DI book rebutting Kitzmiller decision

| 164 Comments | 1 TrackBack

I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait to read this. It will be fun to see how many times the previous law review articles by DeWolf et al. (summary: “Intelligent design is constitutional because it is revolutionary new science, not creationism!”) are contradicted by the new DI book by DeWolf et al. (which, if it follows the website, will say, “Judge Jones was irresponsible and activist for ruling on the science question!”).

1 TrackBack

Two of the authors of Traipsing into Evolution, will be on CSpan-2’s BookTV this weekend in a 90-minute program airing 3 times: first at 7pm EDT Saturday, with final showing midnight Sunday night. ... Read More

164 Comments

Isn’t it fun that the publisher is DIP (DI Press)?

The can try and rebut all they want. They lost, and they lost badly. They had a fair chance in court to state their case, and the judge thought it was pure unadulterated crap. Everyone else thinks it is crap too.

They can attack the judge too, but it still does not change the fact that they have nothing to show, except crap.

Loooosers…

Reiner Wrote:

The can try and rebut all they want. They lost, and they lost badly.

They lost another legal battle, and they still refuse to fight the scientific battle (that classic creationists tried and lost). But they keep winning the PR war. Which is why I constantly remind my fellow “evolutionists” that, while we succeeding at reducing the “supply” (keeping anti-evolution pseudoscience out of public school) we really need to concentrate on reducing the “demand.” And that’s where complaints of “sneaking in God” are counterproductive, however correct they may be. The “secrets” that need to be exposed include:

1. How IDers think they can outsmart the hapless designer that one of them admitted under oath might no longer even exist.

2. The increasing “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach that virtually admits that the classic creationist models failed, and that there’s no promising alternative to evolution.

3. That many mainstream Christian theologians consider ID/creationism/”teach the controversy” to be bad theology as well.

Some people on this blog claimed that Judge Jones was obligated to rule on the scientific merits of ID just because both sides asked him to. Those people are now going to have to eat a lot of crow.

In Florida, a female schoolteacher was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy. The schoolteacher, her lucky “victim,“ his mother, the defense, and the prosecutors were all opposed to having a trial. The schoolteacher was charged in two counties and a plea bargain was made in one of them. However, the judge in the other county insisted that there be a trial. The prosecutors quickly solved the problem by withdrawing the charges. See http://articles.news.aol.com/news/a[…]121609990028

So much for the notion that a judge is obligated to do something just because all of the participants in a case want him to do it.

Shut up Larry…

Noname has to be Larry Farfromaman: same lame case, same use of ovbious non-sequiturs, same spiritless workmanlike presentation, same empty cockiness. Give it up, fool, you’re not fooling anyone.

Comment #88566

Posted by John Wilkins on March 23, 2006 04:23 AM (e)

Isn’t it fun that the publisher is DIP (DI Press)?

And Dembski’s initials are WAD. So if he edits a series for them it’ll be “A DIP/WAD Book”.

he prosecutors quickly solved the problem by withdrawing the charges.

…

So much for the notion that a judge is obligated to do something just because all of the participants in a case want him to do it.

You should try harder to give your specious argument even the appearance of sense.

What else can the poor suckers do? They can’t insist on “teaching the controversy” unless there is at least the appearance of one, so they have to try to rebut Kitzmiller. Poor suckers. (What is wrong with their brains?)

Isn’t it a rule that posting under multiple identities may result in a ban on this board - and wasn’t Larry warned about this months ago?

I predicted we’d be playing ‘spot the Larry’ when he treatened to do just that ages ago: and that he would be simple to spot because of his trademark crackpottery.

Go talk to that nice lady at the Library Larry - ask her for a date, try to get a life. Failing that go for a ride on your bike - you are only wasting space here.

I wonder if this book will include a contribution from eminent legal scholar Michael Francisco, a second year law student at Cornell and an ***-hat.

The book also includes a lengthy response to the ruling from Dr. Michael Behe, entitled “Whether ID is Science: Michael Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller v. Dover.” Dr. Behe was the lead expert witness for the defense at the trial.

* snicker *

Amusingly this book is 15 pages shorter than Judge Jones’ decision.

You do have to admire the way they can take another total drubbing and turn it into a lucrative venture. Sadly, I have no doubt this will become a best seller in all their churches - “legalese for the masses” - so to speak?

Maybe we should re-brand ID - “Science from the Masses”

or a “WAD/DIP book”

WADDIP we change the name to Intelligent Design? WADDIP we call the Flagella an outboard motor? WADDIP we point to the Cambrian? WADDIP we wave our hands around?

Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. The big difference is that if evolution is ultimately proven wrong, we will have only lost a theory. We will move forward with a new testable hypothesis. If creationism or intelligent design are proven scientifically false, then billions of people have lost a fundamental tenant of their religious faith. They have lost everything. No wonder they are hanging on by “the skin of their teeth”

The blurb (and the book) says Judge Jones’ decision shows… “an elementary misunderstanding of intelligent design theory.” What theory? There ain’t no ID theory, ain’t never been no ID theory, probably ain’t never gonna be no ID theory, so what is there to misunderstand? Near as I can tell, ID “theory” is whatever this or that ID “theorist” says it is, so long as it suits this or that social, political or religious agenda… it is infinitely flexible and fungible, and completely science-free. Judge Jones understood that perfectly.

Since we are on the topic of the Dover decision and Judge John E. Jones, I just wanted to let all of you know, the local NPR radio station (WHYY) here in Philadelphia interviewed Judge Jones yesterday (3/22/06). It is a local radio show called Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane and they had him on for an hour with a few questions from callers. You can listen to this program by Real Audio as all previous shows are archived on the WHYY website. If you want to listen, just: 1. click onto: http://www.whyy.org/91FM/radiotimes.html 2. browse the archives to the date March 22 2006 and then click on the link.

I only caught bits and pieces of the interview as I was in the middle of some lab work. I’ll probably listen to it some time soon myself.

The DI Wrote:

In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys expose how Judge Jones’s Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning [of IDists], non-existent evidence [for ID], and an elementary misunderstanding [by proponents] of intelligent design [as to what constitutes a] theory.

jonboy–

It may be too strong to say that if ID is shown to be wrong, then “billions of people have lost a fundamental tenant of their religious faith.” Rather, it seems that only a small portion of religious believers have decided that scientific research can falsify their faith. I suspect that most do not feel so personally threatened by science.

But, even among evangelicals that do not feel *personally* threatened by science, there is a common belief that a naturalistic viewpoint is leading us all into moral decay and, hence, to an eternity of torment in hell. In general, evangelicals believe that it is their moral duty to save as many people from hell as they can, and so opposition to naturalism / materialism is seen as part of that duty. As a result, they feel there are duty-bound to oppose much of contemporary science.

Judging by the speed this drivel was put together as a book, there is little doubt it is just a bunch of posts on their websites printed now in a book form, as a desperate attempt to alleviate the impact of Dover decision and make money along the way. Luskin, Witt, West, de-Wolf - this company is well known and predictable. Add Behe - his humiliation at Dover (which he does not realize, being confident that he performed there magnificently) showed that, with all his old reasonably decent scientific publications (predating his Darwin’s Black Box) he is in fact a deeply confused, self-admiring crank. Why Nick is waiting with such an interest to see this book? Surely it will contain nothing new but a lot of nauseating piffle.

As I read this blog, I see a lot of ad hominem attacks and self-congratulatory smirky insults and huzzahs. Folks here attack “Larry” – yet I haven’t seen a post from him that is as embarrassingly childish as those from the self-proclaimed scientists on this blog.

I would like to contact “Larry” privately – I think the Intelligent Design critique is worth understanding on its merits. Is there a way to send private e-mails here?

No Name is Dave. “Lucky” victim.

He’s easy to spot.

“justasking7” has clearly not been reading this blog very carefully, or very long. Otherwise he/she would have known that Larry’s “arguments” – under all of his many handles – have in fact been clearly and completely refuted MANY times.

Either that, or “justasking7” is yet another of Larry’s sock-puppet secret identities, now pretending to be a sort of imaginary playmate rushing to the rescue of the sad, lonely overgrown child that Larry has shown himself to be.

Ad Hominem attacks are the result of frustration at the unbelievable stupidity of the guy they are talking about. (I should include Dave Scott too) They are childish, ignorant, attack dogs for a discredited group trying to push worthless religion down unwilling throats.

If they could recover from the dementia they are suffering from and post something new that actually cast doubt on something, then they would have an audience. But since they are stupid, illiterate, ignorant, arrogant boogers, they have no merit.

Justasking7: Larry afaict doesn’t understand ID either, he’s just an all-purpose crank. He’s relatively polite but completely clueless on a vast range of subjects, which doesn’t stop him spouting at great length about them. If you’re interested I’ll look up the post in which he proposed a revolutionary new idea: the IP address scrambler, a remarkable tool to maintain anonymity on the web (ask your neighbourhood geek if you can’t see why this is funny). As a mathematician-in-training, I personally am more amused by his repeated claim that imaginary numbers don’t really exist, but that’s probably just me.

If you’re after info on ID, you could try Uncommon Descent, except that no-one there ever describes ID research either (almost enough to make you think that there’s none happening). Additionally, since DaveScot became an editor, a decent proportion of the ID supporters posting there have been banned for asking too many questions (among other daft reasons).

IIRC, some of those folk can now be found at the relevant thread on After the Bar Closes, a subsidiary of the Pandas Thumb fora.

Everyone else: yes, I realise I’m almost certainly feeding a troll, but I can’t remember whether justasking7 is one of Larry’s identities so I figure it’s best to be polite.

yet I haven’t seen a post from him that is as embarrassingly childish as those from the self-proclaimed scientists on this blog.

If this isn’t you, Larry, I would say that this poster isn’t very familiar with either Larry or the material.

Trying to claim a piece of information was privileged information (under lawyer client privilege) is mind boggingly stupid when it was mentioned by the lawyers/clients involved.

… In general, evangelicals believe that it is their moral duty to save as many people from hell as they can, and so opposition to naturalism / materialism is seen as part of that duty. As a result, they feel there are duty-bound to oppose much of contemporary science.

I suppose the Muslims in Afghanistan who might sentence a Christian to death are using an Islamic version of the same logic.

Did anyone get that last joke? Ad hominem?

Mr. Mates, thank you again. You are kind to share your thoughts in such a clear and helpful manner. You wrote:

“I would suspect that we cannot, and never will, be able to somehow calculate how long it would take to go from virtually no capacity for social learning of behavior to, say, Orca-level. You’d have to have near-divine understanding of all the above disciplines just to write down all the possible sequences of mutations and recombinations that any given lineage might have experienced along the way, and then add to that the intricate knowledge of ancient ecologies and population sizes you’d need to know to establish the likelihood of each sequence…just isn’t feasible without a planet-sized computer and a time machine.

“Just as a very simple example of one difficulty here…the probability of a mutation appearing in a population in a given time is roughly proportional to the population size. So if we take a guess at the population size of, say, the species ancestral to Orcas 60 million years ago, and get it wrong by a factor of 10 (which we probably would since we don’t even know which species that is), our likelihood and average-time estimates would be wildly off.”

===

I find this disappointing. I would have thought that accurate scientifically verifiable estimates of the time required for evolutionary development would be a problem that evolutionary biologists would have long ago solved. It would seem rather important to establish that the evolutionary changes could actually have occurred in the time frames given, and to bolster that with a mathematically plausible model.

Inasmuch as neo-Darwinian evolution is stated to be a proved fact of science, it would be unsettling if modern biology were not be able to supply such time estimates.

But I understand and grant you intellectual immunity under your disclaimer :-)

Thank you again.

juststupid asks

I would have thought that accurate scientifically verifiable estimates of the time required for evolutionary development would be a problem that evolutionary biologists would have long ago solved. It would seem rather important to establish that the evolutionary changes could actually have occurred in the time frames given

Geebus, the inanity is breathtaking.

Is this what passes for “civil discourse” amongst the creationati?

What is the minimum time to make a canyon like the Grand Canyon on a planet like earth?

Answer: it depends on a whole frigging lot of variables and it’s extremely difficult to provide an “accurate” answer to such a question.

Does that mean that the Grand Canyon wasn’t formed by erosion and other natural processes?

Of course not.

You have been given a clue. I hope you “get it.” Try really hard.

Mr. Mates, I thank you again for your careful explanation and clarification.

What civility!

Can we all give justasking a great big hand? Let’s give it up for “civility.”

C’mon folks: I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!

let’s hear it for civility…

:p

For the animal lineage in question, how many generations of the animal would be needed to achieve the evolutionary transformation, in small steps as you say, from the short-memory, no-imitation, no interest in imitation version to the fully operational long memory and exact imitation version of orca that we have today?

.….

Inasmuch as neo-Darwinian evolution is stated to be a proved fact of science, it would be unsettling if modern biology were not be able to supply such time estimates.

Hurricanes are a verifiable fact of meteorology, and there are extensive and well-supported theories on how, where, and when they develop–and there are also a huge number of variables that govern their formation, to the point that precise prediction of their activity more than a few hours into the future is impossible at this time. Would you (rhetorically and dishonestly) challenge a meteorologist to tell you exactly “how long” it would take for the planet’s weather systems to spawn a hurricane that will make landfall at Morehead City NC, traveling NNW at 24 MPH, with maximum sustained winds of 121 MPH and an atmospheric pressure of 1001 millibars? Of course you wouldn’t; it’s a transparently stupid and irrelevant question. If you demand the same kind of deterministic detail out of meteorologists that you are asking of biologists, and disregard the validity of their theories if they are unable to provide it, I trust you will never watch a weather forecast again. I’m sure the bible could provide you more useful “goddidit” explanations of how to best anticipate weather patterns, and I’m sure you’d advise meteorologists to give up trying to understand them in their current atheistic and “materialist” ways.

So guys, how does it feel to argue with a sock puppet?

Whose?

Isn’t it obvious? The nameful one.

justasking7 Wrote:

I find this disappointing. I would have thought that accurate scientifically verifiable estimates of the time required for evolutionary development would be a problem that evolutionary biologists would have long ago solved.

This assumes that evolutionary biologists are superhuman geniuses, which I’m sure they find flattering, but why? No other science has been able to accurately model the long-term behavior of systems remotely as complex as what we’re talking about here–an entire population of organisms, plus their interactions with the rest of the planet, over the course of millions of years. Why expect evolutionary theory to pull it off?

Moreover, no historical hypothesis is tested in this manner. Suppose you wished to test the hypothesis that the Pacific islands were first colonized via boat, by a population originating in Southeast Asia. Would you spend much effort estimating the time required for such a migration? Of course not–it wouldn’t be very informative. The colonization could occur in a few years, if a massive fleet set out to start with, continually searched for new islands, and weather and ocean currents were remarkably favorable. Or it could take a hundred thousand years, or neveroccur, if the explorers were very few, and all happened to perish from disease or storms at sea. This simply isn’t a very productive avenue by which to test your hypothesis. Rather, you’ll want to look for genetic or cultural commonalities with living or ancient Southeast Asian populations, archaeological evidence of seaworthy boats and a human population gradually spreading westwards, and so forth. You might also perform recreations of small elements in the migration–in other words, see if Pacific Islanders using traditional boats can reliably navigate to nearby islands. Or, more flashily (and to support a rival hypothesis), sail the Kon-Tiki.

Evolutionary theory is supported by analogous evidence–transitional fossils, the great age of the earth, a nested pattern of similarities between modern and fossil taxa, experiments in population genetics and so forth. It does not claim, and does not need to claim, that it can recreate creatures millions-of-years dead down to the nucleotide.

W. Kevin Vicklund Wrote:

So guys, how does it feel to argue with a sock puppet?

I don’t think he’s another of Larry’s many personalities. Larry has a very distinctive writing style and a set of delusions all his own. Besides, justasking7’s apparently popped up on “Stranger Fruit” as well.

It would seem rather important to establish that the evolutionary changes could actually have occurred in the time frames given, and to bolster that with a mathematically plausible model.

This is a curious position to take, leading one to speculate that a good deal of searching was performed to find something the theory of evolution has NOT pinned down, even if it’s not particularly important or relevant.

Observation of historical evidence of various sorts shows that evolution happens at a great variety of different rates, depending on the lineage, the availability of environmental niches, and other contingent factors. The conclusion, by my reading, is that evolution has filled these niches at a relatively breakneck pace when opportunity knocks. Why do we need to “establish that evolutionary changes *could have* occurred” in the time available when observation shows they DID occur easily fast enough.

This reminds me of recent studies into the question of exactly how insects manage to fly. Just exactly how important was it to establish according to some mathematical model that insects “could actually fly” before accepting that they do so? How unsettling is it to entomologists that models of insect flight are imperfect?

Your analogy may backfire, Flint; after all, a reasonable fraction of humanity seems to believe that “scientists” somehow showed the bumblebee’s flight is physically impossible, thus proving that it’s propelled by angels or energy fields or friendly thoughts or something.

Gee Whiz. I first waited to comment until I had read the dumb book-pamphlet, and now I should read this whole thread?

There must be an easier way. How about we skip every one who has not read both the Dover Transcripts and “traipsing into dogshit” err “scraping off dog shit” or maybe it was “rolling in dog shit” or what ever that stupid DI wank fest was called.

Show of hands here- who has any basis for an informed opinion?

I’ve managed to save up roughly $21088 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

I was out of town for a good while and missed the opportunity to respond to all of the comments (above).

One fellow called me “juststupid.” A clever rejoinder. The same fellow, and others, thought it somehow worth their time to criticize my posts for being civil. I can see, by the several caustic posts, that civility is not a virtue treasured here. Okay.

Somebody injected a religious criticism, when religion and the Bible were no part of what I wrote or asked about. I guess relevance is not a treasured virtue either. Okay.

Other posts ridiculed my disappointment that:

evolutionary theory cannot estimate, for “the animal lineage in question, the number of generations of the animal that would be needed to achieve the evolutionary transformation, in small steps as you say, from the short-memory, no-imitation, no interest in imitation version to the fully operational long memory and exact imitation version of orca that we have today.”

Some posts said my question presented such a complicated multivariate problem that it is impossible to solve. Others offered objections to my even asking the question, saying in effect that nobody in their right mind would think it was answerable.

Problem is: people say evolution is a proved fact, so much so that even questioning it should be banned from schools and public discourse. Evolution theorists also state as “fact” that the Earth is about 3 billion years old, and that evolution proceeds by small increments without direction.

It is therefore entirely relevant to inquire whether there is sufficient *time* for the given evolutionary event to take place in a species or series of species. If using evolutionary models it would take more than three billion years to accomplish the evolutionary event, then the event likely didn’t happen by known evolutionary processes.

If you cannot answer the challenge, then just say you can’t answer it. That’s fair. Mr. Mates was intellectually honest enough to do that.

To flame me for daring to ask the question and for being unsatisfied with the given answers, however, just doesn’t sound like the scientific approach that welcomes inquiry, challenges accepted orthodoxy, and works to find truth.

Thank you all for your feedback.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 23, 2006 3:43 AM.

More of What We’re up Against was the previous entry in this blog.

The next time ID people cry ‘censorship’ 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