic question about one area not well understood at this time, and claim that this is critical thinking. Well, you sure wouldn’t pass for a critical thinker among any intellectuals, that’s for sure.

Why don’t you ask about the genetics of the flagellum? Why don’t you ask if the genetic material encoding for the flagellum is different in any discernable way from evolved genetic information? Where’s your critical mind? We haven’t seen it yet.

But It’s a bit like a baseball game that an outsider wishes to be a part of. Someone else makes up the rules as to who and who can’t play. “No creationists” makes up 5 of the 10 rules and the others are based on those as well.

More like, honesty is one crucial rule, and you have been ruled against on that count in most of your posts, and especially in the nonsense in the paragraph above. You can whine. Can you do anything else?

“OK, I’m willing to set aside my bias and look at your evidence” (versus saying, THAT!? THAT”S not evidence! How ridiculous!) But maybe I’m living in a world that doesn’t exist . …

The dishonest attacks continue. The trouble is that you quite blatantly accused people here of bias without the slightest bit of the evidence required to back that up. Apparently it is a given to you that we’re biased. Well, you’re very mistaken. Do you really suppose that countless researchers and journal articles are nothing other than a whole lot of bias? Your conspiracy theory won’t wash, and we don’t appreciate your ignorant attacks.

Anyway getting back to Behe … I read the Nature magazine article about him and his flagellum theory (that it’s irreducibly complex)and remember someone discussing his “mousetrap” analogy and as I remember it, they went after the analogy and ignored the issue. They talked about how the parts of a mousetrap could all have had a use as something else (a tie clip comes to mind). They never discussed how all of the parts could come together at the exact same time in order for it to work. (If it didn’t work, natural selection would select it “out”) The same thing happened in the latest issue of my state’s science teacher magazine, except with J. Welles’ problems with Haeckel … they addressed a side issue (that everyone knew about the fraud) versus the central issue (that they are still in textbooks as “evidence”). So, yeah … I’m a questioner. I don’t always listen to and fiollow the party line … I look … I question … I reason. I’m trying to be a “real” scientist. But maybe I have to find another ball park to play in because Darwin-forbid, I might resemble an ACCCCCK! creationist! And THEY aren’t allowed!

You don’t even try to understand the other side, do you, preferring your simplistic lies and IDist party line?

Why are you getting back to Behe? Why are you dealing with the admitted problems that remain in evolution, and not discussing the enormous amount of evidence that has convinced actual critical thinkers, though not tendentious fools who won’t study the evidence? Why aren’t you asking Behe and other IDists why the genetic clock works so well, what their actual positive evidence is for some parts of organisms having different origins than other parts, and why the bacterial flagellum apparently was made out of other structures? Right, I’m forgetting, you haven’t studied sufficiently and you don’t want to.

Well that toe-fouling substance who apparently was knighted (not an attack, Sir T., just trying to say it differently) suggested that you go to Talkorigins, which was very good advice. Since you’d rather whine and complain than follow a good suggestion, here’s one link to answers about the flagellum:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/[…]CB200_1.html

There is absolutely no reason why you should focus on this one issue just because ID authorities told you to care about it, however. Try some critical thinking and move beyond prescribed areas of study, and you might finally learn something about evolution instead of reasons to whinge and feel sorry for yourself.

Maybe y’all could take one step back and look at some of the acidic tone of your posts and realize that you CAN discuss science without being so polemic, if you’d only let go of all of that anger. ???

Why don’t you quit pissing off your betters?

Maybe I’m hoping someone can be humane and respond with evidence that doesn’t contain any poison. Might be easier to swallow . …just a thought

Actually, we can and often do. The trouble is that people like you bring in poison that is wholly uncalled-for, and then feel like they’re being picked on when they really are purveyors of pseudoscience and prone to unfair attacks. Cry on your own shoulder.

Oh, well. I decidend to take one last look at the skewering I got (and continue to get as it seems!)I guess I’m a glutton for punishment! I looked a little harder at the Panda website and found that it is a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary “doctors” of various subjects.

How dreadful.

I notice you’ve not answered any of my questions yet. No problem — I’ll jsut ask again. And again and again and again and again, every time you post anything here, until you either answer or run away.

*ahem*

Why is it only evolution that seems to get your panties all in a bunch, and not the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, or plate tectonics? Why is it that IDers only crow about “teach the controversy” about evolution, and not anything else? Why is it that IDers only complain about the “gaps” in evolutionary theory, and not anything else? (Or is it your opinion that all the rest of science is finished and complete with perfect knowledge of everything — unlike evolution?)

Why is that, Dr?

Oh, and I have a question for you about this whole “teach the controversy” thingie, and it’s a crushingly simple question.

My question is this:

What *IS* the controversy that you want to teach. Exactly. Who is on one side, and who is on the other. One side says . . what, and the other side says … what.

What *is* the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we test it using the scientific method?

Show us how this “scientific theory of ID” works. Pick a specific example (say, the wonderful flagellum with all its moving parts) and show us how ID explains it. According to the “scientific theory of ID”, what did the designer do to produce the bacterial flagellum? Did the designer super-glue a flagellum onto a poor unsuspecting bacterium? Did the designer use its Acme Super-Duper DNA Re-Sequencer to produce the flagellum? Did the designer use the genetic engineering lab on board its interstellar flying saucer to manufacture a flagellum and graft it onto a bacterium?

What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory, does the designer do? What mechanisms, according to this scientific theory of ID, does the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it does? Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

Why didn’t **Dr E** answer any of these questions?

I can only think of three possible reasons why the good Dr won’t answer my simple question. Either:

(1) there **is no** scientific theory of ID, and IDers like Dr E are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise, or (2) there **is** a scientific theory of ID, but Dr E is too dumb and uninformed to know what it is, or (3) there **is** a scientific theory of ID and Dr E **does** know what it is, but for some unfathomable reason he wants to keep it secret from us.

Dr, if you won’t answer my question, would you at least give me a hint as to **why** you won’t answer it? Is it reason number one, number two, or number three?

My money, of course, is on reason number one.

Dr, am I right?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 13, column 2, byte 622 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

anti-Republican

BTW, Doc, I’m anti-Democrat, too.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 21, column 2, byte 994 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

C’mon Dr. E! You’re not going to take that lying down, are you?

Remember the flagellum!

(Actually, that would make a great IDist rallying cry.…)

Dr. E is an IDiot, plain and simple. It’s frightening that he purports to be some sort of science teacher yet evinces no evidence of understanding even the most basic principles of science and perhaps worse yet, no evidence of the intellectual capacity to understand. What can he be teaching? I am not a scientist. I’m an engineer who works in manufacturing, and engineers have taken a bit of a beating around here, although for the most part it’s been deserved. I wouldn’t think of arguing genetics with a qualified geneticist, but I hope I’m smart enough to recognize a lame argument when I see one, and to be able to evaluate the arguments between experts to the degree necessary to be able to tell when something ain’t right.

If Dr. E wants to honestly review the arguments and the literature–to the extent he’s able to understand it–the answers are abundantly clear. ID is nothing more than attempt to sneak religion past the Constitution. And if he’s honest, he’ll admit that and move on, rather than continuing to make a fool of himself and trumpeting his intellectual deficit. In the words of the immortal Bob Dylan, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. You have to be an arrogant fool, however, to deny it in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

…a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary “doctors” of various subjects.

Well, this hard-right conservative engineer thinks that Dr E currently has zero credibility. He comes in here, pretending to be a fence-sitter, when in reality he has already decided (based on what knowledge, I cannot imagine, because in his posts he offers up all the tired old discredited creationist canards and demonstrates zero knowledge of the data or the science)

When it is suggested that he should put up some arguments that aren’t tired and discredited he cries off. Apparently It’s too much work to find out what arguments we’ve seen and refuted a thousand times. Sorry Dr E, no cigar; look what you also posted.…

What I am attempting to do (despite the criticism of many of you fellows) is be a non-biased educator of high school kids, presenting ideas and letting them look at the evidence and deciding for themselves (based on evidence) what makes sense to them.

Why don’t you show us the arguments that you show the High School Kids? If you don’t know the material how do you know that you aren’t misleading the kids with endlessly refuted lies?

Incidentally, from some of your posts I get the impression that you don’t accept the common descent of all life on earth. I hope that you are aware that your ID heroes, Behe and Denton do unequivocally accept common descent, because the evidence for it is absolutely overwhelming.

Great idea. So let the holocaust deniers waste classtime, and the flat earthers, and the dowsing rodders, ESP, Forteans, let David Icke’s shape-shifting lizards into Civics class, and lets spend the whole time presenting any half-wit’s notions, and then just let the kids pick.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on May 30, 2005 8:59 PM.

ASA: Bias in Science, Part 2 was the previous entry in this blog.

Another Tangled Bank is imminent 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 4.381

Site Meter