Three Years Already? Merry Kitzmas!

| 121 Comments

Can you believe it’s been three years since Judge Jones issued a devastating anti-“Intelligent Design” ruling?

Ah, the memories of Kitzmas past. Remember “Waterloo in Dover”? “Cdesign proponentsists.”? The “breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision”?

Even though the Creationist Choir says that Kitzmiller v. Dover is “No big deal”, it’s obvious they’re still smarting over their wounds.

Anyway, “Intelligent Design” is so yesterday. Everyone knows Strengths and Weaknesses is the Big New Thing.

Merry Kitzmas, everyone!

121 Comments

We are delighted that you linked to our humble blog. For the word-historians among you, the Kitzmas festival originated a year ago at another site, when the name Kitzmillermas was proposed. It was quickly shortened to Kitzmas, and was feverishly celebrated, but only at that one site. This is the festival’s second year, and perhaps it will now take off and fly.

Forgot the link to my name. All fixed now.

I wouldn’t say they’re smarting over their wounds, but maybe it’s just your choice of words.[/snark]

Wishing everyone at Panda’s Thumb a Merry Kitzmas, and a very Happy Monkey to all!

This has been a great year for science.

Thamks to everyone at Panda’s Thumb who work so hard to promote science and oppose pseudoscience.

For the Christians among you - Merry Christmas!

For the pagans and atheists (and astronomers) - Happy solstice!

For those who just like a good excuse to drink beer - Happy New Year!

For all of us - Merry Kitzmas!

I’ve been corrected on another site. Although I blundered into “Kitzmas” independently, it seems that PZ Myers and Panda’s Thumb both used that term a year earlier, on 20 December 2005, when the Dover decision was announced.

Just some holiday quick-notes WRT Curmudgeon’s essay.

****

Law professors (including some who oppose intelligent design) have skewered Jones’ embarrassing judicial opinion as poorly argued and unpersuasive. —- John West.

No refutation was offered to offset West’s point here. A sidestepper like “It’s inherent in the nature of litigation” doesn’t even attempt to engage, let alone negate, the actual point on the table.

****

In the meantime, public interest in intelligent design has continued to grow, as has support for academic freedom to question Darwinism (no doubt encouraged by this year’s theatrical documentary Expelled). —- John West.

Again, a straightforward claim for which no rational response or refutation is given. All that was offered is a singularly lame “Curmudgeonly translation: We sure hope all our financial contributors keep the flow of dough coming in.” The actual point on the table is left perfectly untouched. Just plain sidestepped.

****

You know, during the Christmas season, a holiday stocking-stuffer like Truth is always in demand.

So here’s a couple of summary truths to go with the egg-nog:

(1) The Kitzmiller decision has turned out to be genuinely flawed (as even some opponents of ID have argued).

(2) Kitzmiller has genuinely failed to stop the growing public interest in the topic of intelligent design, despite the best efforts of evolutionists and their media shills during the last three years.

****

So, honestly, despite three years of Kitz, this is actually a great holiday season for non-evolutionists, with much to be thankful for right here and now, (and the promise of good tidings in the future.)

Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to all Panda boys & girls! May you all have a great week there, no matter who and no matter where.

(By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!)

FL :)

FL, every time you guys attack Judge Jones or his decision, you just sound like a bunch of little crybabies that can’t handle the fact that you lost. Are you the kind of guy that claims the refs cheated whenever your team loses as well?

FL said:

(By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!)

FL :)

So how come you’ve never explained why the birth of Jesus Christ refutes things like, say, the proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria or the development of orchid and dog breeds?

And how come, if there is “growing public interest” in Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design proponents have still yet to demonstrate how Intelligent Design is science?

And please explain why upholding the idea and fact that it’s against the law to teach pseudoscience such as Intelligent Design in a science class is a “poor legal opinion”?

Oh, wait, you can’t explain any of that because you use any excuse, including Jesus Christ, as license to lie to, slander, and belittle people in order to feed your own delusions and ego. What a wonderful person you are to use these holidays as a reason to engage in such abhorrent behavior.

I propose that henceforth FL be known as “Scrougembski”. Happy Kitzmas to all!

Vince

I don’t debate with flagrant creationists, but I did add something to my article regarding West’s empty claim that Jones’ opinion attracted criticism. I mentioned that most US Supreme Court decisions contain quite pungent dissents, so criticism isn’t all that remarkable. It’s virtually inevitable. Besides, if Jones’ decision were so legally flawed, why wasn’t it appealed?

The Curmudgeon said:

Besides, if Jones’ decision were so legally flawed, why wasn’t it appealed?

Due in large part to an evil conspiracy by Anti-Americans and Darwinists to revive Hitler’s brain again.

Due in large part to an evil conspiracy by Anti-Americans and Darwinists to revive Hitler’s brain again.

That brain? Again? How many times do we have to revive Darwin’s brain?

FL said:”(By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!)”

1) The birth of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible is an empirically unverifiable event. The only accounts we have were written decades after the event by people who did know Jesus in person.
2) If the biblical account of Jesus’ birth could be verified, it would have no effect at all on Evolution as established scientific theory.It might be a hard blow for atheism (depending on the nature and the extent of verifying evidence), but the weight of evidence would still point, overwhelmingly, to Evolution. The big winners if such a verification event were to occur would be Theistic Evolutionists such as Kenneth Miller.

“Bobby”/”J” and reactions have been Bathroom Walled.

Cheers, Dave

The Curmudgeon said:

Due in large part to an evil conspiracy by Anti-Americans and Darwinists to revive Hitler’s brain again.

That brain? Again? How many times do we have to revive Darwin’s brain?

As many times it takes to defeat Hitler Zombie.

1) The birth of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible is an empirically unverifiable event. The only accounts we have were written decades after the event by people who did know Jesus in person.

I take the opportunity to remind both FL and other interested parties too, that there are lots of reasons to believe that the character Jesus that we find in the bible never existed. A myth created for a purpose. None of the so-called evidence for the historicity of Jesus is satisfactory.

Beg pardon for off topic; blame it on Yuletide. No matter how well I know and understand the we are dealing with a myth, I also know what the Jesus myth means - and at this time of the year, my soul fills with appropriate sentiment.

A more important anniversary to note will be the Ohio bait and switch scam that the Discovery Institute ran on the Ohio State Board of Education 5 years ago. Years before the intelligent design creationist scam lost in court the ID perps themselves were running in the switch scam on any rube stupid enough to buy into the teach ID scam. Ohio was the first public bait and switch. Meyer and Wells participated in conning the Ohio rubes into taking the teach the controversy switch scam. The Ohio creationist rubes wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but all they got was the bogus switch scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed. What is worse is that they took the switch from the same guys that had just tried to lie to their faces about the nonexistant science of intelligent design. Not a single legislator or school board has gotten any ID science to teach after they claimed to be able to teach the junk. It turns out that the Discovery Institute tried to run in the switch on the Dover rubes, but they ran into a group that was just as dishonest as they were and the Dover creationist had their own dishonest agenda. The rest is history.

When the guys that ran the intelligent design scam would rather run a bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters rather than teach the science of intelligent design, any thinking human being should be able to figure out that the ID scam is up and over. The trouble is that there are enough people that are willing to take the next scam from the liars that fooled them with the last scam. It could be that they were not fooled, but how sad is that? Is one dishonest scam just as good as any other?

The current scam has always been second rate even among the creationist political faction represented most recently by the ID perps. The obfuscation scam is just the smoke that they spew out to make it sound like they might have an argument. The primary scams have been creation science where they claimed to have the science to back up their Biblical beliefs, and intelligent design science. The obfuscation scam has always just been filler. Now it seems to be the only game in town. Just because it is all that they have left shouldn’t be any reason for anyone to support the effort.

The ID perps promised the creationist rubes a Rolls-Royce and all they delivered was ox cart parts. The ox cart isn’t even assembled with no ox in sight, and there is no evidence that there are even enough parts to build the thing. They let the rubes try to build it and take the fall. It should not escape anyones notice that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute never put up an intelligent design lesson plan in all the years that they claimed to be able to teach intelligent design science, and in all the years that they have been running the bait and switch they have never put up their own switch scam lesson plan. They let the rubes fumble with it and take the fall. Just read the Ohio Boards first attempt. They actually tried to use Wells’ book “Icons” to create a lesson plan. Who can believe that? Wells’ book should have a sticker in it that clearly states that it is for propaganda purposes only and is not to be used in public school lesson plans.

HP said:

Wishing everyone at Panda’s Thumb a Merry Kitzmas, and a very Happy Monkey to all!

Hear hear! Happy Monkey!s

Besides, if Jones’ decision were so legally flawed, why wasn’t it appealed?

Because Dover elected a new school board favorable to science. They had no reason to appeal.

Because Dover elected a new school board favorable to science. They had no reason to appeal.

That’s right, I had forgotten. Still, if the opinion were really flawed, other school boards would be eager to take up the challenge. No school board has yet decided to take the risk. Also, except for meaningless blather from creationist websites, I haven’t seen any serious legal criticism of Jones’ opinion.

Once it was clear that Pandas was a creationist text, the game was essentially over. It certainly didn’t help that the school board’s actions were shown to be religiously motivated. Jones really didn’t have much choice in the matter. The facts determined the outcome. Jones followed well-established precedents, and didn’t make up his own rules.

FL said:

(By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!)

FL :)

FL: The Bible can’t even get “Jesus Christ’s” genealogy straight. Matthew 1 gives 28 generations from David to Jesus; Luke 3 gives 43. Why is all this information given if it was supposed to be an immaculate conception anyway? I guess it’s supposed to lead up to Joseph as the presumed “father” by being married to the immaculately knocked-up Mary. The two versions can’t even get Joseph’s father straight (Matthew sez “Jacob,” Luke sez “Heli”) and despite the detailed (and conflicting) genealogies of Joseph, there is no account that I know of where Mary came from.

So much for the Bible being the “inerrant word of god.” And an immaculate conception, even if it were true, neither supports nor refutes the processes of evolution.

The Curmudgeon said: That’s right, I had forgotten. Still, if the opinion were really flawed, other school boards would be eager to take up the challenge. No school board has yet decided to take the risk. Also, except for meaningless blather from creationist websites, I haven’t seen any serious legal criticism of Jones’ opinion.

Once it was clear that Pandas was a creationist text, the game was essentially over. It certainly didn’t help that the school board’s actions were shown to be religiously motivated. Jones really didn’t have much choice in the matter. The facts determined the outcome. Jones followed well-established precedents, and didn’t make up his own rules.

If there were a legal flaw to stand on, the Thomas More Law Center could/would/should have taken up the appeal, no?

The Curmudgeon said:

I’ve been corrected on another site. Although I blundered into “Kitzmas” independently, it seems that PZ Myers and Panda’s Thumb both used that term a year earlier, on 20 December 2005, when the Dover decision was announced.

Indeed, we must give PZ proper credit for first use of “Kitzmas”.

Cheers. Dave

On Jesus’ real existence: it depends on what you mean by him. I think there’s sufficient evidence to support the idea that there was such a Galilean holy man, who was persuaded that he was the Messiah of Israel, and was crucified for it. Anything more is far more debateable.

It is true that none of the sources on him are contemporary, and all the early ones are deeply compromised. The same might be said of Socrates, or even Alexander the Great. There’s not many figures in ancient history of whom it could not be said.

This is what I love about history. I realise that to a scientist, the attitude is baffling. The evidence in science is by definition what can be demonstrated by repeated verifiable observation of nature. Historical records - the only evidence a historian goes on - are always equivocal, biased, flawed, incomplete and inexact, and we can’t go back to the laboratory or the field and observe the facts. Sometimes a new record surfaces. We still live in hope that the great papyrus dumps in Egypt, for example, will yield a new document that shines light on the origins of Christianity. But otherwise, as C S Lewis remarked, the documents say what they say, and we make of them what we can, arguing ferociously the while.

It’s a silly game, but anyone can play. Like science, if only in that.

If there were a legal flaw to stand on, the Thomas More Law Center could/would/should have taken up the appeal, no?

No, not if their client (the newly elected school board) didn’t want to appeal. But if that firm thought their case was so good, they could go out and hustle up another school board some place else and have another fling at it. I don’t think they’ve been doing that.

The Curmudgeon said:

If there were a legal flaw to stand on, the Thomas More Law Center could/would/should have taken up the appeal, no?

No, not if their client (the newly elected school board) didn’t want to appeal. But if that firm thought their case was so good, they could go out and hustle up another school board some place else and have another fling at it. I don’t think they’ve been doing that.

Sometime the school boards wise up, and figure it out for themselves. Some boards are indeed aware that playing with religion can have a million-dollar price tag.

Cheers, Dave

KP said:

FL said:

(By the way, it just occurred to me that the birth of Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, refutes evolution. Can we count on one of you intrepid PT blogsters to contribute a Christmas thread that address that specific issue? Makes a great conversation piece!)

FL :)

FL: The Bible can’t even get “Jesus Christ’s” genealogy straight. Matthew 1 gives 28 generations from David to Jesus; Luke 3 gives 43. Why is all this information given if it was supposed to be an immaculate conception anyway?

Common error: the doctrine of the “immaculate conceptions” holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin; it isn’t the virgin conception of Jesus.

That said, I don’t know why FL sees the birth of Jesus as refuting evoloution. If it were a natural event, then evolution would kick in. But surely FL would say that it was a miracle, and therefore a violation of natural law by definition?

The Curmudgeon said:

No, not if their client (the newly elected school board) didn’t want to appeal. But if that firm thought their case was so good, they could go out and hustle up another school board some place else and have another fling at it. I don’t think they’ve been doing that.

True… I guess my point was that if there was a legal flaw to be taken seriously, TMLC would be publishing it in all the Law Reviews/journals, broadcasting it on Court TV, and screaming it at the top of their lungs everywhere they go. I guess there is that Montana Law Review thing

http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Current%20Issue.htm

Whatever.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

… I don’t know why FL sees the birth of Jesus as refuting evoloution. If it were a natural event, then evolution would kick in. But surely FL would say that it was a miracle, and therefore a violation of natural law by definition?

The reason why FL claims that the birth of Jesus Christ refutes evolution is because he was taught so. No other reasons, or further contemplations are necessary.

Well, hey, it’s been fun. Happy New Year (and Merry Kitzmas)! Cheers, Dave

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on December 20, 2008 10:26 AM.

Deltoid - Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute was the previous entry in this blog.

Creationist to Give Invocation at Inauguration 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