“Waterloo” delayed? Again?

| 137 Comments

Just about the most common words that come out of the mouths of “intelligent design” proponents are “We’re not creationists!”

Why, then, has everyone that has testified so far in Kansas Kangaroo Court (see roundups by the Red State Rabble and Pharyngula) conceded that they think that humans do not share common ancestry with apes, in opposition to the scientific consensus and in flagrant contradiction of the actual scientific evidence?

Red State Rabble reports for us this morning (May 7, 2005):

The Score Card So Far

During cross-examination, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray has forced each intelligent design witness to go on record about their opinion on the age of the earth, common descent, and whether human beings have evolved from pre-hominids.

So far, not one witness has said they believe the evidence supports a belief that all living things share a common ancestor or that they believe that human have evolved from pre-hominids.

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

If a mix of old-earth and young-earth special creationists is the best that Discovery Institute and the Kansas Intelligent Design Network can come up with to support “critical analysis of evolution,” they are going to get a lot less mileage out of these hearings than they hoped.

This is actually surprising to me. Based on the existence of Michael Behe, I inferred that there must be a few other people in the ID movement that kinda-sorta accepted the overwhelming evidence for the common descent of humans and apes. It’s been very hard to tell, because ID people are usually very reluctant to say what, exactly, their actual views are. But now we have all of these guys on the record.

After the first few hours on Day 1, most of the media seems to have concluded that the Kangaroo Court really was a creationist-inspired farce from start to finish, so they got their video clips and left. However, a few intrepid newspaper reporters sucked it up and sat through the tedium (“Evolution doesn’t work because [insert long-refuted dumb creationist argument]”), running out to file stories when creationist witnesses or creationist Board of Education members said something particularly revealing, such as the fact that many of the creationists had not even read the mainstream science standards draft they were criticizing. One creationist board member said, apparently in attempted self-defense, that she only skims over the technical stuff in the draft science standards.

The best short summary I’ve seen, from MSNBC:

“They’re creationists first and scientists second,” Robert Bowden, a Kansas State University plant pathologist, said after Friday’s hearing.

Leading IDist William Dembski seems rather rueful about the way the Kangaroo Court hearings are playing out (Why wasn’t he a witness, by the way? Afraid of cross-examination?). He just said on his blog:

“The hearings were intended to allow both evolutionists as well as critics of evolution to have their say, but the evolutionists decided to boycott the event, so only the critics of evolution are having their say. But there’s an added twist: given the way the hearings are set up, an evolutionist lawyer (Pedro Irigonegaray) gets to interrogate the evolution critics and an evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert) gets to interrogate the evolutionists. Yet given that the evolutionists are boycotting the event, only the evolution critics are being interrogated.”William Dembski, 5/7/05

Everyone please get out their violins for the poor, oppressed critics of evolution. It is now the fault of the dogmatic Darwinist conspiracy that the Kansas Board of Education brought 20-some creationists to Kansas to testify in favor of the Intelligent Design Network’s 20-some pages of revisions to the state science standards.

I have recently decided that wishful thinking is probably a core feature of ID promoters. This applies widely to their whole approach to scientific evidence, but it also applies to their political goals. I think the IDists really thought that the Kansas evolution hearings really would be the Waterloo for evolution – finally those evil evolutionists would be exposed as frauds on national TV, evolution would be overturned, and cultural renewal would begin. Just last week, Dembski stated flat out, right there on his blog, “Kansas may well turn out to be the Waterloo for America’s evolution vendors.”

But now that it appears that yet another Waterloo for evolution isn’t going quite the way that Dembski hoped, he has changed his tune. We now have more wishful thinking about the future. From the conclusion of Dembski’s post today:

“I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.” William Dembski, 5/7/05

That’s when the evolutionists will have their Waterloo! As stated in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy in various places: “They’ll be the first ones with their backs against the wall When the Revolution Comes…”

PS: The fact that the Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division is busy attempting to rebut journalists is another indication that they are not getting the result they wanted from these hearings.

137 Comments

I was shocked to find out there’s a jury for this show trial. What exactly is the jury charged with determining?

Dembski stated flat out, right there on his blog, “Kansas may well turn out to be the Waterloo for America’s [scientists].”

A mere typo. Turns out, Kansas is a water loo for America’s [scientists]

It seems this has completely backfired on the ID movement and really has made them look like a complete farce to the entire country.

This is very amusing indeed.

Great summary, Nick. And the graphic is PERFECT.

Haha, I just saw this which they posted earlier that day:

he Darwinists think that by bringing it up they can somehow make this about ID. It’s not. Did Mr. Igrigonegaray read the standards? One wonders.

Haha.

Oh how this turned to bite them in the rear end.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.[…]b=1&pb=1

I wonder about Dembski’s grasp on reality. Can he possibly be surprised that the ID folks sound like creationists? Was he expecting the witnesses to suddenly transcend their usual sectarian agendas and present cogent scientific arguments?

His comment about subpoenas warns that the ID movement is modeling its means of ascent on that of Lysenkoism. The more they appear as fakes and liars, the more they will resort to naked political power in pursuit of their goals.

D*mbski writes ““The hearings were intended to allow both evolutionists as well as critics of evolution to have their say, but the evolutionists decided to boycott the event, so only the critics of evolution are having their say. But there’s an added twist: given the way the hearings are set up, an evolutionist lawyer (Pedro Irigonegaray) gets to interrogate the evolution critics and an evolution critic lawyer (John Calvert) gets to interrogate the evolutionists. Yet given that the evolutionists are boycotting the event, only the evolution critics are being interrogated.”

1 - 2 - 3 AAAAwwwwwwwwww

It certainly does seem that the ID movement now regard this whole trial as a loss, maybe not in Kansas, but certainly to the remainder of the world and other states.

Dembski made a comment recently that his “career was in ruins.”

I’d like to ask, what career?

Is he a scientist? No, he conducts no research.

Is he a teacher? No, he didn’t teach at Baylor or anywhere else to my knowledge. Baylor simply let his contract run out.

Is he a self-promoter? Well, if you admit that self-promoting is a “career” then I think you’re getting close.

Dembski makes his living off of the generosity of others. (apologies to Tennessee Williams)

Therefore, I think he’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what he says or what he does because he has no track record, no credibility and no contribution to make.

I hate to admit it but at least Behe, who in my opinion is just a notch above Dembski, conducts science in his spare time. Dembski doesn’t even do that.

So the bottom line is that we should cast old Bill into the pit with the likes of John Davison and Salvador and all the other trolls who frequent the PandasThumb.

Sorry, Dembski, but you’ve Waterloo’d one time too many. Nobody believes your hysterical whines. My advice to you is to move to California. I heard they discovered a Quote Mine there and you can get plots for cheap.

Kansas isn’t evolution’s Waterloo…rather, it’s shaping up to be it’s Austerlitz.

Everyone please get out their violins for the poor, oppressed critics of evolution.

Hey, look: it’s the world’s smallest, most irreducibly complex violin.

And it’s playing just for William Dembski.

Dembski really said this?

“I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.”

That day already occurred, in Arkansas, in 1981. “Evolutionists” were deposed, under oath. It was impressive, but it just touched the surface of science.

On the other hand, in that case in Arkansas, Dembski’s side was deposed, too – under oath. Having sworn an oath to tell the truth, most of them having ended that oath “so help me God,” each and every creationist deposed said that there is no science behind their creationist claims, and that creationism is based on their reading of scripture.

Be careful what you hope for, Dr. Dembski! You could get it.

In fact, isn’t Dembski listed as one of the “expert” witnesses for the Dover case? Under oath, will Dembski deny his faith, or admit the religious underpinnings of his claims?

I predict that, before the gavel raps three times in Pennsylvania, Dembski will deny his faith to keep his career. Which will win?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 11, column 2, byte 606 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

I was shocked to find out there’s a jury for this show trial. What exactly is the jury charged with determining?

I haven’t heard anything about a jury, I’m not sure what you are talking about.

I followed Nick’s link to the DI media whine, and scrolled through a lot of B.S. until a post about searching the web for “behe” plus “the profanity of choice” caught my eye.

So I gave it a try. The obvious scatological term to use was “bullshit.”

Wow!

And then I tried names like Dembski, Johnson, Wells, and even the more general term “intelligent design.” The results were spectacular. As a control I tried Darwin, Dawkins, and Hurd (Hey, it was a negative control OK?).

I might blog this tomorrow.

It certainly does seem that the ID movement now regard this whole trial as a loss, maybe not in Kansas, but certainly to the remainder of the world and other states.

They may certainly look ridiculous in the extreme, but I wouldn’t take it as a given just yet that they’ll just throw in the towel on forcing creationism into science classes. After all, don’t they thrive on perceived adversity and victimisation?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 186, byte 186 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 268, byte 268 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

As they say, even cripple bleeder singles look like line drives in the next day’s box scores. What we’re watching is the ID contestant taking a sound licking. We get to watch for what, three days? At the end of which, the judges scrape the losing candidate off the canvas and hold his unconscious arm in the air in victory, and the fight results are duly recorded that way.

And tomorrow’s box score, written by the winners, indicates that in a fair fight with both sides presenting their best cases, the ID proponents won a unanimous victory. And any whiners who try to bring up the details of the “trial” itself are just bitter over sour grapes. The RESULT is what matters.

Anyone can look up the gold medal winner from any Olympic event in any past Olympics. The winner’s name somehow doesn’t link to such little details as which countries the judges were from, or which countries boycotted the entire Olympics for long-forgotten peeves. So our local scientifical types still think the content matters. PR opportunities don’t work that way.

Did I hear somebody call for depositions?

After all, don’t they thrive on perceived adversity and victimisation?

But, you see, the problem with always being a martyr is that you keep getting killed . … . .

Now, Nick, in HHGttG, the prediction was verified by a copy of the HHGttG from the far future.

I’d be interested to know what lines of questioning Dembski thinks are going to be a problem for scientists in a deposition. Pointing out that not everything is known about evolutionary biology is no problem for scientists. If Dembski is thinking about trying to apply his rhetorical stuff from Citizen Magazine last year, I think he will find that his fantasy victories are hard to convert into reality.

OMG, I just saw the HHGttG movie tonight, and it struck me on the way home who the Intelligent Designer is: Slaartibartfast!

That’s why IDers don’t want to say his name, they know how embarrassed he gets about it.…

Matt said:

I wonder about Dembski’s grasp on reality. Can he possibly be surprised that the ID folks sound like creationists? …

Now there you go, sounding like someone rational. Actually I’ve wondered about this “grasp on reality” about religious people in general. I still struggle with: what do, as Salvador would say, “the leadership” of ID believe? Are they truly Faithful™ and have noble intentions? Are they deluded? Are they manipulative con artists trying to sell books, gain power, or crave attention? [Aside: as my wife once asked an overly verbal friend, “Did your mom breast feed you?” – It shut him up for about 2 minutes.] I can’t see how believing in ID can possibly help someone in life, or help humanity overall (except maybe to make an individual more comfortable with his mortality and fears). To me, the whole thing (ID/evolution) is a non-argument. Unfortunately, in the theater of culture and politics, it’s not. Much as I’d like to dismiss this whole thing as simply the agitations of the indoctrinated, their machinations are a threat to the future of this country. And so the devoted people of Pandas Thumb and others step up to answer the challenge, and do a mighty fine job in my opinion.

As Richard Bach once said, “Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they’re yours.” Problem is, IDist’s are arguing for the limitations of others, and I don’t like that.

I’ve got news for Mr. Dembski, lusting for the cross examination of scientists.

I prepare *hundreds* of witnesses every year for their cross examinations. Hundreds.

I rehearse their testimony with them.

I show them all the documents and exhibits they may have to deal with.

I even will run them through a mock cross exam of my own.

But none of this will really allow them to survive cross examination.

This is what works: I whisper a secret something to each of my witnesses. If they follow my whispered advice, I gurantee they will be impervious to any cross examination by any attorney.

Here’s my whipsered secret advice:

“Tell the truth.”

And that’s why ID will fail in court. They won’t tell the truth. Ed Darrell is right. They will deny their faith three times before telling the truth.

Flint’s comment #28898 is, alas, right on. This Kansas Kangaroo Kourt is made up of members who have intentionally run for their positions in order to stack the decision-making body with proponents of Creationi- err, Intelligent Design.

This is a political fight and nothing else. Details don’t matter. This is why the science community is boycotting. It’s a show trial.

Perhaps what the IDers are most annoyed about is that the accused decided not to show up. Not only that, the cross examination of the IDers alone still seems to be strong enough to make the ID argument almost too silly for the Kourt to justify making the proposed changes to the curriculum, even if the DESPERATELY WANT TO.

Interesting.

But the Board will make the changes - this just made them dig in their heels deeper, I think. We may have (and I’m not sure this is completely true) turned the tables on them with these hearings, but round two will start when the standards are adopted. We’ll just have to wait and see what the Board does, but they have the votes and the resolve to do whatever they want to, irrespective of how the hearings turned out in the eyes of the world’s press.

Jack,

After the creationists confessed they didn’t bother to read the standards, and after the witnesses have laid the groundwork for an overwhelming summary judgment on establishment clause issues, can the governor, attorney general and legislature afford to let the board screw up the standards enough to get sued?

I mean, politically. Can the conservative agenda in Kansas afford such a crushing courtroom loss?

Hey, look: it’s the world’s smallest, most irreducibly complex violin.

And it’s playing just for William Dembski.

Bwahahaha.

I guess the IDers now know what it feels like to actually have to put forward and defend a positive position, while their opponents sit back and knock holes in it without presenting an alternative. (Of course, the relevant difference is that evolutionary theory actually has a positive scenario it can defend if need be, while ID clearly has nothing comparable, other than old-style young-earth creationism.) It’s about time the tables were turned.

It’s ironic how this event, intended to be a show trial of evolution, has instead turned into a very effective media trial of ID. Dembski’s griping about how he wishes he could have forced scientists to testify, thus getting his own pet ideas out from under the spotlight, is more than a little chilling - but clearly no more than sour grapes, in this context.

“His comment about subpoenas warns that the ID movement is modeling its means of ascent on that of Lysenkoism. The more they appear as fakes and liars, the more they will resort to naked political power in pursuit of their goals.”

politically, self professed creationists lead both the house and the senate.

this, combined with the “heels digging in” attitude of this bunch does not preclude a repeat of the McCarthy era, imo.

If the fillibuster is repealed in the senate.… look out.

Matt, I agree with every one of your points, but I am not sure you get what I was really trying to do, so let me explain it.

I thought Behe’s idea of IC was intriguing, but I quickly realized that in order for IC to be evidence of ID, it has to become IC through a certain pathway that is non-Darwinian. Because if you explain IC through a Darwinian pathway, then POOF! His argument disintegrates. And I am not sure if what Behe meant to suggest was that IC is evidence of special creation. If he meant that, then I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would simply throw in the towel looking for a Darwinian pathway. I don’t buy any special creation theory for IC systems either.

So that means what? Okay, if there is a designer, if the designer left any evidence of his design, if that evidence is unrelated to any special creation claim, and if the evidence is non-Darwinian, then it has to look a certain way. What I came up with is directly implied by each of these what ifs.

So I assume you understand what I mean in my ISCID post by a non-Darwinian pathway in the assembly line model I proposed.

Now let’s move on over the area of testing it. As Ed pointed out, and I shall take his word for it, there are 4 “potential” pathways that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved through natural selection. I have proposed a 5th “potential” pathway that is non-Darwinian. Now the first group of 4 Darwinian pathways and the lone non-Darwinian pathway are mutually exclusive, so by disjunction, if any of the 4 in the Darwinian group are show to be true, the non-Darwinian one is shown to be false. So it is possible to do a negative test for the Non-Darwinian pathway, although I cannot imagine how to do a positive one. Still, the non-Darwinian pathway I suggested CAN be tested for in that way.

Now, in the non-Darwinian pathway that IC as evidence of ID suggests, the “use it or lose it” concept cannot exist or, as you pointed out, it is indistinguishable from a darwinian pathway. Exactly. So in other words, in the non-Darwinian pathway, they don’t use it OR lose it, and several other components which they neither use nor lose are acquired and added to the previous ones, until some IC mechanism is produced and activated by some final piece falling into place, which produces a benefit to the organism using the new IC system. THAT is what IC as evidence of ID, when acts of special creation are rejected, implies the pathway must look like.

I didn’t so much invent this as follow the earlier premises to their logical conclusion. This is where the conclusion of those premises lead.

Once again, I’d like to thank you for your civility. This is what productive conversation reads like.

***

In response to the good Rev, you should have chosen a more lucid philosopher to quote than Marx. Science IS a species of philosophy, and there is even territorial overlap in some areas, as between the philosophy of mind and the neurosciences. The materialist assumptions which neuroscientists make are philosophical in character, and they could not do neuroscience without making such philosophical assumptions. No, there is no oil and water relationship between science and philosophy as there is between religion and science.

Rev, in fact, Marx is only equalled for sheer number of clearly exposited bad ideas by Ayn Rand. But there is a difference:

Marx’s bad ideas have killed millions of people, and they continue to do so today.

David, your logic is so flawed it’s scary.

“Now the first group of 4 Darwinian pathways and the lone non-Darwinian pathway are mutually exclusive, so by disjunction, if any of the 4 in the Darwinian group are show to be true, the non-Darwinian one is shown to be false. “

With that logic, i could propose that the flagella were formed by elves in a treetrunk, and my grand hypothesis would be falsified if it were shown to be done by other means.

of what value is my hypothesis? of what value is yours?

Is there any reason to pursue any other hypothesis that that reasonably suggested by previous evidence and experimentation? wouldn’t simply pursuing the most reasonable course of action end up “testing” your hypothesis just as reasonably as mine?

What is the point of suggesting an alternative, if simply pursuing already extant, testable theories would elimate the alternatives?

in other words, you have essentially made a great case for doing nothing different that we already are.

your viewpoint is too much influenced by your belief in Behe’s incredulity. Nothing is incredulous once it is explained, is it.

take a look at the history of claims for irreducible complexity, and you will find each and every one dismissed by simple scientific research. the flagella is simply the latest in a long line of this. You can’t simply take a current slice, and expect you understand the whole history of this issue. go do some reading, why don’t you? you have about 150 years worth to catch up on.

i’ll let lenny educate you about your misinterpretations of the distinctions between science and philosophy wrt to prediction and experimentation.

“Marx’s bad ideas have killed millions of people, and they continue to do so today.”

oop, better pull your pants up, your political naivete is showing.

what other points would you care to comment on to show us your total lack of knowledge?

Okay, if there is a designer, if the designer left any evidence of his design, if that evidence is unrelated to any special creation claim, and if the evidence is non-Darwinian, then it has to look a certain way. What I came up with is directly implied by each of these what ifs.

That’s nice.

Does ID have a scientific theory that can be tested using the scientific method, or doesn’t it.

If it does, quit waving your arms and just SHOW IT TO US.

If it doesn’t, then … uh … what the hell are you yammering about it for?

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

Toey, you reject Behe’s claims EXACTLY through the method I described. Every one of those claims you say are rejected by simple scientific research is rejected by disjunction, NOT because Behe has proposed X, tested X, and found X unproven. But because opposite claims are more in evidence, and the two are incompatible. That is precisely WHY you think Behe is talking gibberish, but the bigger issue here is not whether he is doing science but whether or not IC can be evidence of ID, and if that is even capable of being pursued scientifically. I don’t have the answers, but more relevant is how you HATE the very propostion.

No one controls your reactions but YOU. YOU hate because you WANT to, not because Behe’s argument made you do it. lol. I’m not sure why you indulge what is worst in you, but it does nothing to improve your perception, and until you get rid of that attitude, then talking to you is worse than talking to a drunk.

So your sarcastic reply is unenlightening.

In addition, the “put up or shut up” attitude is frankly shameful. Truth and facts aren’t established soley by science. I am concerned with truth, with what really is the case. I don’t care where it comes from. Your vicious hostility to anything which does approach you through the precise method shows only that you and I do not have the same interests. Your interest is to defend your method and worldview, and you are completely unwilling to examine anything which hasn’t filled out the proper bureaucratic paperwork. lol. That isn’t my interest at all. If you were more sensitive, you would see that you are not under attack, but you cannot see that because you are a bundle of conditioned reflexive reactions conducted by some of what is worst in you.

Contrast, for example, your reactions to Matt’s, and you can see that yours are less productive.

I can only feel sorry for you and wish you the best. You are a deeply unhappy person.

But oh my my, a little touchy on Karl Marx are we? Have I indavertently discovered your true religion? It would explain why you blame other people for your own hostile responses though. Very revealing answer from you. I am beginning to understand where the real source of your hatred comes from, and it has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Hey revvy, I’m not going to put up or shut up, fish or cut bait, shit or get off the toilet. I live in the real world, and in the complex real world we are permitted to do all of those things, not one or the other. However, if science is your religion, and you can only live within its limits, and you fear the complexity and insist on an either or option for yourself, I suppose suicide is a choice you can consider. You certainly don’t have to fear going to hell, right?

Finally, I have some words of advice for some of you that I have no doubt you will ignore.

It doesn’t MATTER how good your arguments are. You could win every argument from here to Kathmandu (Kathmandu, by the way, is a place that has been living through the practical effects of an insurgency trying to implement the fine ideas of the Maoist offshoot of Marxism for the past 10 years; 8,000 dead so far. Yay, Marx!) and if creationism grows, YOU LOSE. The winner isn’t going to be decided by who has the better arguments, but by who has the most adherents. So your social ineptitude and sneering condescension does not help you, but it does fuel your opposition by the creationists. If you were really smart people, you wouldn’t be doing that. It’s stupid.

You should get your noses out of the air. Or you might find yourselves in the minority someday, and surrounded by creation police.

If any of you want to yell at me, feel free to do so at my website. I’ve been spending too much time on these responses, among other things, and my girlfriend is starting to grow impatient with me. I could take sneering from Toejam. Not from her.

I’ll not come back. Some of your answers have honestly been scary. I sincerely hope that none of you who do not use your real names and who are responsible for the petty responses, are also not scientists responsible for making important ethical decisions in your fields of research.

May the force be with you all, and may none of you ever bump into the creation police while your noses are in the air.

: )

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 26, column 2, byte 1088 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

parting shot:

“May the force be with you all, and may none of you ever bump into the creation police while your noses are in the air.”

meh, I’m sure with the general level of intelligence shown by creationists, i could easily argue my way out of a ticket.

oh, i just can’t resist a wrap-up.

David, if you are still reading along, check out the first post you made in this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…].html#c28929

do you not see how in fact, it was yourself that set the tone of discussion?

Duncan Yo-Yo

Your interest is to defend your method and worldview

There’s that smell again.

David Duncan, you wrote:

As Ed pointed out, and I shall take his word for it, there are 4 “potential” pathways that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved through natural selection. I have proposed a 5th “potential” pathway that is non-Darwinian.

For the record, I think the 4 pathways that Ed is referring to are from this paper, by Thornhill and Ussery.

Now the first group of 4 Darwinian pathways and the lone non-Darwinian pathway are mutually exclusive, so by disjunction, if any of the 4 in the Darwinian group are show to be true, the non-Darwinian one is shown to be false.

I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, because during the course of evolution, a large IC system probably requires several steps. If an IC system needs 10 steps, and 9 of those are shown to be through 1 or more of the 4 darwinian pathways, that doesn’t necessarily mean the 10th will. The 10th step could have happened via intelligent design. The other problem, which is a biggie, is how do you demonstrate that a particular step did evolve through a darwinian pathway? Sure, we can provide hypothetical models, which lead to fruitful projects, and powerful correlative evidence, but as anyone familiar with the creationist/IDist arguments knows that that’s not going to convince them. They want proof. Someone once asked Behe what kind of experiment would convince him that the flagellum evolved. He said to put a flagellum-less bacterial strain in a test tube and show that it could evolve a flagellum. Of course this idea is ridiculous, and it tells you the mindset of a creationist. Another great example is Nick’s essay on the flagellum. Nick summarized dozens of research articles on the evolution of the flagellum, and Bill Dembski responded basically by saying, “It’s not enough to satisfy me, therefore ID”.

So it is possible to do a negative test for the Non-Darwinian pathway, although I cannot imagine how to do a positive one. Still, the non-Darwinian pathway I suggested CAN be tested for in that way.

This goes to the heart of why ID isn’t science. No one can think of a way to positively test for ID, especially not the IDists. The “test” you describe could never be performed by an ID scientist. They would basically have to try to prove that evolution occurred, and hope that they fail. This is not a research program. Negative data is not very publishable. Try this experiment. Go to ISCID, and start a brainstorm post asking if anyone knows of a positive test for ID. See what happens.

I’m sorry your time in this thread couldn’t have been more enjoyable for you, but one thing you should know is that there are a lot of people on the science side that are very angry. There really isn’t a scientific controversy over evolution. The scientific community isn’t some materialistic, dogmatic cabal trying to indoctrinate young minds into the religion of Darwinism. The fact is, there is a ton of evidence for evolution, and nobody knows it because the creationists have a bigger microphone. We’re not willing to lie, and they are. And because of those two reasons, they’re winning, and that pisses us off. I hope you stay tuned, and keep asking questions. Hopefully you’ll figure this stuff out for yourself.

“I hope you stay tuned, and keep asking questions.”

eh, not that it matters..

I for one, would have responded much more positively if David had started by asking questions, rather than starting by attempting to dictate to us what science is and isn’t, all the while indicating he in fact had no clear view himself.

In fact, although he appreciated matt’s “approach” more, he actually didn’t bother to listen much to what matt had to say, either.

:/

Truth and facts aren’t established soley by science.

Um, in what way do YOU establish, say, the density of cesium, or the inverse-square relationship of gravity . … Tea leaves? Prayer? Reading the entrails of sacrificed animals?

What alternative to science do you propose for establishing facts?

That’s nice.

Does ID have a scientific theory that can be tested using the scientific method, or doesn’t it.

If it does, quit waving your arms and just SHOW IT TO US.

If it doesn’t, then … uh … what the hell are you yammering about it for?

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

In addition, the “put up or shut up” attitude is frankly shameful.

How dreadful. I notice, though, that you didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again:

Does ID have a scientific theory that can be tested using the scientific methbod, or doesn’t it.

Or are IDers simply lying to us when they claim they do, and is your arm-waving and evasion simply an attempt to avoid havign to admit this.

If ID has a scientific theory, then show it to me.

If ID does NOT have a scientific theory, then why do you keep yammering about one?

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

However, if science is your religion, and you can only live within its limits, and you fear the complexity and insist on an either or option for yourself, I suppose suicide is a choice you can consider. You certainly don’t have to fear going to hell, right?

Thanks for once again demonstrating that ID is nothing but religious apologetics, and IDers are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise.

Suppose we define “theory” as follows:

A body of propositions, organized systematically and accepted as canonical by a particular science, where the foundational propositions and their corollaries are ordinarily taught to students in textbook form.

Does such a biological theory exist for intelligent design? No. Does it exist for evolution? Yes, of course.

-Paul Nelson, ID Creationist

But oh my my, a little touchy on Karl Marx are we?

Perhaps, but with reason: You throw it around as if you know what you’re talking about. Creationists not only are absolutely in error to try to connect Marx with evolution (there really is no connection – Darwin was a rich guy and knew it, and he did not approve of Marx or Marxism), the reality is that Joe Stalin persecuted, prosecuted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered Darwinists.

So not only do you try to smear with a false link to Marx, you fail to understand the sorry painful history of evolution with regard to Marx: The Marxists used government to stamp out Darwinian theory in the Soviet Union. As a result, several millions of people starved to death.

And now, in Kansas, a few members of the State Board of Education are using government to censor Darwinian theories, again. Excuse scientists if they flinch – the wound is still sore.

And then, you compare the scientists being oppressed with the oppressors?

It’s just one more case of creationism shutting down the thinking capacities of its victims.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 7, 2005 3:06 PM.

Ayn Rand Institute: The Bait and Switch of “Intelligent Design” was the previous entry in this blog.

Kansas Kangaroo Court Reports 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