Finally, someone proposes an ID model

| 142 Comments | 6 TrackBacks

Finally, an IDist has actually come out and proposed an ID model. Read it here. It is a version of Richard Hoppe’s Multiple Designers Theory, but admirably more specific. Note that the author, Robert Newman, is not some random internet wacko, he is a longtime contributor to the ID literature.

6 TrackBacks

I’d like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It’s about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even sm... Read More

Nick Matzke has unearthed a treasure: an article from the Interdisciplinary Bible Research Institute that uses "Intelligent Design theory" to explain such phenomena as parasitic ichneumonid wasps and the panda's thumb. You'll be able to get an idea of ... Read More

Uncommonly Juvenile from hell's handmaiden on March 30, 2006 9:04 AM

I'd like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It's about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even smarter than h... Read More

Three posts today called my attention to the problem of uncritical thinking amongst Christians. This is a topic I bring up frequently. It’s not that I believe those who think critically will automatically agree with me. I’ve had to revis... Read More

Angels in the Gaps from Abnormal Interests on March 30, 2006 1:34 PM

Regular readers of The Panda's Thumb are likely to have already seen this but for those who have not, Nick Matzke leads us to an extremely hilarious piece by one Robert C. Newman. Newman takes on the pressing problem (pressing... Read More

It’s been awhile since we’ve had a “silliest thing” post, but I’ve got a good one. I was perusing the 2002 book The Case for Angels. The book is written by philosopher/apologist Peter S. Williams, and Dembski wrote a... Read More

142 Comments

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 63, byte 195 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Dear Nick,

I have just read the Robert Newman ID model you linked. I am now dumber than I was before I started reading it. As I am a working scientist I need all the brainpower I can muster. Please could you give me some tips on how to recover lost intellect after reading such utter drivel.

Regards

Louis

P.S. I am off into the lab to try to regain some of the wit I once possessed.

P.P.S. Ooooh oooh I get to be the first to say that I thought ID wasn’t about religion {snicker}. Sorry Lenny.

I didn’t see anything in there about the role of angels dancing on pin heads in design. Why not?

Please could you give me some tips on how to recover lost intellect after reading such utter drivel.

Read some Asimov, Clarke, Greg Bear or Sam Harris or Dawkins or Dennett.

We are sure this not a clever parody, aren’t we?

I mean, Mr. Newman wouldn’t be trying a bit of Dembski street theatre, would he?

I have just read the Robert Newman ID model you linked. I am now dumber than I was before I started reading it. As I am a working scientist I need all the brainpower I can muster. Please could you give me some tips on how to recover lost intellect after reading such utter drivel.

Next time you should remember to back up your brains before reading these, uh, research papers.

Demons–however they may be related to angels properly so-called–can inhabit humans, drastically affecting their lives and the lives of others around them. They are able to inhabit animals also, though we only have a glimpse of this in the biblical record.

Wow! I’m reading Carl Zimmer’s Parasite Rex now. I wonder if demons can perform “brain surgery” on cockroaches, like some parasites do.

Louis,

If it’s any consolation I sincerely doubt you are dumber now, since laughter acts to protect ones body and brain.

“Could predation be malevolent design? That was certainly the way Darwin viewed the matter. As I read the geologic record, predation goes all the way back to the Cambrian period. If it is malevolent, then the fall of Satan is much earlier than that of Adam, and creation is already not so good by the time Adam comes along.”

Paradise lost.

Oh, and I like this too: “the natural law of the gaps”. The gap between the angels “intermittent and personal” actions, I presume.

Robert Newman Wrote:

But how could we tell scientifically whether or not angels operate in our world? […]

Early in the space age, satellites were only capable of making pictures of earth in daylight and with relatively poor resolution. Researchers interested in looking for extra-terrestrial intelligence decided to try and use these pictures as a test to see if they could detect signs of human intelligence on earth. The only evidence they were able to find was a massive logging operation in Canada, where a large crisscross pattern had been made.[14] They were surprised to find so little evidence, but the situation did not improve until it was possible to photograph the night side of our planet and see all the light from our cities. From this example we can see that intelligent activity could be at work, but we might not have the tools to detect it, or we might only be able to detect the most blatant cases. […]

How might we find scientific evidence for angelic activity? Our proposal here is that angelic activity is not like natural laws, which are operating continuously. Rather, they are more like human actions, which are sporadic. But here we have the additional complication that we cannot see the actors.

God-Of-The-Gaps nonsense, as well as a total epistemic non-starter. We can’t detect the guiding hand of God and the angels in our world because…we don’t have sophisticated enough equipment? Pretty poor analogy, since those satellites Newman references were searching for something that could actually be searched for. But how in the world do you search for something that cannot be found? What is the difference between what he describes and Carl Sagan’s invisible floating dragon that breathes heatless fire? Doesn’t seem to be one.

My first comment on Panda’s Thumb, by the way. Yay me.

I think I need to reboot my brain too, after reading this…

And yet, for all the mirth that this “ID model” has inspired here, it is– let’s admit it!– a step closer to being a scientifically testable idea than the concept that some unspecified designer with unspecified goals, unspecified limitations, unspecified abilities, and unspecified aesthetic tastes designed something somewhere at some point in history and translated that design into something biological (or maybe cosmological) through some unspecified mechanism(s).

I almost feel sorry for the IDers. Staying utterly silent about the details of their theory is the best they can do. Because they can’t flesh out that theory, even a little bit, without veering into absurdity or blasphemy. Or both.

I’ve never heard of Robert Newman, and what he’s written sure-as-hell reads like a parody.

BTW, have I ever mentioned how much I like Pandas Thumb? I just feel like mentioning that…

This sort of thing - action of benevolent and malevolent spirits in the world - used to be called primitive superstition.

And this guy seems to be a bit ethically challanged if he can’t distinguish between good and evil.

organisms which possess incredible complexity beyond what natural selection could “design” from the available offerings of chance, and which also seem to be clearly malevolent, might well be the work of malevolent spirit beings. There are, of course, other possibilities. They may be the direct or indirect work of God and we are mistaken in viewing them as malevolent.

But he does point toward some actual quantitative hypotheses:

The demons at Gerasa are able to control about two thousand pigs, but this may have been no more than one demon per pig.

I’d love to see an experiment designed to test how many pigs one demon can control.

A veritable scientific tour de force. My only minor quibble is that he does not discuss using the same methods to detect the actions of gnomes, leprechauns, faeries, sprites, poltergeists, ghosts, gremlins, bigfoot, the loch ness monster or el chupacabra.

I see what you mean about this guy not being some “random internet wacko.” He’s obviously a specific, discretely identifiable wacko. Much different.

and here I enter the thread thinking, wow, at last, no more talking, some action from the ID crowd. About bloody time too! So I click the link and start reading… it’s not the first of April yet, is it?

And I wonder, that why is it that if ID is not about religion, that the only thing we ever hear from them is religion. The poor ID crowd. No matter how hard they try to tell their supporters to shut up about their religion, the more their supporters ruin it all.

“Die arme moere”

The Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute? Angelic activity? Give me a f$#@ing break. Go back to the Bronze Age, asshole.

“I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: “Okay, you’ve heard from Darwin. Now we’ll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation…” and so on.”

Great essay by David Brin in Sketptic at:http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine[…]theories.php

Robert Newman was an essayist for the book Mere Creation, also contributed to by Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Behe, Johnson and Nelson. He’s an ARN featured author. He’s listed on designinference.com as an endorser of Dembski’s book. Definitely not a random wacko - this wacko’s both complex and specified

Incidentally, DaveScot’s modification of the trackbacked UD post is… interesting. He’s apparently gone from insulting Nick for picking on people stupider than him to insulting Nick for picking on people smarter than him. Highly amusing.

Justin Olson, it is clear that you are controlled by a spirit of the demon type (as per this topic). Use ID to detect the excact type, colour and intention. Then, once this knowldge has come to you, eat a bowl of Lasagna (with a good wine), so that the noble FSM may cleanse you of it ;)

i found it hilarious that he went into such detail on the biochemistry of how HIV hijacks the replicative machinery of lymphocytes and then escapes, without remarking in any way that this entire biochemical cascade of transcription and translation is universal among terrestrial life, OR that the mechanisms of the hijack are pretty much standard among retroviruses. then he points out that the Ebola virus uses the SAME protein as HIV does to escape the cell! (“coincidence?” i can hear him crow, “i think not!”) we have here an example of the old maxim: “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”

new hypothesis? bull-pucky! this entire diatribe is just an updated version of the old ‘anciliary hypothesis’: “god is good and omnipotent and always benevolent, and created perfection. anything that does not fit this utopian vision must therefore be the work of an evil, nearly-as-powerful counterdeity,” with the added frosting of “incompetent assistants”.

note, however, the proximity of this missive to april 1… i smell an april fish.

derek

p.s. BUT: isn’t it amazing how cats have holes in their fur EXACTLY where their eyes are? how can evolution explain THAT?!

This article may be a hoax, but several times I have heard Dembski mention, in all seriousness, that angels might be derived or surrogate intelligent agents responsible for design.

Thanks for all your support people!

After I finished the Sam Harris book I felt a lot better.

I am sure it has occured to everyone else that DaveScot (or whatever his name is) is following the line of Winston Churchill.

“If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

In other words DaveScott, of course not being religious in any way {cough cough}, will attack ANYONE who dares to critique the drivel of an avowed supporter of IDCism. Not of course that I am equating Hitler and the devil with any person or subject. I’m referring to Churchill’s “zero tolerance” policy viz Adolf. DaveScot clearly has a similar policy regarding evidence, logic, reason, intellect and indeed anyone that (rightly) criticises his precious IDCism.

I see the opportunity for some fun. Anyone want to run a faux smear campaign on a prominent PTer’s works on Saturday and see how long before the IDCIsts snap up the juicy bait?

Finally, an IDist has actually come out and proposed an ID model. Read it here. It is a version of Richard Hoppe’s Multiple Designers Theory, but admirably more specific. Note that the author, Robert Newman, is not some random internet wacko, he is a longtime contributor to the ID literature.

Where does he explain how we can detect witches?

(sigh) These idiots STILL have no idea why they lost at Dover.

It seems fairly obvious that the solution to detecting demon and angel activity is to borrow the instruments used in the Ghostbusters movies. It worked for them, didn’t it?

Where does he explain how we can detect witches?

I thought everyone learned that from Monty Python.

I haven’t read the full thing yet. I’m hoping it explains pygmies and dwarves.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 99, byte 99 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

[luskin] I just want to reiterate that ID has *nothing* to do with religion. I don’t even get how you could connect the two. [/luskin]

“Between the actions of an infinite, eternal, omniscient being and those of us lowly humans, could we find evidence for the actions of intermediate beings such as angels?” Lenny,and all, how does it feel to be a LOWLY human?

Sorry for the attempted previous post. This darn KwickXML is full of demons !!!!!!!!!!!!!! What I tried to post previously was;

Now we definitely know where do all the EVILUTIONISTS came from, the spawn of demons and evil angels. Beware IDers, we are watching you.….

Comment #91808

Posted by roger on March 31, 2006 11:00 AM (e)

Does this mean the ID nutjobs are not interested in angels, or does it mean dozens of comments have been censored on Uncommon Descent?

Over at AtBC I looked at dozens of posts at PT and UD and found that the average PT post had about 40 comments, while the average UD post had fewer than 10.

There are several factors at play here. For one thing, yes, there’s massive censoring at Uncommonly Dense. Davetard says his job is to act as an editor of the comments, selecting which ones make it. Both he and Dembski have admitted to “ruthless” editing. And not just of evolution supporters, the banning is across the board. That’s one factor. Another factor is the long term effect of this on your pool of commenters. People become less willing to comment when their comment will likely just be deleted by a vainglorious layman like Davetard. Thirdly, the posts at UD rarely have any real content. The contributors are students, engineers, lawyers, YECs. They don’t know anything about biology, they don’t know anything about evolution, and so they seldom say anything thought-provoking on those topics. Fourthly, lots of people here are scientists, or, like me, have an undergrad degree in a science. A dozen or more PT regulars are working, professional scientists. They have relevant and informed things to say about science. The evangelical commenters over at UD don’t.

DaveScot thinks that Newman, a longtime contributor to the ID literature, is down to his last brain cell. What is really going on with these ID weirdos? Is DaveScot is trouble? Is Newman in trouble? Is ID in trouble? What does Dembski think about all this ID on ID warfare?

http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/?p=928

Here’s what happened. I glanced at Newman’s article, saw it was some whacky treatment on angels, and dismissed it as nonsense. I thought it was a pretty cheap shot for Matzke to point it out (cherry picking; taking the low hanging fruit). So I wrote the initial trackback saying congratulating Nick for finally discovering the level where he could be a player. Then I thought maybe I ought to see who Newman is as maybe he’s really a genius out of Matzke’s league and forgot to take his meds or something when he wrote about the angels. Lo and behold I find the guy’s got a degree in theoretical astrophysics from Cornell. Granted in 1967 and a lot can damage a mind in 40 years but even so, once upon a time Newman was an egghead’s egghead and even if he doesn’t have two brain cells left to rub together today that’s still out of Matzke’s junior-league baby-bottle ballpark so I took it back.

ROFLMAO

Comment by DaveScot — 3/30/2006 @ 1:06 pm

Please, this is obviously verifiable by statistical analysis. I saw the table, and the first thing I thought was Dungeons and Dragons! All we need is a few multi-sided sided dice, a couple of “peer-reviewers” to play late at night, and we can statistically model the action of God, angles, demons and people on the earth, thereby not only corroborating the validity of the model, but also laying out new testable hypotheses that can be evaluated the next night when we get someone to play a thief, a dwarf and an elf.

OK We all accept Angels are just a figment of the imagination .…even Dave Scott Springer…no no silly DSS is real.

Where does that leave the Maitre D’ of angels, the big G himself?

.…OK how about the vain creator, a creator who is not actually that intelligent but just THINKS he’s smart, sort of like someone who pumps up their own IQ score to make themselves appear (reelly reelly) intelligent but never got a Ph.D. to prove it.

He can go around saying he didit and no one can prove him wrong BUT he still gets all the glory.…. sort of like a TV weatherman.

Jack Krebs wrote:

I love that - “one demon per pig” would be a great slogan for ID.

Why would that be – legions of demons can inhabit people according to the Bible (“My name is legion”), why not pigs too? Or one demon inhabiting many pigs?

There is a vast literature on demonology going back to Egypt and probably before the Old Testament was written. I’ve never encountered a “one demon per pig” rule anywhere in my reading – well, not before now.

OK, so now we understand…DaveScot thinks Newman is a moron now, but used to be a genius. Hmmm, I wonder if Newman became addicted to ID after he became a moron? Furthermore, DaveScot thinks what Newman says is moronic, but admires him for what he says because he went to college, and despises Nick for noting how moronic Newman’s essay was. DaveScot prefers the moronic to the rational, depending on highest degree earned.

I wonder if DaveScot could actually be a malevolent angel, or controlled by one. His erratic actions and comments on this topic may be just an elaborate deception to hide his true nature. Could Dembski’s filter (as modified per a previous comment) be applied to uncover this deception? Could DaveScott be persuaded to participate, and provide ground-breaking evidence of the effectiveness of Demski’s filter? Do you think…?

Back to lurking

mplavcan Wrote:

Please, this is obviously verifiable by statistical analysis. I saw the table, and the first thing I thought was Dungeons and Dragons! All we need is a few multi-sided sided dice, a couple of “peer-reviewers” to play late at night, and we can statistically model the action of God, angles, demons and people on the earth, thereby not only corroborating the validity of the model, but also laying out new testable hypotheses that can be evaluated the next night when we get someone to play a thief, a dwarf and an elf.

Sounds like we’ve got a lot of pigs to exorcise too. I hereby volunteer my services as a chaotic good human paladin, as long as you don’t mind flagrant rule violations. ;)

ID has invented a few new phrases. For example, the Paleyist watch argument is now called irreducible complexity. The argument from improbability based on bad assumptions is now called complex specified information. How can you deny such progress in terminology, the only -ology to be significantly influenced by ID?

Indeed, I’ve already commented in another thread about the fundie fascination with “words”, and their medieval concept that changing the words one uses to describe a thing,m actually changes the thing being described.

Alas for IDers, you can rename a “skunk” a “petunia”, but it will still smell the same. (shrug)

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 28, byte 193 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Norm wrote:

…Why would that be — legions of demons can inhabit people according to the Bible (“My name is legion”)…

ahh, that explains it, Larry is a demon.

all we need to do is find a pig for him to inhabit so he can’t use the keyboard on his computer any more.

Angels/Enchanted Pigs or Dave Scott who will be the winner?

I vote for the enchanted pigs, but only after they learn how to fly.

Jack Krebs wrote:

This is serious. If ID were to actually be detected, hypotheses such as this would need to be entertained. If so, I think the evidence would not support the idea of design by God, but rather point to a much more dispersed and primitive interaction between some unseen spiritual reality and the physical world.

this reminds me of the way Anne Rice constructed her primordial “vampire” from the union of a human and a nature spirit.

speciation via spiritual union. Now THAT’s intelligent design.

Uh oh. So Newmans model is refuted by ID (aka DaveShit) peer-review. Does that mean that ID finally accepts that biologist peer-review should judge ID ideas on biology?

ahh, that explains it, Larry is a demon.

all we need to do is find a pig for him to inhabit so he can’t use the keyboard on his computer any more.

I love it.

DaveScot thinks angels creating life is “nonsense”, but the unknown designer lacking all characteristics, purposes, and strategies is good science.

The fact of the matter is that as silly as Newman’s article is, it is clearly one of the most thoughtful pieces that ever came out of ID (if it hardly reaches to the level of a “specific hypothesis). What do IDists normally do with objections to their foolery? They ignore every last problem and/or say that we don’t know what “the designer” is like–this despite the fact that Behe and Dembski think that God fits the bill well for this designer (immediately reintroducing the exquisite “designs” for producing parastitism, disease, and death in humans). At least Newman is theologically sound, trying to protect God from being responsible for the malevolence that is unavoidably attached to Behe’s and Dembski’s God (Guillermo Gonzalezis one of the most sane of IDists, but he, too, pointedly ignores the appallingly bad design of the solar system with its rocks poised to strike us at any time–and he does work on the asteroid threat).

In a sense, though, DaveScot is right that it “has nothing to do with ID,” since the ID spiel is that the shared features of all life are due to the work of “one designer” (this may or may not include the notion that there is only one, or at least vanishingly few, solutions to each “design problem”). Newman runs into difficulties there, leaving his version of ID explicitly exposed to one fact deliberately denied by others’ ID claims, the fact that the relatedness of all life points to evolution and to nothing else.

One might even suppose (if we go along with their theological claims for the sake of discussion) that angels might follow God’s plans in their creative work, but demons surely would not. So why are the demons slavishly devoted to reworking unpromising organs for very different purposes? Theologically, they wouldn’t be, and yet we only see derivative “creation” throughout.

Still, we don’t have to allow that even angels would be stupidly constrained to evolutionary developments, unless they are somehow constrained only to “design” using evolutionary algorithms. Wouldn’t this scenario actually be harder to effect than a simple “design from scratch”?

But even granting that it is, may it not be the work of genetic manipulation by angels, who are constrained by history to work with what is available in the ancestral panda lineage, unlike an omniscient, omnipotent God making a new design from scratch?

Exactly why would angels be limited by history to use the sesamoid (by the way, I think it is quite unlikely that the panda’s “thumb” is a poor “design”)? Didn’t he just pluck this out of mid-air to “explain” such a constrained process of “creation”, when there is nothing theological, let alone scientific, to suggest anything like this? Are angels more or less likely to be able to think design intelligently through than we are, according to the ancient texts?

The one thing I can say is that it is highly unlikely that an intelligent being would take something as doubtful as the sesamoid bone to make such a fine bamboo stripping appendage as the panda’s “thumb” is. It would be a difficult and delicate design process to rearrange the wrist and the sesamoid bone to create the panda’s “thumb” (almost certainly several bones have to be changed from one complex arrangement into another one), while simply taking an appropriate shape off of the drawing board (either de novo, or reworking the grasping “hand” of primates or squirrels) would be reasonably easy to effect. Only evolution finds reworking unlikely bones into new forms and functions easy enough to do (the complexity of these transformations is great, and likely “irreducible” in the normal sense). But then again, evolution has no choice but to make flippers and wings out of legs and hands, or in the case of the panda, the “thumb” out of a wrist bone.

Newman is simply recasting angels as the sorts of agents who would effect a kind of “evolution” of the panda’s wrist. In a sense, then, he is opposed to evolution by natural selection, but in favor of agents who mimic what is expected of evolution by natural selection. It’s a sort of deification of the processes of “nature” as occurred in the distant past, and a move away from the creative work of God. Since Thor and Zeus are no longer God (Zeus and other Greek gods were prone to metamorphic transformations), we have to find substitutes for the limited capabilities of the ancient gods (ignoring for the moment how complex it would be to redesign the sesamoid into a “thumb”), we need to invoke a new polytheism working under God which is limited, unlike God, and constrained in absurdly arbitrary ways. Newman is trying to accommodate actual evolution, but feels it necessary (apparently because of his theism) to invoke agents.

And yet, at least Newman gave it a more honest try than most IDists do. Regular IDiots “explain” apparent common ancestry via the “one designer”, and yet they totally fail to explain why common solutions to common problems are not used across separated lineages. Newman at least tries to explain, by making angels, and apparently demons, into creative agents using God’s greater works to develop into various and particular organisms, acting much as evolution would do in their “designs”. It’s kind of an ad hoc theistic “solution” produced to supplant the entailed predictions of similar inheritance yet differential evolutions, which is found in modern evolutionary theory. In a way he’s merely going back to the old way of explaining things in a coherent manner, by positing strangely constrained agents who simply must “design” in ways which seem utterly bizarre to our way of thinking.

Chinese demons can’t negotiate sharp corners, hence one zigzags the paths in areas where demons are feared to cause troubles. Newman’s angels and demons go through the excruciating task of reworking unpromising materials into excellent productions like the panda’s thumb, when starting “from scratch” looks like a much better way to accomplish the task. Why? Because they are like chinese demons, with limitations to their “design work” that humans and God himself do not have. We don’t know why angels and demons are like that, they just are (well, look at the organisms if you doubt what he says).

So Newman seems to be doing what every other IDist resists, putting actual constraints into the ID model. Unfortunately, the constraints are only arbitrary, not entailed, thus fail to be science, but at least he tries hard enough to introduce constraints that absurdities like DaveScot are compelled to complain and criticize his attempt.

Perhaps Newman could learn some day that evolution has entailed and detailed explanations for why “design” is “constrained by history”, and that evolution also integrates not only the similarities of life, but also its differences. If we didn’t have evolution for explanation, and if we had evidence for apparently weirdly constrained angels and demons, perhaps his model would be worth considering. As it is, we already know of a superb model explaining the particularities of life, and especially the constraints of history, and so we do not need the sorts of ad hoc heuristic models that might have been useful some time in the past.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Uh oh. So Newmans model is refuted by ID (aka DaveShit) peer-review. Does that mean that ID finally accepts that biologist peer-review should judge ID ideas on biology?

Dave would have to be a peer to Newman for this to follow. It seems to me that, apart from the tremendous suction he produces for those with credentials and a lack of understanding of historical science, Dave thinks that peon-review is adequate for developing science. He gets to declaim on everyone who knows vastly more than himself (following in the footsteps of the typical DI “fellow”) in an authoritative manner, and anyone who criticizes his blather is inadequate (no matter how much more he might know) and/or intent on attacking religion.

I doubt that Dave will ever come up with a coherent view of anything outside of engineering (and I have my doubts if he is so great there, though he could be).

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Ya know, this whole “angels” and “demons” and “Satan” thingie, along with that whole “trinity” thingie, makes me really wonder about that whole “monotheism” thingie . …

For a religion that claims there is only one god, the Judeo-Christian-Muslims sure have an awfully overpopulated Heaven and Hell. … .

Ya know, this whole “angels” and “demons” and “Satan” thingie, along with that whole “trinity” thingie, makes me really wonder about that whole “monotheism” thingie .…

For a religion that claims there is only one god, the Judeo-Christian-Muslims sure have an awfully overpopulated Heaven and Hell.… .

Ah, come on, we all know that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all just ripped off monotheism from Zoroastrianism anyway!

“Dave thinks that peon-review is adequate for developing science.”

Heh! Your point is well taken. In my defence I note that it’s very hard to distinguish between ID credentials. Newman has PhD in astrophysics and some Masters degrees in theology. Hardly an expert on biology…

wamba Wrote:
yellow fatty bean Wrote:

Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!

Who is Mr. Madison?

Billy Madison.

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 57172, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 30, 2006 12:41 AM.

Hodge podge for $200, Alex was the previous entry in this blog.

No more coffee for Mr Witt 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